- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Relationships between climate, topography, water use and productivity in two key Mediterranean forest types with different water-use strategies”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 432–433
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “Relationships between climate, topography, water use and productivity in two key Mediterranean forest types with different water-use strategies”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision
2. Comments to Author Title: The combined effects of climate and topography on the water use and productivity of two key Mediterranean forest types with different water-use strategies. Summary: This manuscript describes how evapotranspiration (ET) and productivity (GEP) are direct and indirect influenced by climate and topography on the long-term (15 years). They used satellite-based models to asses ET and GEP. The authors conclude that mean annual surface skin temperatures had the largest adverse influence, and slope and aspect had secondary influences. They used SEM models to calculated productivity in future models and calculated reductions in productivity with increasing temperatures. My recommendation is the publication of this paper with minor changes because data are of full interest and could be very a useful approach also for other studies. The data approach is correct and statistical analysis is appropriate and it is well explained and justified with consistent references I only have the following comments: Evaluation and general comments: I only see a few minor changes still required; most are very easy to correct. But, on the other hand Mediterranean climate and areas have strong variations in precipitation patterns and the existence of some strong rain events that could recharge deep soil water reserves are frequent. I realize that your CV in the precipitation is not strong, but I would like clarify if you use total or mean precipitation. As, you suggest in the discussion it should be really interesting calculate previous precipitation in multiannual means (for example, two-years. . .). Did you check it? SPECIFIC COMMENTS
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.08.018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.170 0168-1923/
Title: The current tittle is informative and too long, perhaps they could change. Abstract: ∗ Please check the percentages in lines 42 and 44. ∗ Please change the long term, it is 2000–2014. ∗ I suggest remove the temperature values in line 46 and precipitation in line 48, these are not necessary in the abstract. Introduction: ∗ Page 3 line 73, Please clearly introduces the concept of evapotranspiration instead in the final paragraph (line 127). ∗ Page 3 line 82, please include the gross ecosystem productivity definition (GEP). ∗ Page 4 line 127, ET definition should appear before, not in the aims paragraph. Material and methods: ∗ Page 5 line 146 replace “towards” with “until” ∗ Page line 147 and henceforth: Is MAP “mean annual precipitation” or “total annual precipitation”? Because you used total annual precipitation in Table 3. Please check it. ∗ Page 5 line 159: Please indicate the reference used in the canopy cover data or how it was measured? ∗ Page 6 line 162: Please write “typically occur” ∗ Page 6 line 169 “were” instead “was” ∗ Please check the Helman et al., 2015reference throughout the entire manuscript. ∗ Please check “mean annual precipitation” as recommended before. ∗ Please check Helman et al., 2015, you should delete the initial (D.), line 198, line 213, line 221 and henceforth. ∗ Page 7 line 212 not necessary the ET explanation ∗ Page 8 line 254 not necessary WUE explanation Results ∗ Page 10 line 302, should be interesting show the variations in the evaporative index
Peer Review Report / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 432–433
∗ Page 10 line 304. You did not mention any statistical test before, please do not include here or include in all. ∗ Page 10 line 306 Please use GEP instead full words. Discussion
433
Figure caption Caption Figure 1. Please indicate the label of the red points. Figure 3. Please introduce the full name in the precipitation, and check the double ((in Pcv. Comments end.
∗ Page 12 Line 377 please put references in the first paragraph. ∗ You used the “evaporative index” in the results and in the discussions you used the differences “WY”, perhaps it would be better use the same in both. ∗ Please use GEP instead of full words. ∗ Page 13 Line 424. Please, introduce the reference in this paragraph.
3. First revision
Conclusions I personally feel that the conclusions are a little bit long, please rewrite and summarize. Table captions
I truly appreciate the authors´ı efforts and all the modifications that they have already done. My recommendation is the publication of this paper. Data are of full interest and could be very a useful approach also for other studies. In this new version, the authors have included all the suggestions and the text has clearly improved. Changes in tables and figures explain better all the results and conclusions. Please, use GEP instead of GPP in the highlights.
∗ Table 1. Meters instead metres. ∗ Table 2 and figure 2 show the same data, please choose one. I personally prefer the figure. If you choose the table, please mention the significance in the differences.
3.1. Recommendation Accept 4. Comments to the author
Anonymous Available online 4 December 2016
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 on “Relationships between climate, topography, water use and productivity in two key Mediterranean forest types with different water-use strategies”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision
2. Comments to Author Title: The combined effects of climate and topography on the water use and productivity of two key Mediterranean forest types with different water-use strategies. Summary: This manuscript describes how evapotranspiration (ET) and productivity (GEP) are direct and indirect influenced by climate and topography on the long-term (15 years). They used satellite-based models to asses ET and GEP. The authors conclude that mean annual surface skin temperatures had the largest adverse influence, and slope and aspect had secondary influences. They used SEM models to calculated productivity in future models and calculated reductions in productivity with increasing temperatures. My recommendation is the publication of this paper with minor changes because data are of full interest and could be very a useful approach also for other studies. The data approach is correct and statistical analysis is appropriate and it is well explained and justified with consistent references I only have the following comments: Evaluation and general comments: I only see a few minor changes still required; most are very easy to correct. But, on the other hand Mediterranean climate and areas have strong variations in precipitation patterns and the existence of some strong rain events that could recharge deep soil water reserves are frequent. I realize that your CV in the precipitation is not strong, but I would like clarify if you use total or mean precipitation. As, you suggest in the discussion it should be really interesting calculate previous precipitation in multiannual means (for example, two-years. . .). Did you check it? SPECIFIC COMMENTS
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.08.018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.170 0168-1923/
Title: The current tittle is informative and too long, perhaps they could change. Abstract: ∗ Please check the percentages in lines 42 and 44. ∗ Please change the long term, it is 2000–2014. ∗ I suggest remove the temperature values in line 46 and precipitation in line 48, these are not necessary in the abstract. Introduction: ∗ Page 3 line 73, Please clearly introduces the concept of evapotranspiration instead in the final paragraph (line 127). ∗ Page 3 line 82, please include the gross ecosystem productivity definition (GEP). ∗ Page 4 line 127, ET definition should appear before, not in the aims paragraph. Material and methods: ∗ Page 5 line 146 replace “towards” with “until” ∗ Page line 147 and henceforth: Is MAP “mean annual precipitation” or “total annual precipitation”? Because you used total annual precipitation in Table 3. Please check it. ∗ Page 5 line 159: Please indicate the reference used in the canopy cover data or how it was measured? ∗ Page 6 line 162: Please write “typically occur” ∗ Page 6 line 169 “were” instead “was” ∗ Please check the Helman et al., 2015reference throughout the entire manuscript. ∗ Please check “mean annual precipitation” as recommended before. ∗ Please check Helman et al., 2015, you should delete the initial (D.), line 198, line 213, line 221 and henceforth. ∗ Page 7 line 212 not necessary the ET explanation ∗ Page 8 line 254 not necessary WUE explanation Results ∗ Page 10 line 302, should be interesting show the variations in the evaporative index
Peer Review Report / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 432–433
∗ Page 10 line 304. You did not mention any statistical test before, please do not include here or include in all. ∗ Page 10 line 306 Please use GEP instead full words. Discussion
433
Figure caption Caption Figure 1. Please indicate the label of the red points. Figure 3. Please introduce the full name in the precipitation, and check the double ((in Pcv. Comments end.
∗ Page 12 Line 377 please put references in the first paragraph. ∗ You used the “evaporative index” in the results and in the discussions you used the differences “WY”, perhaps it would be better use the same in both. ∗ Please use GEP instead of full words. ∗ Page 13 Line 424. Please, introduce the reference in this paragraph.
3. First revision
Conclusions I personally feel that the conclusions are a little bit long, please rewrite and summarize. Table captions
I truly appreciate the authors´ı efforts and all the modifications that they have already done. My recommendation is the publication of this paper. Data are of full interest and could be very a useful approach also for other studies. In this new version, the authors have included all the suggestions and the text has clearly improved. Changes in tables and figures explain better all the results and conclusions. Please, use GEP instead of GPP in the highlights.
∗ Table 1. Meters instead metres. ∗ Table 2 and figure 2 show the same data, please choose one. I personally prefer the figure. If you choose the table, please mention the significance in the differences.
3.1. Recommendation Accept 4. Comments to the author
Anonymous Available online 4 December 2016