the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
FORest Canopy Atmosphere Transfer (FORCAsT) 2.0: model updates and evaluation with observations at a mixed forest site
Hariprasad D. Alwe
Dylan B. Millet
Brandon Bottorff
Michelle Lew
Philip S. Stevens
Joshua D. Shutter
Joshua L. Cox
Frank N. Keutsch
Qianwen Shi
Sarah C. Kavassalis
Jennifer G. Murphy
Krystal T. Vasquez
Hannah M. Allen
Eric Praske
John D. Crounse
Paul O. Wennberg
Paul B. Shepson
Alexander A. T. Bui
Henry W. Wallace
Robert J. Griffin
Nathaniel W. May
Megan Connor
Jonathan H. Slade
Kerri A. Pratt
Ezra C. Wood
Mathew Rollings
Benjamin L. Deming
Daniel C. Anderson
Allison L. Steiner
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 21 Oct 2021)
- Preprint (discussion started on 23 Apr 2021)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-104', Juan Antonio Añel, 17 May 2021
Dear authors,
We have checked your manuscript, and unfortunately, at the moment, it does not comply with our 'Code and Data Policy'. Currently, you archive the code of your model in Github. However, as we state in our policy and Github on its website, it is not a suitable repository for long-term archival.
Therefore, please, move your code to one of the suitable repositories that we list before the end of the Discussions period and make the necessary changes in the manuscript in potential reviewed versions.https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html#item3
Also, I have seen that your code is not licensed. Released software should have a license, otherwise it can not be checked or used by third parties (including reviewers, editors, etc.). I would recommend you to use a free software license to better comply with the aim of our journal and scientific reproduciblity. For example, if you chose Zenodo as the repository for your code, I would encourage you to choose the GPLv3 license.
Best regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosc. Mod. Dev. Executive Editor
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Dandan Wei, 20 May 2021
Dear Executive Editor Juan A. Añel,
Thank you for the comments on the code sharing.
We moved the codes to Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4776662). I believe the codes is now citable with a DOI of 10.5281/zenodo.4776662. We also added a GPLv3 license as recommended.
My understanding is that we can not make any changes to the preprint right now. We will incoporate the changes into the manuscript in the potential responses to reviewers. Please let me know if additional information is needed.
Thanks,
Dandan Wei
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 May 2021
Dear authors,
Many thanks. Your are right, it is not possible to make changes to the manuscript at this stage. The changes to the 'Code and Data availability' section, and to the text of the manuscript have to be included in future reviewed versions of your work.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosc. Mod. Dev. Executive Editor
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 May 2021
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Dandan Wei, 20 May 2021
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-104', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 May 2021
General comments
This study updated the 1D model FORCAsT from 1.0 to 2.0 by improving the computation efficiency, eddy diffusivity parametrization, dry deposition calculation, as well as the isoprene-related chemistry and aerosol processes. The comparison results with the measurement data showed that the new model performed better especially in simulating, e.g., the vertical profile of isoprene concentration in the early morning, diurnal variation of temperature, the in-canopy concentrations of MVK+MACR and IHN, the ratio of ISOPOOH to MVK+MACR under low-NO condition. This research fits the scope of GMD, and the manuscript is written clearly, so I suggest to publish after minor revision.
Specific comments
P6, L137: So here z_i is an integral value, is it a constant within one day? How do you calculate K_new before z_i is calculated every day? Please specify more clearly here how the K_new and z_i are calculated in the model.
P7, L152: "where input data are available"
What are the input data for the calculation of dry deposition velocities of the species here?
P7, L158: "lack of data"
What kind of data does it mean?
P7, L159-160: "The estimates of the dry deposition velocity are then scaled by the leaf area distribution in the canopy."
Does the "estimates" mean the estimate for methyl vinyl ketone and methacrolein or all the compounds in Table 2?
Section 3.3: Why the modelled O3 concentration did not show a diurnal pattern as the observation in Fig. 4? Would a spin-up run be helpful to reduce the initial peaks of ROx and NO2?
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Dandan Wei, 16 Jul 2021
-
RC2: 'Review of D. Wei et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jul 2021
In this work, the authors present a description of a new version of the FORCAsT canopy chemistry column model. The manuscript is well-written and is an appropriate fit for GMD. Although the chemistry included in the model is state-of-the-science, other aspects (in particular the vertical turbulent transport) are relatively standard treatments. This reviewer, having created similar models in the past, believes the time has come to move beyond these simple column models to ones that can be more useful to answering critical science questions regarding surface-atmosphere exchange of trace chemical species (gases and particles). However, documenting FORCAsT 2.0 in its current form is a valid manuscript for publication in GMD. I recommend publishing as is.
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Dandan Wei, 16 Jul 2021
Peer review completion

