- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 On “Influence of the decoupling degree on the estimation of canopy stomatal conductance for two broadleaf tree species”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 168
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 On “Influence of the decoupling degree on the estimation of canopy stomatal conductance for two broadleaf tree species”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author The manuscript by Zhang et al. reports on the environmental regulation of the transpiration of planted forests in China. Two monoculture plantations of broadleaf tree species, Eucalyptus urophylla (exotic) and Schima superba (native), were selected to study canopy stomatal conductance, both inverting the PenmanMonteith equation and applying the simplified approach of Köstner et al. (1992). The decoupling coefficient was also estimated (Jarvis 1983). The manuscript is well written and falls within the guidelines of AFM. The introduction is clear and straightforward. It reports an experimental hypothesis and the objectives of the study. Materials and methods are mostly OK. However, I am not convinced that a statistical analysis is appropriate to separate the structure of the two stands, as reported in Table 1. I appreciate the effort in quantitatively describing these stands, though a more detailed description of the plants (their position and representativeness within the plantations) selected for sap flow measurements would be also important. The sampling year differs between sites, and therefore I would consider these as two separate experiments, since the beginning. The results first describe the environmental conditions. However, being the sampling years different between sites, it is not clear to what this meteorological information refers to. Did they
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.02.018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.018 0168-1923/
match the sap flow measurements? If yes, it is not appropriate to compare them statistically, being collected under different seasons and experimental conditions. In any case, it should be cleared if they are about “long term” monitoring or whether they refer to the sampling year (sap flow). The discussion is a bit too long and should be more focused on the key messages of the study. In comparing these two plantations, authors should bear in mind that environmental conditions were different. Nevertheless, the analysis and the presentation of data are mostly sound and, in my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted with some minor revision. Line 142: remove “f” after “of”. Line 410: replace “stomas” with “stomata” Revision 1 Recommendation Accept Comments to Author The authors did a good job in implementing the suggestions I made. In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved, and can be considered for further publication steps. Roberto Tognetti (PhD) Università del Molise, Dipartimento di Bioscienze e Territorio, Contrada Fonte Lappone, Pesche I-86090, Italy Available online 30 November 2016
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 On “Influence of the decoupling degree on the estimation of canopy stomatal conductance for two broadleaf tree species”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author The manuscript by Zhang et al. reports on the environmental regulation of the transpiration of planted forests in China. Two monoculture plantations of broadleaf tree species, Eucalyptus urophylla (exotic) and Schima superba (native), were selected to study canopy stomatal conductance, both inverting the PenmanMonteith equation and applying the simplified approach of Köstner et al. (1992). The decoupling coefficient was also estimated (Jarvis 1983). The manuscript is well written and falls within the guidelines of AFM. The introduction is clear and straightforward. It reports an experimental hypothesis and the objectives of the study. Materials and methods are mostly OK. However, I am not convinced that a statistical analysis is appropriate to separate the structure of the two stands, as reported in Table 1. I appreciate the effort in quantitatively describing these stands, though a more detailed description of the plants (their position and representativeness within the plantations) selected for sap flow measurements would be also important. The sampling year differs between sites, and therefore I would consider these as two separate experiments, since the beginning. The results first describe the environmental conditions. However, being the sampling years different between sites, it is not clear to what this meteorological information refers to. Did they
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.02.018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.018 0168-1923/
match the sap flow measurements? If yes, it is not appropriate to compare them statistically, being collected under different seasons and experimental conditions. In any case, it should be cleared if they are about “long term” monitoring or whether they refer to the sampling year (sap flow). The discussion is a bit too long and should be more focused on the key messages of the study. In comparing these two plantations, authors should bear in mind that environmental conditions were different. Nevertheless, the analysis and the presentation of data are mostly sound and, in my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted with some minor revision. Line 142: remove “f” after “of”. Line 410: replace “stomas” with “stomata” Revision 1 Recommendation Accept Comments to Author The authors did a good job in implementing the suggestions I made. In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved, and can be considered for further publication steps. Roberto Tognetti (PhD) Università del Molise, Dipartimento di Bioscienze e Territorio, Contrada Fonte Lappone, Pesche I-86090, Italy Available online 30 November 2016