<i>Couplerlib</i>: a metadata-driven library for the integration of  multiple models of higher and lower trophic level marine systems with  inexact functional group matching

Beecham, Jonathan; Bruggeman, Jorn; Aldridge, John; Mackinson, Steven

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-947-2016

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-947-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-947-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

Development and technical paper

|

04 Mar 2016

Development and technical paper |

| 04 Mar 2016

Couplerlib: a metadata-driven library for the integration of multiple models of higher and lower trophic level marine systems with inexact functional group matching

Jonathan Beecham, Jorn Bruggeman, John Aldridge, and Steven Mackinson

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Mar 2016)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 20 Jul 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C1643: 'Review of Beecham et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Aug 2015
- AC C2614: 'Major revisions for Manuscript', Jonathan Beecham, 26 Oct 2015
SC C1663: 'Executive Editor Comment on "An approach for coupling higher and lower levels in marine ecosystem models and its application to the North Sea"', Astrid Kerkweg, 11 Aug 2015
- AC C2658: 'Source files for paper', Jonathan Beecham, 26 Oct 2015
RC C2241: 'Review #2', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Sep 2015
- AC C2660: 'Replies to referee 2 including new text draft', Jonathan Beecham, 26 Oct 2015

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Jonathan Beecham on behalf of the Authors (23 Nov 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Dec 2015) by R. Marsh

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (04 Jan 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

While the authors appear to have broadly addressed the points that I previously raised, a general point that I’d make (and will make again below), is that the authors respond very tersely to the comments raised, and rarely give any idea how the text has been changed. On the latter point, replies to referees should identify text changes so that referees don’t have to waste time finding them within a revised document which – because of changes – has different line numbers.

That said, I believe that the modified manuscript is suitable for publication following clarification on the points raised below.

Specific

On the first main point I identified in my original review, it isn’t obvious that the authors have addressed this. I was merely trying to establish what the “model development” at the heart of the manuscript is. The authors have perhaps addressed this elsewhere, but their response here is tangential.

Regarding the manuscript’s title, the authors understandably say that they have not wished to change this, but it would be useful to know from the editor if changing it would cause any problems. I’d have thought that the manuscript’s DOI would prevent such problems.

Regarding P2, L26-27, while I understand the authors’ response, I don’t know how it’s been addressed in the text.

Regarding P3, L17, the response from the authors is unclear, almost to the point that it appears to be answering a different comment.

Regarding P5, L9, did the authors change anything?

Regarding P6, L7, did the authors respond to this?

Regarding P7, L8, the authors’ response clarifies things somewhat, but they haven’t said if this has resulted in any change to the manuscript.

My general comment for P7 regarding providing examples appears to have been ignored. Is this oversight or because it’s an irrelevant point?

Regarding P7, L22, did the authors respond to this?

Regarding P15, L8-20, the authors’ response is helpful, but again it is not clear that anything has changed within the manuscript.

My question “P15: I might just be missing it, but how are the phytoplankton classes in EwE and ERSEM squared off against one another?; does ERSEM overwrite the phytoplankton in EwE, or do they persist in some strange overlapping manner?; this seems a major overlap for the two models” does not appear to have been addressed. Is this covered by another response?

Author response “P16 L7-L13 Note also comment on ERSEM metabolism” is unclear – which comment?

Does “P20 L3 I regard the zooplankton predictions of all Biogeochemical models as poor, this has been a refrain in the community Discussion” mean that this is responded to in the discussion, or that this is a common sentiment in discussion within the community?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (06 Jan 2016) by R. Marsh

AR by Jonathan Beecham on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (06 Feb 2016) by R. Marsh

AR by Jonathan Beecham on behalf of the Authors (16 Feb 2016) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This paper is a description of how very different higher and lower trophic level models (Ecopath with Ecosim) and ERSEM, respectively, can be coupled together using a metadata coupling system together with a number of examples of short- and long-range projections for end to end modelling.