Overall assessment

This manuscript presents a physiology-based dynamic grass density approach for the ORCHIDEE land surface model that addresses key limitations of the fixed-density representation.

Here is this reviewer’s understanding: By linking vegetation density to reserve and labile carbon (C) pools, the model adjusts dynamically to resource availability. This mechanism reduces unrealistic mortality events, produces a more realistic emergent slope between precipitation and density, and generates the bare soil fraction directly rather than prescribing it. Together, these advances increase ecological realism, provide a basis for dust emission modelling and improve IPSL-CM performance across major grassland biomes. The study appears timely, well designed and methodologically sound, but several revisions that could strengthen its impact.

Validation and ecological realism

Validation relies mainly on indirect proxies such as LAI and precipitation correlations. Including regional case studies that use field-based estimates of grass density or bare soil cover would allow for more direct evaluation and strengthen confidence in the model’s realism.

The mortality–recruitment scheme, based on C pool trade-offs, is elegant in its simplicity but assumes asexual recruitment. Explicitly discussing the limitations of this assumption would help readers understand how the approach may underperform in ecosystems dominated by seed banks or sexual reproduction.

Parameter recalibration, particularly for C4 grasslands, improves outcomes, yet the robustness of these changes remains uncertain. Providing an additional sensitivity analysis, for example in supplementary material, to show how density responds to parameter variation would bolster confidence in the results.

External uncertainties and broader implications

The paper also acknowledges uncertainties in prescribed plant functional type (PTF) maps, including the unrealistic placement of grasses in hyper-arid zones. Quantifying the extent to which such mapping errors contribute to remaining mortality artefacts would help distinguish external sources of error from limitations internal to the model.

Although dust flux simulations are planned for future work, the manuscript would benefit from a conceptual schematic linking dynamic density, emergent bare soil fractions and dust emission potential. Such a figure would highlight the broader significance of the study.

Presentation and minor issues

Presentation could be improved through more consistent terminology, particularly in distinguishing “density” from “cover” and in clarifying what constitutes “an individual” in the model. Although the manuscript explains that “density” differs from “plant cover”, it sometimes uses “density” in a way that resembles “cover”, e.g. in the statement “… whereas grassland density reflects grass and bare soil fractions within the grassland PFT” (Line 285), which conflicts with the earlier definition of “the number of individuals per unit area” (line 60).

Likewise, the methods section states that “each individual is assumed to occupy 1 m²” (lines 104-105), yet discussions of biomass allocation and asexual reproduction obscure the line between a biological plant and an abstract unit, potentially confusing readers. For example, in “This approach for increasing grassland density reflects grass recruitment through asexual means, which is a suitable method for representing perennial plants” (lines 153-155), it should be clarified that the “individual” is a conceptual unit, not a physical plant.

The distinction between vegetation type fraction - “a value for its fraction (V_fra), line 91 - and “density” is also sometimes unclear, with “density” referring to surface coverage rather than actual counts of individuals., e.g. “... land cover map represents the fraction of vegetation type (V_fra) for each PFT within one grid cell, whereas grassland density represents grass and bare soil fractions within the grassland PFT” (lines 284–285).

A schematic showing C redistribution during density adjustments would help readers follow the mechanism, and adding explicit mortality thresholds to figure annotations (e.g. Fig. 7) would improve interpretability.

Minor grammatical polishing would further smooth the narrative. For example, awkward phrasing, such as “… the mortality in ORCHIDEE should be infrequent and primarily …” (line 443) would flow better as “… mortality in ORCHIDEE should occur infrequently and mainly …”, or “… grassland dies in the ORCHIDEE model and …” (lines 174-175) would be better if worded as “… the grassland is considered dead in ORCHIDEE, and …”.

Using the simple present tense to model descriptions would also enhance the writing, e.g. changing “Adding to these limitations, a fixed density fails to respond to changes in resource availability, hindering the possibility of studying the response of dust emissions …” (lines 71-72) to “In addition, a fixed density does not respond to resource availability, which hinders the study of dust emission responses …”.

Removing phrases such as "Note that" and "including" from “Note that the carbon of other compartments (including leaf, aboveground stem, root and fruit) in each individual remains …” (lines 124-125) would allow for the following: “The carbon in other compartments (leaf, stem, root, fruit) remains …”. Likewise, “Both of the events …” (line 191) could simply be shortened to “The events …”.

Finally, unit notation should follow SI conventions, with spaces before unit symbols and negative exponents for “per” relationships. For example, “gC m^-2 per day” should be written as “g C m^-2 d^-1”, denoting grams of carbon per square meter per day. Likewise, the unit “m² gC^-1” is ambiguous and could be misread as “square meters times grams per carbon”.  To remove this confusion, it should be rewritten as “m² g^-1 C”, which distinctly indicates square meters per gram of carbon.

Summary and recommendation

This study represents a significant methodological advance for ORCHIDEE and makes an important contribution to Earth system modelling. Strengthening validation, clarifying demographic simplifications and refining presentation would further enhance its impact. With these minor revisions, the manuscript will be a valuable and timely addition.

This manuscript presents a new implementation of a dynamic grassland density scheme within the ORCHIDEE land surface model. The proposed approach allows grass density to vary in response to physiological carbon reserves, enabling a more flexible and ecologically realistic representation of vegetation cover, particularly under semi-arid conditions. The overall scheme is well justified. The authors evaluate this scheme using multiple lines of evidence, including relationships between precipitation and grass density, frequency of grassland mortality events, and comparisons with satellite-derived LAI products. The proposed dynamic density scheme effectively mitigates key limitations of the original model in simulating grassland dynamics under semi-arid conditions, thereby offering substantial value for model development and holding considerable potential for broader scientific impact. The manuscript is well written. However, the current version of the manuscript requires some improvements in the rigor and comprehensiveness of the model evaluation.

(1) The evaluation relies primarily on indirect indicators (e.g., LAI, mortality frequency) without sufficient direct evidence that the model accurately reproduces observed spatial patterns of grass density or vegetation coverage. Comparison against datasets such as vegetation coverage (e.g., vegetation fractional coverage data) may provide insights in the model improvements?

(2) The simulated LAI was compared with MODIS and Sentinel-2 LAI. However, it does not convincingly show how the dynamic density scheme improves the LAI simulation. The differences in LAI between the dynamic and fixed approaches are illustrated (e.g., Fig. 8), while there is little quantitative assessment of the improvement. The figures do not clearly highlight regions where the new scheme reduces model–data mismatches. Without clearer metrics or spatial diagnostics, the added value of the new scheme remains ambiguous. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the seasonality of LAI is improved due to the new scheme.

Minor remarks:

Figure 2 is unnecessary. The processes are quite simple and can be well understand with text only.