- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 On “Parameterizing ecosystem light use efficiency and water use efficiency to estimate maize gross primary production and evapotranspiration using MODIS EVI”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 167
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 On “Parameterizing ecosystem light use efficiency and water use efficiency to estimate maize gross primary production and evapotranspiration using MODIS EVI”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author Overall, this is an interesting study that further extends and builds upon prior studies attempting optimal ways to integrate remote sensing datasets with flux tower measurements. The authors, in this study, have carried out a comprehensive assessment of the many approaches and models used to integrate the satellite with flux datasets. The approach,methodology, and analyses are sound and results are well interpreted with statistical criteria and examination of residuals. I thought this study could, and should go a step further in analyses of the site variable data. There are 2 comments on this, (1) In regard to the dryland/ irrigated maize sites, why wasn’t this large-scale “climate” influence studied here? One would surmise that the dryland sites would exhibit different LUE and WUE patterns and behavior and he authors have an excellent dataset to investigate this. Do any of the conclusions and results presented in this paper differ across irrigated vs dry sites? Do the irrigated sites approach maximal LUE and WUE values, in line with the assumptions being used about how models input these? (2) in many studies, rain events are filtered from the data as flux measurements under conditions of rainfall/ wet canopies are not valid. Did the authors consider such influences that may have resulted from the irrigated fields? There is no indication of the timing/ frequency of irrigation events and the need to filter such events from the datasets. Further, considering that the study sites include ‘both’ dryland and irrigated maize sites, one has the perfect opportunity to assess and explore this in some detail. Foremost, one
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.016 0168-1923/
would want to make sure artefacts and noise are removed from the data. In summary, this study is good and free of any serious issues, but it is also a rather short paper and slightly on the shallow end of studies, hence I am encouraging a bit more depth to the paper, with the two suggestions above. This could potential make a good paper become an excellent paper. Minor comments: - the methods do not state the size of the pixel window extracts made surrounding the flux tower site. Was this a single pixel or an array of pixels? and was there a QA/ QC assessment of the data? - Equation 11 looks odd, with “EVI x EVI x m”; i.e., as if EVI is squared? - line 218, “maize is shown in early”. I think ‘shown’ should be ‘sown’. Revision 1 Recommendation Accept Comments to Author Thank you for your due attention to revisions and responding to concerns raised. The paper is improved and worthy of publication. I have no further comments nor edits - although I just wanted to verify the authorship format style. The authors, all seem to be have differing formats; particularly with “Anup KC” Alfredo R. Huete (PhD) Professor, University of Technology Sydney, Climate Change Cluster, 15 Broadway Road, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia 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 “Parameterizing ecosystem light use efficiency and water use efficiency to estimate maize gross primary production and evapotranspiration using MODIS EVI”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author Overall, this is an interesting study that further extends and builds upon prior studies attempting optimal ways to integrate remote sensing datasets with flux tower measurements. The authors, in this study, have carried out a comprehensive assessment of the many approaches and models used to integrate the satellite with flux datasets. The approach,methodology, and analyses are sound and results are well interpreted with statistical criteria and examination of residuals. I thought this study could, and should go a step further in analyses of the site variable data. There are 2 comments on this, (1) In regard to the dryland/ irrigated maize sites, why wasn’t this large-scale “climate” influence studied here? One would surmise that the dryland sites would exhibit different LUE and WUE patterns and behavior and he authors have an excellent dataset to investigate this. Do any of the conclusions and results presented in this paper differ across irrigated vs dry sites? Do the irrigated sites approach maximal LUE and WUE values, in line with the assumptions being used about how models input these? (2) in many studies, rain events are filtered from the data as flux measurements under conditions of rainfall/ wet canopies are not valid. Did the authors consider such influences that may have resulted from the irrigated fields? There is no indication of the timing/ frequency of irrigation events and the need to filter such events from the datasets. Further, considering that the study sites include ‘both’ dryland and irrigated maize sites, one has the perfect opportunity to assess and explore this in some detail. Foremost, one
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.016 0168-1923/
would want to make sure artefacts and noise are removed from the data. In summary, this study is good and free of any serious issues, but it is also a rather short paper and slightly on the shallow end of studies, hence I am encouraging a bit more depth to the paper, with the two suggestions above. This could potential make a good paper become an excellent paper. Minor comments: - the methods do not state the size of the pixel window extracts made surrounding the flux tower site. Was this a single pixel or an array of pixels? and was there a QA/ QC assessment of the data? - Equation 11 looks odd, with “EVI x EVI x m”; i.e., as if EVI is squared? - line 218, “maize is shown in early”. I think ‘shown’ should be ‘sown’. Revision 1 Recommendation Accept Comments to Author Thank you for your due attention to revisions and responding to concerns raised. The paper is improved and worthy of publication. I have no further comments nor edits - although I just wanted to verify the authorship format style. The authors, all seem to be have differing formats; particularly with “Anup KC” Alfredo R. Huete (PhD) Professor, University of Technology Sydney, Climate Change Cluster, 15 Broadway Road, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia Available online 30 November 2016