Satellite-derived leaf area index and roughness length information for surface–atmosphere exchange modelling: a case study for reactive nitrogen deposition in north-western Europe using LOTOS-EUROS v2.0

van der Graaf, Shelley C.; Kranenburg, Richard; Segers, Arjo J.; Schaap, Martijn; Erisman, Jan Willem

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2451-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2451-2020

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2451-2020

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

Articles | Volume 13, issue 5

Development and technical paper

|

27 May 2020

Development and technical paper |

| 27 May 2020

Satellite-derived leaf area index and roughness length information for surface–atmosphere exchange modelling: a case study for reactive nitrogen deposition in north-western Europe using LOTOS-EUROS v2.0

Shelley C. van der Graaf, Richard Kranenburg, Arjo J. Segers, Martijn Schaap, and Jan Willem Erisman

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 May 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 01 Oct 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Executive Editor Comment on gmd-2019-256', Astrid Kerkweg, 07 Nov 2019
RC1: 'Review: gmd-2019-256', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Dec 2019
RC2: 'Review of "The effect of satellite derived leaf area index and roughness length information on modelled reactive nitrogen deposition in north-western Europe"', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2019
AC1: 'Reponse to reviewer and short comments', Shelley C. van der Graaf, 13 Feb 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Shelley C. van der Graaf on behalf of the Authors (13 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Feb 2020) by Jason Williams

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (09 Mar 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 Mar 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I would like to thank the authors for their work and their response to my comments. I do think that the efforts in this paper are worthy of publication (with some revisions). I am still not convinced that this paper fulfills all requirements for a GMD paper (such as all code needs to be available via 3rd party stable repository). I still believe the paper may be better suited for ACP rather than GMD.

I have the following additional comments:

Sec 2.1.2: The parameterization for L should be cited. I understand that z/L is very hard to obtain and that this is part of the original model, but I am wondering what the sensitivity of errors in z/L is compared to errors in z0 or LAI? (This is just a comment and does not need to be addressed)

Sec 3.3. Thanks for doing this analysis. Based on this your original results seem sensible. i am wondering whether this could be put in the supplement, rather than here?
One thing to mention would be though that z0 from Fluxnet is both due to the vegetation influence and topography, while your scaling is only due to canopy height. In the end, since forests are often in complex terrain, this does not seem to matter much (at least in this case), but I would mention this in the text

Sec 4.2: See my comment to Sec 3.3. I think that there is covariance between mountains (i.e. black forest) and tree heights. These mountains contribute to z0 in addition to the tree height effect alone. I am not sure how to do this better and results seem reasonable, so I would just discuss this briefly here.

Figure 5: It is not quite clear what is modeled and what is observed from the legend

Figure 9: It would be better to plot individual sites here rather than mean and std. One could add the mean as well. In general F

Some of the language in the newly written sections could require some editing.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Mar 2020) by Jason Williams

AR by Shelley C. van der Graaf on behalf of the Authors (27 Mar 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Apr 2020) by Jason Williams

AR by Shelley C. van der Graaf on behalf of the Authors (15 Apr 2020)

Short summary

Chemical transport models (CTMs) are important tools to determine the fate of reactive nitrogen...