- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Reduced snow cover affects productivity of upland temperate grasslands”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 343
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “Reduced snow cover affects productivity of upland temperate grasslands”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision 2. Comments to Author: The authors present a well-written and concise manuscript reporting differences in GEP, RE, and NEE calculated using eddy covariance methods among three upland grasslands located in the European Alps under changing snow cover conditions. They find correlations between elevation and GEP and RE, with greater fluxes at lower elevations. There is an interesting comparison among sites with consideration of changing snow cover and the onset of phenological spring. While this is an observational study of differences among these sites and there is the issue of covariance in snow cover change and elevation, this manuscript offers a sound contribution to carbon and ecosystem science—contributing most importantly to our understanding of how phenology and fluxes respond to changes in snow cover and temperatures mediated by global climate change. The paper is supported with appropriate literature, methods, and high-quality graphics. The length is sufficient, though there is some repetition of plots/tables that may need to be addressed. The title is a too broad, and should be narrowed in focus. My recommendation would be for publication with only minor revisions. Line 22 − You should update this with the latest IPCC report. Line 26 − The “the” before regional trends is unnecessary. Line 30 − What do you mean by “dominant”? I think it is implied, but you should be more explicit. Line 34 − I had that Whiteman book in one of my grad classes. It’s a good book.
Line 47-48 − A brief definition of “winter chilling requirement” would be helpful. Your inclusion of the phrase within apostrophes indicates it is possibly uncommon enough to necessitate a working definition. Lines 54-58 − You have a good, succinct introduction. I would consider editing some here to make that sentence ". . .to a winter season characterized by low snow cover." Excellent introduction though. Line 61 − Should it be “located along . . ."? Placed seems odd. Maybe ". . .were placed. . ." Lines 177-184 − Nice inclusion of local practices and folk-lore. Line 250 − Spring is misspelled. Also, the grass species referenced, do those occur in this system? Lines 256-259 − This section is a bit confusing. At least the first part of the sentence. Could you clarify more your statement here? What is also the mechanism or reason why grass species show limited responses? Line 261 − Replace “our” with “this”, “our” sounds too colloquial here. Conclusion − I would like to see perhaps a regional or global estimate of the effects we could see. How much area is potentially affected by changing climate and what would be the carbon numbers? Fig. 3 caption − instead of ")" following the letters, perhaps just put commas between for ease of reading. Same for other captions. Fig. 6 − What do the lines represent? That is not explicitly stated, or I am missing it. If these are all regression lines, are they all significant? But if you already have this data in a table, why is in graph form also? Does this provide enough additional information? “Snow cover in winter (days)" is awkwardly worded. Maybe “Winter snow cover days?". Fig. 8 − Maybe darken the tint on “No foehn” days. Anonymous Available online 2 December 2016
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.09.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.139 0168-1923/
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “Reduced snow cover affects productivity of upland temperate grasslands”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision 2. Comments to Author: The authors present a well-written and concise manuscript reporting differences in GEP, RE, and NEE calculated using eddy covariance methods among three upland grasslands located in the European Alps under changing snow cover conditions. They find correlations between elevation and GEP and RE, with greater fluxes at lower elevations. There is an interesting comparison among sites with consideration of changing snow cover and the onset of phenological spring. While this is an observational study of differences among these sites and there is the issue of covariance in snow cover change and elevation, this manuscript offers a sound contribution to carbon and ecosystem science—contributing most importantly to our understanding of how phenology and fluxes respond to changes in snow cover and temperatures mediated by global climate change. The paper is supported with appropriate literature, methods, and high-quality graphics. The length is sufficient, though there is some repetition of plots/tables that may need to be addressed. The title is a too broad, and should be narrowed in focus. My recommendation would be for publication with only minor revisions. Line 22 − You should update this with the latest IPCC report. Line 26 − The “the” before regional trends is unnecessary. Line 30 − What do you mean by “dominant”? I think it is implied, but you should be more explicit. Line 34 − I had that Whiteman book in one of my grad classes. It’s a good book.
Line 47-48 − A brief definition of “winter chilling requirement” would be helpful. Your inclusion of the phrase within apostrophes indicates it is possibly uncommon enough to necessitate a working definition. Lines 54-58 − You have a good, succinct introduction. I would consider editing some here to make that sentence ". . .to a winter season characterized by low snow cover." Excellent introduction though. Line 61 − Should it be “located along . . ."? Placed seems odd. Maybe ". . .were placed. . ." Lines 177-184 − Nice inclusion of local practices and folk-lore. Line 250 − Spring is misspelled. Also, the grass species referenced, do those occur in this system? Lines 256-259 − This section is a bit confusing. At least the first part of the sentence. Could you clarify more your statement here? What is also the mechanism or reason why grass species show limited responses? Line 261 − Replace “our” with “this”, “our” sounds too colloquial here. Conclusion − I would like to see perhaps a regional or global estimate of the effects we could see. How much area is potentially affected by changing climate and what would be the carbon numbers? Fig. 3 caption − instead of ")" following the letters, perhaps just put commas between for ease of reading. Same for other captions. Fig. 6 − What do the lines represent? That is not explicitly stated, or I am missing it. If these are all regression lines, are they all significant? But if you already have this data in a table, why is in graph form also? Does this provide enough additional information? “Snow cover in winter (days)" is awkwardly worded. Maybe “Winter snow cover days?". Fig. 8 − Maybe darken the tint on “No foehn” days. Anonymous Available online 2 December 2016
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.09.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.139 0168-1923/