the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An improved hydro-biogeochemical model (CNMM-DNDC V6.0) for simulating dynamical forest-atmosphere exchanges of carbon and evapotranspiration at typical sites subject to subtropical and temperate monsoon climates in eastern Asia
Abstract. Carbon exchange between forest ecosystems and the atmosphere play an important role in global carbon cycle, which is difficult to be accurately quantified due to the large uncertainties in scaling up site-scale observations or filling-up measurement gaps. A process-oriented model equipped with comprehensive processes to explicitly simulating coupled carbon, nitrogen and water cycling, is hypothesized to reduce the uncertainties in quantification of forest carbon fluxes. To test this hypothesis, the Catchment Nutrient Management Model – DeNitrification-DeComposition (CNMM-DNDC), as a hydro-biogeochemical model that dynamically couples the carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and water cycling processes, was updated in this study by incorporating a new forest growth module derived from the Biome-BGC model and validating the updates using multiple-year continuous observations of carbon and water fluxes at the site scale. The updated model has improved the processes of photosynthesis, litter decomposition, allocation, respiration and mortality to more effectively capture the transformation and transportation of nutrients in plant-soil-water continuum. The observed gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (ER), net ecosystem carbon dioxide exchange (NEE) and evapotranspiration (ET) of three typical forest sites subject to subtropical and temperate climates in eastern Asia (2003–2010) were used for the model calibration and validation. Compared with the original model in validation, the updated model showed significant improvements in simulating the daily dynamics and inter-annual variations of each variable, with the NRMSE values decreased by 46 % and 54 %, 65 % and 37 %, 4 % and -6 %, and 38 % and -3 % for GPP, ER, NEE, and ET on daily and annual scales, respectively. The comparable performances of both model versions for annual NEE emphasizes the importance of validating each component of carbon fluxes to avoid the offsetting of model errors. The canopy average specific leaf area, fraction of leaf nitrogen in Rubisco, annual leaf and fine root turnover fraction, maximum stomatal conductance and the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in leaves and fine roots were identified as the sensitive eco-physiological parameters affecting the simulations of GPP and ER. In addition, the meteorological variables of solar radiation, humidity and air temperature also showed strong influences on the simulated GPP and ER. The relatively satisfactory performances demonstrated that the modified model has the ability to capture the daily dynamics and inter-annual variations of carbon fluxes for forests in temperate and subtropical zones, which is essential for estimating the emissions of greenhouse gases at the regional or global scales.
- Preprint
(2339 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(817 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-141', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Oct 2024
reply
In this paper, Zhang et al. described and evaluated a new version of the hydro-biogeochemical model CNMM-DNDC that includes a more detailed representation of processes driving carbon and water fluxes between the vegetation and the atmosphere at forest sites. This includes CO2 and water exchanges at the leaf level, carbon allocation and plant growth and plant mortality. I believe this could be a valuable contribution to the corresponding modelling community. I have several important comments or suggestions however.
First, some important processes or modelling choices are not described or explained. For example how the stomatal and boundary layer conductances to water vapor are computed is not provided. However this is quite key for both carbon and water fluxes. Why mortality rates is constant (if I have well understood) and provided as input is not explained/discussed, while part of mortality could /should be environmentally driven, especially to make predictions under varying conditions.
Second, using a range of metrics, the study thoroughly highlights the improved performance of the new modified model over the original one in simulated carbon and water fluxes at daily scale. However, it is hard to correctly interpret whether this improved performance truly serves the model predictive objective as nothing is said about the calibration. How many parameters were calibrated in the new version of the model ? how many parameters were calibrated in the original version of the model? Does the improved performance result from an increased number of calibrated parameters? How were the calibration performed actually? Which parameters were calibrated against which variables/data? How transferable is the model to other sites and/or environmental conditions? This has to be described and discussed.
Also, the model calibration and evaluation relied exclusively on eddy flux data. More details are required on this data. How was the partitioning between GPP and ER performed? What are the uncertainties in those estimates? As model performance is better for GPP and ER with the modified than original model, but not for NEE, that would be an interesting point to discuss.
Finally, although not a native English speaker myself, I strongly recommend checking the English and phrasing throughout the manuscript, particularly in the introduction.
Point-by-point comments :
Title : what do you mean exactly by “typical” (same l. 32)? could/should “evapotranspiration” be replaced by “water” to follow the same structure as for “carbon”?
- 33, 97, 100, 102, 281 etc…: prefer “evaluation”/”evaluated” instead of “validation”/”validated”
- 35: this is a bit hard to follow and suggest rephrasing. Also does a negative value here (e.g. -6%) means that the NRMSE actually increased between the previous version and the version presented here ? It is a bit unclear how the NRMSE of ET can be reduced by 38% at daily scale, but increased by 3% at annual scale…
- 55: “in comparison” to what ? I am not sure I would oppose data and models, both are needed and complementary (and without data, numerical models would be far less advanced).
- 59: I am not sure this defines “process-based models” and would rephrase this sentence. At least specify “process-based models “of what.
- 89: it would be great to provide the reader with at list a brief description of the specificities of the CNMM-DNDC model: in what respect is it different (or not) with the other hydro-biogeochemical models, especially the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph?
- 96: Zhang et al. 2018 is repeated twice.
- 97: “simultaneously” should be moved elsewhere.
- 107: unclear why mortality is related to the simplified representation of biomass allocation here, can you specify? This is better distinguished l. 160-161.
- 115 (also 118): what do you mean by “typical” ? what is a “typical” forest? What do the three sites have in common, and what make them different?
- 119: if I understood this correctly this should be phrased the other way around: simulated outputs (GPP, ER, etc…) are sensitive to some parameter values/model inputs.
- 130: what a “comprehensive function “ is is unclear to me.
- 137: “it has realized systematic simulation of “: what you mean here is unclear to me.
- 139: “be user-defined” or “be defined by the user”
- 140: is 4m a hard constraint? What prevents from simulating deeper soil (which might be relevant in some systems)?
- 161 (alos l. 107): it is not 100% clear what you mean by “photosynthetic allocation”, do you mean “photosynthate allocation”?
- 168: “mortality of forests” or “mortality of trees”? What is the biological resolution of this new module? Is it individual-based, cohort-based, stand-based?
- 171: “live stems”: does it refer to sapwood or to both sapwood and hartwood of living trees? Similarly, “dead stems”: does it refer to heartwood or to both sapwood and heartwood of dead trees? (Same question for live/dead coarse roots). If the latter not sure why this is distinguished from a woody debris pool? Also distinction between sapwood and heartwood is needed to correctly represent stem respiration for example.
- 193: how is the conductance to (and not “of”) water vapour gH20 computed ? does it include both the stomatal and leaf boundary layer conductance ? this is key. Humidity and wind speed are probably used for that computation ? Are those variables considered to be the same for sun and shade leaves?
- 197: in some systems, the co-limitation of photosynthetic capacities by leaf phosphorous content might be important (Domingues et al. 2010; Walker et al. 2014). Is it the case in the study systems?
- 203, 208: where these values come from ?
- 223: how is the proportion of nitrogen retranslocated determined?
- 229-230: the rationale supporting the fact that “the actual decomposition [is] scaled depending on the competing plant nitrogen demand during allocation” is unclear to me, can you elaborate ? and how is the plant nitrogen demand during allocation determined ?
- 236-236: if soil water pressure refers to soil water potential, I would suggest to replace “pressuer” by “potential” and replace Minpressure by , Satpressure by , and same for SMpressure, which are much more common notation.
- 236: In this section, I found it particularly hard to identify what is a variable updated/computed by the model at each timestep from what is a fixed parameter (user-defined or not) or a constant. An additional column in table S2 providing the symbol used in the main text would help. And a similar table with variable could be useful.
- 244: where does the carbon available for allocation come from of there is a carbon pool deficit? Are there carbon reserves? This is not mentioned l. 171.
- 245: can you explain why?
- 266: what does the 8 (denominator) represent in equ. 28? Unit? Same for equ. 29.
- 267: “relationship” à “slope”. Is this value common to all tissues?
- 277: if mortality rates are fully user-defined (and fixed throughout simulations), I wonder how the model could establish predictions under varying environmental conditions and disturbances (e.g. climate change is mentioned as a motivation in the introduction). Although I fully acknowledge the difficulties to simulate mortality through process-based principles given the important knowledge gaps that still remain, I would expect at least a discussion of this modelling choice. What would be the aim of the model in the end ? As the plant carbon budget is computed, carbon deficit (or starvation) could for example influences such mortality rates.
- 308: which parameters were calibrated and how? Unless I missed something this important information is missing.
- 318-320: which parameters were drawn from literature or field observations, and which were calibrated?
- 320: is a soil depth of 1.5 relevant for all three sites? Do you have any information on soil and root depths at these sites?
- 324: how long is it to run 13 years of simulations? What were the spatial and temporal resolutions of those simulations. How were the climate data used for this spin-up?
- 461: it is not crystal clear to me how the different variables can be substantially improved at the daily scale, but not at the annual scale (cf my similar comment on l.35). Can you explain this?
- 496-497: ok but in absence of details on your calibration approach, it is unclear if your model and study is not in a similar situation with eddy flux data: can the model produce reasonable predictions in sites without long-term eddy flux data for calibration ? It would be great to answer this question. How transferable is the model in different sites/environmental conditions? How important are the calibration steps for predictions?
- 510: ok but is such satellite data reliable/good enough to quantify the “subtle changes in leaf phenology” (l. 507) at mote forest sites?
- 520: it would be interested to include Q10 in your sensitivity analysis then. Why not?
- 552: actually, it may be relevant to use different values of SLA for sun and shade leaves given the high plasticity of this trait along light gradient (Niinemets et al. 2015). This could be discussed as well.
References:
Walker, A. P., Beckerman, A. P., Gu, L., Kattge, J., Cernusak, L. A., Domingues, T. F., ... & Woodward, F. I. (2014). The relationship of leaf photosynthetic traits–Vcmax and Jmax–to leaf nitrogen, leaf phosphorus, and specific leaf area: a meta‐analysis and modeling study. Ecology and evolution, 4(16), 3218-3235.
Domingues, T. F., Meir, P., Feldpausch, T. R., Saiz, G., Veenendaal, E. M., Schrodt, F., ... & Lloyd, J. O. N. (2010). Co‐limitation of photosynthetic capacity by nitrogen and phosphorus in West Africa woodlands. Plant, Cell & Environment, 33(6), 959-980.
Niinemets, Ü., Keenan, T. F., & Hallik, L. (2015). A worldwide analysis of within‐canopy variations in leaf structural, chemical and physiological traits across plant functional types. New Phytologist, 205(3), 973-993.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-141-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
165 | 70 | 9 | 244 | 38 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 165
- PDF: 70
- XML: 9
- Total: 244
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1