- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 On “Hysteresis loops between canopy conductance of grapevines and meteorological variables in an oasis ecosystem”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 665
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 1 On “Hysteresis loops between canopy conductance of grapevines and meteorological variables in an oasis ecosystem”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Major Revision 2. Comments to Author: The authors monitored sapflow in grapevines near an oasis and used the data to calculate stomatal conductance (gc) using the Penman-Monteith equation. The resulting trends in gc were then evaluated in relation to ambient micrometeorological variables. The authors presented interesting response patterns in gc to selected micrometeorological variables and found that the responses showed strong diurnal hysteresis. They went further to propose equations for predicting gc. The work is highly commendable. It is however doubtful whether the manuscript provides a tangible progression in our understanding of gc responses to micrometeorological variables given that the literature is replete with empirical models describing gc response to ambient conditions. In my opinion the authors should have explored temporal trends in transpiration (and possibly gc)at different periods of the vine growth and development and not just at complete canopy cover. That would have shed additional light on how an’hydrologic island’ provided by the oasis modify transpiration at different phonological and growth phases of the vine in relation to associated ambient and soil water conditions.
2. Line 77 (L77): specify what these exchange rates are L89-92: I could not understand how SF on its own can provide mechanistic explanations of how physiological and environmental variables control water flux 4. L112: what are these abundant light sources? 5. L113: I could not understand the point being made 6. L118: specify these biological variables 7. L130: rainfall >2500 mm could mean up to or larger than 10,000 mm 8. L131: provide USDA or FAO classification 9. L135-136: was this a T-trellis system? 10. L154: how would LA be an indicator of spatial variability in sapflow (presumably from an individual vine installed with the sensor)? 11. L176: how was the LAI kept constant - by pruning? 12. L185-186: when both Rn and temp are low, the D would also likely to be low; this statement contradicts what you said in L99-108 13. L204: not clear 14. Page 13: it is confusing describing data in Fig 4 before those in Fig 2 Discussion: there is too much repetition of results, e.g. L319-323 and others marked on the returned manuscript Other comments are on that attached returned manuscript Anonymous Available online 18 December 2015
3. Specific comments 1. The language needs significant improvements. There are expressions and also many long sentences that are difficult to comprehend. I have marked many of these on the attached
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.267. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.12.045
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 1 On “Hysteresis loops between canopy conductance of grapevines and meteorological variables in an oasis ecosystem”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Major Revision 2. Comments to Author: The authors monitored sapflow in grapevines near an oasis and used the data to calculate stomatal conductance (gc) using the Penman-Monteith equation. The resulting trends in gc were then evaluated in relation to ambient micrometeorological variables. The authors presented interesting response patterns in gc to selected micrometeorological variables and found that the responses showed strong diurnal hysteresis. They went further to propose equations for predicting gc. The work is highly commendable. It is however doubtful whether the manuscript provides a tangible progression in our understanding of gc responses to micrometeorological variables given that the literature is replete with empirical models describing gc response to ambient conditions. In my opinion the authors should have explored temporal trends in transpiration (and possibly gc)at different periods of the vine growth and development and not just at complete canopy cover. That would have shed additional light on how an’hydrologic island’ provided by the oasis modify transpiration at different phonological and growth phases of the vine in relation to associated ambient and soil water conditions.
2. Line 77 (L77): specify what these exchange rates are L89-92: I could not understand how SF on its own can provide mechanistic explanations of how physiological and environmental variables control water flux 4. L112: what are these abundant light sources? 5. L113: I could not understand the point being made 6. L118: specify these biological variables 7. L130: rainfall >2500 mm could mean up to or larger than 10,000 mm 8. L131: provide USDA or FAO classification 9. L135-136: was this a T-trellis system? 10. L154: how would LA be an indicator of spatial variability in sapflow (presumably from an individual vine installed with the sensor)? 11. L176: how was the LAI kept constant - by pruning? 12. L185-186: when both Rn and temp are low, the D would also likely to be low; this statement contradicts what you said in L99-108 13. L204: not clear 14. Page 13: it is confusing describing data in Fig 4 before those in Fig 2 Discussion: there is too much repetition of results, e.g. L319-323 and others marked on the returned manuscript Other comments are on that attached returned manuscript Anonymous Available online 18 December 2015
3. Specific comments 1. The language needs significant improvements. There are expressions and also many long sentences that are difficult to comprehend. I have marked many of these on the attached
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.267. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.12.045