Ecosystem age-class dynamics and distribution in the LPJ-wsl v2.0 global ecosystem model

Calle, Leonardo; Poulter, Benjamin

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2575-2021

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2575-2021

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2575-2021

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

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

Development and technical paper

|

10 May 2021

Development and technical paper |

| 10 May 2021

Ecosystem age-class dynamics and distribution in the LPJ-wsl v2.0 global ecosystem model

Leonardo Calle and Benjamin Poulter

Download

Final revised paper (published on 10 May 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Sep 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments on the manuscript ``Ecosystem age-class dynamics and distribution in the LPJ-wsl v2.0 global ecosystem model''', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Oct 2020
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Leonardo Calle, 18 Jan 2021
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2020
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Leonardo Calle, 18 Jan 2021
SC1: 'executive editor comment on gmd-2020-258', Astrid Kerkweg, 27 Oct 2020
- AC1: 'Reply on SC1', Leonardo Calle, 18 Jan 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Leonardo Calle on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2021) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Jan 2021) by Christoph Müller

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised manuscript by Calle and Poulter has important clarifications and improvements, and I still think this manuscript could be an important scientific contribution. However, I identified a few instances (see below) where the authors provided clarification in the response letter but not in the manuscript, and I think the manuscript could benefit from the clarification too. In addition, the authors did not address some of the comments provided by me or the other referee — even if the authors disagree with these suggestions, they should provide some feedback. These remaining points are minor and should be straightforward to address. I am going to use the notation from the authors’ response letter.

Reviewer_1_Specific_Comment_002. I understand that the authors did not use these options, but in this case either delete the text in line 101–102, or at least make it clear upfront that these will not be discussed.

Reviewer_1_Specific_Comment_006. I think the authors’ response provides some useful examples on how survivorship is handled in the model, and could be incorporated in the text.

Reviewer_1_Specific_Comment_007. Same, the authors could complement the manuscript with the text from their response, as it at least provides some additional possible explanations for the observed discrepancies.

Reviewer_1_Specific_Comment_010. I could have been clearer in my previous iteration. The opening sentence of section 3.2.2 (Line 479–480 of the current version) implies that a 30-year recovery window for NEP is unrealistic, but the authors did not provide any independent observation to support that a 5-year recovery window is more adequate. I suggest to drop the first sentence, or to provide some support to this claim.

Reviewer_1_Specific_Comment_012. The authors could add a sentence or two in the manuscript to address the need to account for parameter and process uncertainties.

Previous points that did not seem to be addressed, at least based on the response letter.

Reviewer_1_Minor_Comment_027
Reviewer_1_Minor_Comment_028
Reviewer_1_Minor_Comment_029
Reviewer_2_General_Comment_006
Reviewer_2_General_Comment_007

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (22 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

In this paper, the authors implement age-class distributions in a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model, the LPJ-wsl 2.0, and investigate how the explicit representation of demography and the associated disturbance events influence carbon stocks and fluxes. Overall, the manuscript is correctly structured, the topic of the paper is clearly introduced, and its content is very likely to attract the readership of the journal. I particularly praise the authors' effort to improve the representation of forest demography in global models, which will be of interest to the scientific community.

The authors have addressed the main concerns following the comments offered by the reviewers*, particularly the major aspects (e.g. clarifying main goals and comparisons between simulations and observations). Consequently, I think the manuscript is suitable for publication after addressing a short of minor aspects I suggest hereafter.

22: How many are “a few”? Please, be specific.

91: Substitute “prior studies” for “previous studies” to avoid repetition.

92: Move “are presented” to the end of the sentence for better understanding.

120: Is mortality also formulated as dependent on tree size? This formulation will link to competition by space among individuals.

134 and over the text: Replace ageclass and ageclasses with age-class and age-classes or with age class and age classes if preferred.

346. Correct “by products”.

425. Change pft for PFT.

431. Remove “it” from the sentence as: “Changes in species composition over time do occur and can add…”

645-647. This sentence is a bit difficult to read. Consider break it or rephrase.

Table 2. Great summary of the study!

Figure 3. Please, check the y-axes for Stem Density and NEP. They do not match between unequal age widths and 10-yrs age widths. Labels from the y-axes of the right column plots could also be removed.

Figure 10. Plots have different dimensions. Please, expand the width of the right column plots and if possible, make the axes comparable. The legend is duplicated and could be placed at the bottom of the figure.

* I noticed that responses to Reviewer_1_Minor_Comment_027, 028 and 029, and Reviewer_2_General_Comment_006 and 007 are missing.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Mar 2021) by Christoph Müller

AR by Leonardo Calle on behalf of the Authors (13 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (19 Mar 2021) by Christoph Müller

AR by Leonardo Calle on behalf of the Authors (21 Mar 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We developed a model to simulate and track the age of ecosystems on Earth. We found that the effect of ecosystem age on net primary production and ecosystem respiration is as important as climate in large areas of every vegetated continent. The LPJ-wsl v2.0 age-class model simulates dynamic age-class distributions on Earth and represents another step forward towards understanding the role of demography in global ecosystems.