HETEROFOR 1.0: a spatially explicit model for exploring the response of structurally complex forests to uncertain future conditions – Part 2:  Phenology and water cycle

de Wergifosse, Louis; André, Frédéric; Beudez, Nicolas; de Coligny, François; Goosse, Hugues; Jonard, François; Ponette, Quentin; Titeux, Hugues; Vincke, Caroline; Jonard, Mathieu

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1459-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1459-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1459-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 3

Model description paper

|

25 Mar 2020

Model description paper |

| 25 Mar 2020

HETEROFOR 1.0: a spatially explicit model for exploring the response of structurally complex forests to uncertain future conditions – Part 2: Phenology and water cycle

Louis de Wergifosse, Frédéric André, Nicolas Beudez, François de Coligny, Hugues Goosse, François Jonard, Quentin Ponette, Hugues Titeux, Caroline Vincke, and Mathieu Jonard

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Mar 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Aug 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'A new and interesting approach which falls short in demonstrating its strongpoints', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Sep 2019
- SC1: 'Response to reviewer comment', Louis de Wergifosse, 20 Sep 2019
  - RC3: 'A note on the reply', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Oct 2019
RC2: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Oct 2019
AC1: 'Final response to referee comments', Louis de Wergifosse, 21 Nov 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Louis de Wergifosse on behalf of the Authors (24 Dec 2019) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Jan 2020) by Min-Hui Lo

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 Jan 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Thanks for considering my comments and suggestions. I think that the introduction is now much better focused on the subject.

Regarding the methodology, I am satisfied with the new approaches for individual phenology and water uptake. However, I am still a bit irritated because of the use of different phenological models. Arguing that the user should select what fits best in specific circumstances decreases the generality of the model (needed for scenario analysis and regional applications) and undermines the argumentation for preferring mechanistical models above empirical ones. In this case, even the difference between the models is small, since eq. 2 (equal to eq. 4) is only a special case of eq. 1 (with cb=0 and different temperature limits tmin=0 instead -5 and tmax=indefinite instead of 10). So, only eq. 3 is a different approach but combining eq. 3 and 4 (1) which, however, makes the combination conceptionally inconsistent (assuming different physiological behavior for different periods of the same process). I recommend to describe the applied function as the sigmoid model, which is used in the standard mode with cb=0 and Tmin=0, Tmax=indefinite, and skip the so called ‘sequential model’. (If this is changed, also the discussion needs to be adjusted accordingly (P51).

Although my question regarding the parameter setting of a third species (hornbeam) have been answered, it is still strange that ‘specific parameters for light interception, photosynthesis, respiration and carbon allocation’ are mentioned but not shown. I think at least a reference to the base paper or a supplement (wherever the parameters can be found) should be made.

According to the new simulations, my main concerns about the discussion are also accounted for. I also appreciate the much better consideration of other models. Overall, this part now looks a possible target for some shortenings but I don’t recommend any specific action here.

While reading, some minor mistakes caught my eye (which is most likely not an exclusive list of spelling errors):
P20L2: variability instead variable?
P21L28: varies instead vary?
P21L32: rates instead rate?
P22L1: ‘decrease their evaporation demand’ instead ‘protect them from stressful conditions’
P22L9: function(s) instead process?
P22: Consider arguing that there are only very few physiologically-based models that address the individual level (e.g. into line 11).
P23L20: ‘a hourly’ instead ‘hourly a’
P28L17: add: ‘but when saturation is reached in a soil layer, the water surplus is transferred to the horizon below.’ (or similar)
P56/57: skip ‘and do not account for tree dimensional growth’ (not true)
P57L25: HETEROFOR instead HETEOFOR

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (27 Jan 2020) by Min-Hui Lo

AR by Louis de Wergifosse on behalf of the Authors (06 Feb 2020)

ED: Publish as is (10 Feb 2020) by Min-Hui Lo

AR by Louis de Wergifosse on behalf of the Authors (14 Feb 2020)

Short summary

Given their key role in the simulation of climate impacts on tree growth, phenological and water balance processes must be integrated in models simulating forest dynamics under a changing environment. Here, we describe these processes integrated in HETEROFOR, a model accounting simultaneously for the functional, structural and spatial complexity to explore the forest response to forestry practices. The model evaluation using phenological and soil water content observations is quite promising.