Integrated modeling of canopy photosynthesis, fluorescence,   and the transfer of energy, mass, and momentum in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum  (STEMMUS–SCOPE v1.0.0)

Wang, Yunfei; Zeng, Yijian; Yu, Lianyu; Yang, Peiqi; Van der Tol, Christiaan; Yu, Qiang; Lü, Xiaoliang; Cai, Huanjie; Su, Zhongbo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1379-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1379-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1379-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 3

Model description paper

|

11 Mar 2021

Model description paper |

| 11 Mar 2021

Integrated modeling of canopy photosynthesis, fluorescence, and the transfer of energy, mass, and momentum in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum (STEMMUS–SCOPE v1.0.0)

Yunfei Wang, Yijian Zeng, Lianyu Yu, Peiqi Yang, Christiaan Van der Tol, Qiang Yu, Xiaoliang Lü, Huanjie Cai, and Zhongbo Su

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Mar 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Jun 2020)

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-2020-85', Astrid Kerkweg, 22 Jun 2020
- AC5: 'AC5', Yunfei Wang, 23 Nov 2020
RC1: 'review of gmd-2020-85', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jun 2020
- AC4: 'AC4', Yunfei Wang, 23 Nov 2020
RC2: 'Referee comments on “Integrated Modeling of Photosynthesis and Transfer of Energy, Mass and Momentum in the Soil-Plant-Atmosphere Continuum System” by Wang, Y. et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2020
- AC2: 'AC2', Yunfei Wang, 23 Nov 2020
EC1: 'Recommendation from the topical editor', Hisashi Sato, 30 Jul 2020
- AC3: 'AC3', Yunfei Wang, 23 Nov 2020
- AC6: 'AC6', Yunfei Wang, 23 Nov 2020
AC1: 'AC1', Yunfei Wang, 23 Nov 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Yunfei Wang on behalf of the Authors (23 Nov 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Dec 2020) by Hisashi Sato

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (07 Jan 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I would suggest the revision process to improve clarity and scientific validity of the model. The author revised responding to reviewers’ comments. However, there is lack of validation of vertical root distribution and seasonal root length variations based on evidence of in situ observation. It is necessary to clarify the limitation of model and add some reliable proof for the root growth modeling or remaining future work for model development. Also a few unclear descriptions should be improved.

#Details:

L42：Oxygen for plant is not main topic of this paper. Please remove “oxygen”.

L76：Please show the simple introduction of STEMMUS itself, and explain why STEMMUS is necessary to determine RWU based on detail process in STEMMUS model (compared to SPAC models as reviewer#2 mentioned). Please also remined the importance of heat transfer processes which is not uncovered through the Introduction.

L63, L67, L69：Vegetation appearance may be replaced to remote sensing signals. It sounds ambiguous terms.

L82: Please add “SIF” in the purpose as one of Results chapter focused on SIF, and that is the advantage of SCOPE.

L103: Please add “SIF” in the sentence, as same manner in the chapter of the Results. Please add clear explanation of geometry parameter on SIF at nadir or any view zenith angle or field of view angle.

L122−123: Please move the sentence to Introduction.

L135: Please add version information of SCOPE which you based on for the coupling model.

L137: Please add “SIF” among calculated output on SCOPE coupling model.

L175: Please clearly show leaf water potential and water stress factor in here and in Table2, section 3.6 as well.

L201: Please add general description of exact values of RMSE and d as same manner in next section.

L252: There are mismatch of drought water stressed period as follows. DOY193-202 for ET in Yangling. L268: DOY183-202 for transpiration in Yangling. L346: DOY192-202 for WSF in Yangling.

L270: “better simulation” is not clear description. Please correct a little more detail.

L328: Please move the following sentence to the method “Leaf water potential is a parameter to reflect plant water status.”

L354: Teble 3 did not contain root distribution gradient information. The Author also did not clearly present the validation of root depth between model prediction and observation in maize and grassland species. Before referring previous studies, the quality of root depth representation should be shown in proper manners.

L337: Martineau et al (2017) descripted leaf water potential in MPa pressure unit. Please refer the original values too. And please show the proof of unit conversion.

L388: Please check correct figure number (Figure 13a.)

L394: Please check correct figure number (Figure 13a.)

L395: Please explain the reason why you chose DOY199. You may show the validity that SIF-drought response was not affected by dependence on PAR variations in diurnal cycle. (e.g. sky clearness stability during daytime)

L418: This sentence is unclear. Is there any evidence that embolism and refilling process cannot occur in cropland and grassland? Please make clear that is related to whether land use, meteorology or plant traits.

L437: “though it well predicted root depth which is the most critical factor” Actual validation of the root depth prediction was not found in the manuscript.

L455: As you noted in L464, the study did not validate modeled SIF against observations. It may be replaced as potential applicability.

L465: “an effective observation operator to simulate remote sensing signals” It is not clear what you want to say. Please revise plainer sentence.

L593: Soil water potential and leaf water potential ψleaf are noted as pressure head unit (head, m) in this study. Please describe the unit of water potential clearly, to avoid confusing to MPa pressure unit.
..

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Jan 2021) by Hisashi Sato

AR by Yunfei Wang on behalf of the Authors (17 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Jan 2021) by Hisashi Sato

AR by Yunfei Wang on behalf of the Authors (21 Jan 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

This study integrates photosynthesis and transfer of energy, mass, and momentum in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum system, via a simplified 1D root growth model. The results indicated that the simulation of land surface fluxes was significantly improved by considering the root water uptake, especially when vegetation was experiencing severe water stress. This finding highlights the importance of enhanced soil heat and moisture transfer in simulating ecosystem functioning.