the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Jun 2023
Evaporative controls on Antarctic precipitation: An ECHAM6 model study using novel water tracer diagnostics
Abstract. Improving our understanding of the controls on Antarctic precipitation is critical for gaining insights into polar, and global changes. Here we develop and implement innovative water tracing diagnostics in the atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM6. These tracers provide new precise information on moisture source locations and properties of Antarctic precipitation. In our preindustrial simulation, annual mean Antarctic precipitation originating from the open ocean has a source latitude range of 49–35° S; a source sea surface temperature range of 9.8–16.3 °C; a source 2 m relative humidity range of 75.6–83.3 %; and a source 10 m wind speed (wind10) range of 10.1 to 11.3 m s-1. The tendency of poleward vapour transport to follow moist isentropes means that central Antarctic precipitation is sourced from more equatorward (distant) sources via elevated transport pathways than coastal Antarctic precipitation. We find however this tendency breaks down in the lower troposphere, likely due to diabatic cooling. Heavy precipitation is sourced by longer-range moisture transport: it comes from 2.9° (300 km, averaged over Antarctica) more equatorward (distant) sources compared to the rest of precipitation. Precipitation during negative phases of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) also comes from more equatorward moisture sources (by 2.4°, averaged over Antarctica) than precipitation during positive SAM phases, likely due to amplified planetary waves during negative SAM phases. Moreover, source wind10 of annual mean precipitation is on average 2.1 m s-1 higher than annual mean wind10 at the evaporation source locations from which the precipitation originates. This shows that the evaporation of moisture driving Antarctic precipitation occurs under windier conditions than average. This is the first time this particular thermodynamic control of Southern Ocean surface wind on moisture availability for Antarctic precipitation has been quantified. Overall, our novel water tracing diagnostics enhance our understanding of the controlling factors of Antarctic precipitation.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(26266 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(26266 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1041', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Qinggang Gao, 23 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1041', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2023
Review of "Evaporative control on Antarctic precipitation: An ECHAM6 model study using novel water tracer diagnostics" by Gao et al, submitted to The Cryosphere
This paper presents an analysis of the moisture sources of Antarctica based on a pre-industrial climate model simulation. The authors present a combination of tagged water tracers and source property tracers, which is new for this climate model. Overall, the results from this study are mostly consistent with and confirm previous model results. I find this study overall interesting and valuable, as the combination of these tracer diagnostics has not been applied to Antarctica before. However, there are several aspects, including the connection to literature, the structure, selection and description of the material, and the claimed significance of the findings that require major revisions, as detailed in the comments below.
Major comments:
- There are several cases where the connection to previous literature is not made sufficiently clear. The findings here appear to be very consistent with previous results. I find it remarkable that different methods end up with such similar numbers. It should be stated more clearly that your results confirm previous work, thereby also maintaining and strengthening studies that have been building on similar numbers for source region contributions. This is an important conclusion that needs to appear in the abstract, the results, and the conclusions, with suitable referencing.
- The authors claim a novel and in particular precise method is being used. However, there is almost no material that would underpin the validity of this claim, apart from figure B11 in the appendix, which in itself is not very convincing. Additional quantitative support for the equivalence of the method could for example originate from a mass-weighted mean of a setup of both latitude and longitude boxes. A section discussing the performance of the new method should be added.
- In relation to that, it is not clear from the results when either one of the two tracer approaches is used, and when they are used in combination. It would help the reader to clarify the connection of findings to either of the two methods, and highlight the novelty and additional value of the authors' approach.
- The authors state the results are more precise, both in the abstract and elsewhere. I think this statement is not entirely correct, since only weighted mean values are transferred to the target location. The uncertainty range or spread of source region properties at every location is simply not represented any more due to the averaging of source information. Maybe I misunderstood how the precision is meant, but in any case this is a topic that needs to be discussed critically.
- Several key figures are not introduced and described properly, only a general takeaway is given. This makes it difficult for the reader to follow the argumentation, and to go back and forth between text and figures. See detailed comments.
- The selection of material and its placement need improvement. There are too many figures and figure panels in the appendix, some of which are extensively described in the main text, others only stand with a reference and figure caption. The authors should carefully consider which figure panels are central to their results and needed to underpin their findings, and which can be removed. At the moment, there is a lot of figure material that the reader is left with on their own. As a general recommendation, remove all those panels that are not relevant for the flow of the argumentation, and include those that are discussed in the text in the main manuscript.
- Consider changing some aspects of the writing style. For example, section title 3.2 to 3.5 are formulated as questions, which I find not entirely fitting as a title. There are some paragraphs that serve as table of content for sections to come, which perturb the flow of reading, rather than being helpful. There are also a few casual formulations, such as referring to the simulation as "our" simulation. As a reader, I wonder why the authors put such strong ownership into a study object.
- The significance of the wind speed differences at the source regions in general, and when they contribute to Antarctic precipitation, is not clear. There is also a claim of thermodynamic evaporation effects in the abstract, while wind would usually be considered as a result of pressure gradients and thus atmospheric dynamics rather than thermodynamics. Since the authors present this as a major finding, the overal reasoning and significance of this result should be presented more clearly.
- The distinction between high and low precipitation events could be shortened considerably.
- There is overall too little mentioning of limitations and critical evaluation of the method. For example, the tracer method does not allow to reconstruct source footprints, and it only transfers a weighted average of the source properties, not their original range of values.
Minor comments
L. 4: precise: maybe rather say 'detailed'? There is no complete uncertainty range available from this method, but that does not make it more precise.
L. 14-16: Moreover, ...: not clear that this is a result which should be highlighted in the abstract. What is the concrete relevance of this finding?
L. 30-33: The topic sentence here is on diamond dust, but then the discussion switches immediately to marine air intrusion events. I think the topic sentence should be about precipitation in general instead.
L. 43 onward: It has long been known that there are thermodynamic limitations in how vapour can reach low-lying and higher areas of Antarctica, see for example Fig. 3 in Stohl and Sodemann (2010). This would be helpful to include here, since the discussion comes back to this aspect later in the manuscript.
L. 48: "dominate" - this seems to contradict the statements above in line 32.
L. 57: "moisture flux tracks" - rephrase as "moisture transport paths"
L. 59: "most commonly" - I think this can be debated, different tools have dominated in different time periods, and source region tracers came definitely first
L. 60 onward: I think it would be useful here to state what was found in these studies, since you come back later to this, and compare. For example, what were the main source regions, the average latitude, pattern.
Another aspect that would be fair to bring up here is that these Lagrangian studies allow to obtain maps of the source regions at spatial detail, which does not seem to be available easily from either of the methods applied here.
L. 69: "While..." I do not understand where this information belongs. Rephrase?
L. 76: "For the first time..." - I do not think this is a valid claim. There have been many studies before of Antarctic precipitation origin, both from climate model tracers and with trajectory approaches. As all other approaches, your methods have their limitations. I recommend to moderate this statement.
L. 80-83: This table of content sentences appear unnecessary and can be removed.
L. 93: Please state the exact elevation difference
L. 101: This is a bit of a confusing statement. Wind at the surface is by definition zero. The equation also just states the wind at the lowest surface level, rather than a vertial wind gradient.
L. 121: Since this is a new implementation, some demonstration of the performance and evaluation should be given in the main manuscript. The comparison shown in Fig. B11 is also not very convincing, and only considers the "easy" case of latitude boxes. How well does this compare to, for example, in a setup with longitude boxes?
L. 125: The direct source-sink distance with underestimate the transport distance.
L. 135: 0.002 mm day-1 is a much smaller number than can be measured in reality. How useful is it to define this threshold? How sensitive are your results to the choice of this threshold? This is an example for factors that contribute to the uncertainty of your results and conclusions, and should be discussed openly.
L. 140: It is not clear whether this percentile is a local choice at every grid point, or for the overall precipitation
L. 147-151: This table of contents section is not needed and can be removed
L. 153: Figure 1 is not introduced and described properly, only a general takeaway is given. This makes it difficult for the reader to examine the figure. The same applies to many other figures in the manuscript. Individual figure panels need to be referred to in the text.
L. 160: Fig. B3 and B4 are discussed in the text, so it would be natural to include those with Fig. 1 as sub-panels. Fig. B4 would come logically before Fig. B3.
L. 167: "suggests that both": I find this conclusion too vague. Can this be documented concretely? How do we know the information in Fig. B5 is sufficient as a basis for further analysis?
Section 3.2 does not work well. I understood only much later that you use here the source region tracer to extract the provided information (if I understood correctly). The information in Fig. 2 and 3 is not introduced and described well enough to capture the information easily. Can Fig. 2 and 3 be combined into one figure? Fig. 3 would also be more logical to look at before Fig. 2.
L. 176: Where in Fig. 3 can these percent contributions be seen?
L. 177: the maximum -> it's maximum
Figure 4: This is an interesting figure, but I am not sure I interpret it correctly, and it is only discussed briefly. Is this figure showing all moisture in the atmosphere, or only such that contributes to precipitation in Antarctica? Has this result been obtained with the source region tracer, or the source property tracer?
L. 186: In this context, there are several studies that can be referred to, including Stohl and Sodemann, 2010 and Terpstra et al., 2021.
L. 203: milder -> warmer
L. 204: "may also play a role": can this speculation be backed up in some way?
L. 207: "We speculate that...": can this be investigated further in the light of previous studies? Sodemann and Stohl (2009), their Fig. 1 and 2, have maps that can be directly compared to your results.
L. 209: Figure B6b seems to contain important information, should it no then be part of the main text?
L. 211: "Having dealt with...": rephrase, find a better connection/transition.
L. 223-226: rephrase to provide a more direct message. What are "other forms of storms"?
L. 229: Eq. 1 does not contain rh2m nor SST
L. 229: Hard to follow the discussion here. Can it be said more clearly what decouples from one another?
L. 231-238: This message in this text is not very clear. What exactly is the difference between panels a and b? How do you explain the difference? And why is this a thermodynamic control? Wind speed would generally be categorized as dynamic rather than thermodynamic.
Could it be interesting to set these findings in perspective with histogram plots, and identify the percentile of evaporation events that contribute on average to Antarctic precipitation?
L. 241-246: It is not clear what information should be picked up from this paragraph, and what is the conclusion. The information is provided in an appendix figure instead of the main text, which makes it very difficult to see the relevant information together with the text. Either this paragraph and the appendix figure should be removed, or selected panels be shown in the main text to make the information accessible.
L. 253: This appendix figure is not self-explaining. How does it connect to what is said in the text? Is this a necessary figure to include?
L. 254: The contents of Fig. 8 are not described here, but after Fig. 9 is introduced. Reorder figures or discussion.
L. 258: "This hypothesis...". I have the impression the word hypothesis is used wrongly here. Terpstra et al., (2021) rather state this as a finding of their case study, and you hypothesize that this can be of more general validity, which is what you test in your analysis - correct?
Figure 8: How important is the 0.001 mm day-1 threshold value for these results?
Figure 9: Do all these figure panels need to be shown? Not all of them are discussed sufficiently at the moment.
The positive source latitude difference being more equatorward is counter-intuitive. Can this be reversed?
L. 263: I would make sense to flip numbering of Fig. 8 and 9 as they appear in the manuscript.
L. 287: Figure 10 is not properly introduced and described, only a general conclusion is given. As a reader, I am left alone in the interpretation of Fig. 10.
Figure B9: If this is a valuable result figure, it should be part of the main text, otherwise left out.
L. 303: Posing a rethorical question in a text can be confusing to the reader. Who should answer this?
L. 305: Fig. B10 is not described in the main text or appendix. If this is valuable material to include, it needs to be described properly somewhere.
L. 312: "we develop the dynamic": The impact of this tracking is not shown or discussed in the manuscript, and can thus not be part of the conclusions.
L. 315: "our preindustrial": puzzled by this ownership statement.
L. 319: "spatial patterns are...": unclear what this statement means.
L. 322: Bailey et al., 2019: is this the only/most relevant study to include? There are several older studies that looked into these aspects.
L. 323: The findings here appear to be very consistent with previous results. I think that is remarkable, that different methods end up with such similar numbers. It needs to be stated clearly that your results are confirming other work, maintaining and strengthening previous work that builds on these numbers. This is an important conclusion that needs to appear in the abstract, the results, and the conclusions, with referencing.
L. 328: "more precise value": as stated earlier, I am not convinced this is true. Your method advects mass-weighted averages, which means that part of the underlying variation is simply not visible.
L. 339: It might be useful to distinguish the HP/LP results and SAM results in two sentences or paragraphs.
References
Stohl, A., and Sodemann, H. (2010), Characteristics of atmospheric transport into the Antarctic troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D02305, doi:10.1029/2009JD012536.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1041-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Qinggang Gao, 23 Oct 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1041', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2023
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Qinggang Gao, 23 Oct 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1041', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2023
Review of "Evaporative control on Antarctic precipitation: An ECHAM6 model study using novel water tracer diagnostics" by Gao et al, submitted to The Cryosphere
This paper presents an analysis of the moisture sources of Antarctica based on a pre-industrial climate model simulation. The authors present a combination of tagged water tracers and source property tracers, which is new for this climate model. Overall, the results from this study are mostly consistent with and confirm previous model results. I find this study overall interesting and valuable, as the combination of these tracer diagnostics has not been applied to Antarctica before. However, there are several aspects, including the connection to literature, the structure, selection and description of the material, and the claimed significance of the findings that require major revisions, as detailed in the comments below.
Major comments:
- There are several cases where the connection to previous literature is not made sufficiently clear. The findings here appear to be very consistent with previous results. I find it remarkable that different methods end up with such similar numbers. It should be stated more clearly that your results confirm previous work, thereby also maintaining and strengthening studies that have been building on similar numbers for source region contributions. This is an important conclusion that needs to appear in the abstract, the results, and the conclusions, with suitable referencing.
- The authors claim a novel and in particular precise method is being used. However, there is almost no material that would underpin the validity of this claim, apart from figure B11 in the appendix, which in itself is not very convincing. Additional quantitative support for the equivalence of the method could for example originate from a mass-weighted mean of a setup of both latitude and longitude boxes. A section discussing the performance of the new method should be added.
- In relation to that, it is not clear from the results when either one of the two tracer approaches is used, and when they are used in combination. It would help the reader to clarify the connection of findings to either of the two methods, and highlight the novelty and additional value of the authors' approach.
- The authors state the results are more precise, both in the abstract and elsewhere. I think this statement is not entirely correct, since only weighted mean values are transferred to the target location. The uncertainty range or spread of source region properties at every location is simply not represented any more due to the averaging of source information. Maybe I misunderstood how the precision is meant, but in any case this is a topic that needs to be discussed critically.
- Several key figures are not introduced and described properly, only a general takeaway is given. This makes it difficult for the reader to follow the argumentation, and to go back and forth between text and figures. See detailed comments.
- The selection of material and its placement need improvement. There are too many figures and figure panels in the appendix, some of which are extensively described in the main text, others only stand with a reference and figure caption. The authors should carefully consider which figure panels are central to their results and needed to underpin their findings, and which can be removed. At the moment, there is a lot of figure material that the reader is left with on their own. As a general recommendation, remove all those panels that are not relevant for the flow of the argumentation, and include those that are discussed in the text in the main manuscript.
- Consider changing some aspects of the writing style. For example, section title 3.2 to 3.5 are formulated as questions, which I find not entirely fitting as a title. There are some paragraphs that serve as table of content for sections to come, which perturb the flow of reading, rather than being helpful. There are also a few casual formulations, such as referring to the simulation as "our" simulation. As a reader, I wonder why the authors put such strong ownership into a study object.
- The significance of the wind speed differences at the source regions in general, and when they contribute to Antarctic precipitation, is not clear. There is also a claim of thermodynamic evaporation effects in the abstract, while wind would usually be considered as a result of pressure gradients and thus atmospheric dynamics rather than thermodynamics. Since the authors present this as a major finding, the overal reasoning and significance of this result should be presented more clearly.
- The distinction between high and low precipitation events could be shortened considerably.
- There is overall too little mentioning of limitations and critical evaluation of the method. For example, the tracer method does not allow to reconstruct source footprints, and it only transfers a weighted average of the source properties, not their original range of values.
Minor comments
L. 4: precise: maybe rather say 'detailed'? There is no complete uncertainty range available from this method, but that does not make it more precise.
L. 14-16: Moreover, ...: not clear that this is a result which should be highlighted in the abstract. What is the concrete relevance of this finding?
L. 30-33: The topic sentence here is on diamond dust, but then the discussion switches immediately to marine air intrusion events. I think the topic sentence should be about precipitation in general instead.
L. 43 onward: It has long been known that there are thermodynamic limitations in how vapour can reach low-lying and higher areas of Antarctica, see for example Fig. 3 in Stohl and Sodemann (2010). This would be helpful to include here, since the discussion comes back to this aspect later in the manuscript.
L. 48: "dominate" - this seems to contradict the statements above in line 32.
L. 57: "moisture flux tracks" - rephrase as "moisture transport paths"
L. 59: "most commonly" - I think this can be debated, different tools have dominated in different time periods, and source region tracers came definitely first
L. 60 onward: I think it would be useful here to state what was found in these studies, since you come back later to this, and compare. For example, what were the main source regions, the average latitude, pattern.
Another aspect that would be fair to bring up here is that these Lagrangian studies allow to obtain maps of the source regions at spatial detail, which does not seem to be available easily from either of the methods applied here.
L. 69: "While..." I do not understand where this information belongs. Rephrase?
L. 76: "For the first time..." - I do not think this is a valid claim. There have been many studies before of Antarctic precipitation origin, both from climate model tracers and with trajectory approaches. As all other approaches, your methods have their limitations. I recommend to moderate this statement.
L. 80-83: This table of content sentences appear unnecessary and can be removed.
L. 93: Please state the exact elevation difference
L. 101: This is a bit of a confusing statement. Wind at the surface is by definition zero. The equation also just states the wind at the lowest surface level, rather than a vertial wind gradient.
L. 121: Since this is a new implementation, some demonstration of the performance and evaluation should be given in the main manuscript. The comparison shown in Fig. B11 is also not very convincing, and only considers the "easy" case of latitude boxes. How well does this compare to, for example, in a setup with longitude boxes?
L. 125: The direct source-sink distance with underestimate the transport distance.
L. 135: 0.002 mm day-1 is a much smaller number than can be measured in reality. How useful is it to define this threshold? How sensitive are your results to the choice of this threshold? This is an example for factors that contribute to the uncertainty of your results and conclusions, and should be discussed openly.
L. 140: It is not clear whether this percentile is a local choice at every grid point, or for the overall precipitation
L. 147-151: This table of contents section is not needed and can be removed
L. 153: Figure 1 is not introduced and described properly, only a general takeaway is given. This makes it difficult for the reader to examine the figure. The same applies to many other figures in the manuscript. Individual figure panels need to be referred to in the text.
L. 160: Fig. B3 and B4 are discussed in the text, so it would be natural to include those with Fig. 1 as sub-panels. Fig. B4 would come logically before Fig. B3.
L. 167: "suggests that both": I find this conclusion too vague. Can this be documented concretely? How do we know the information in Fig. B5 is sufficient as a basis for further analysis?
Section 3.2 does not work well. I understood only much later that you use here the source region tracer to extract the provided information (if I understood correctly). The information in Fig. 2 and 3 is not introduced and described well enough to capture the information easily. Can Fig. 2 and 3 be combined into one figure? Fig. 3 would also be more logical to look at before Fig. 2.
L. 176: Where in Fig. 3 can these percent contributions be seen?
L. 177: the maximum -> it's maximum
Figure 4: This is an interesting figure, but I am not sure I interpret it correctly, and it is only discussed briefly. Is this figure showing all moisture in the atmosphere, or only such that contributes to precipitation in Antarctica? Has this result been obtained with the source region tracer, or the source property tracer?
L. 186: In this context, there are several studies that can be referred to, including Stohl and Sodemann, 2010 and Terpstra et al., 2021.
L. 203: milder -> warmer
L. 204: "may also play a role": can this speculation be backed up in some way?
L. 207: "We speculate that...": can this be investigated further in the light of previous studies? Sodemann and Stohl (2009), their Fig. 1 and 2, have maps that can be directly compared to your results.
L. 209: Figure B6b seems to contain important information, should it no then be part of the main text?
L. 211: "Having dealt with...": rephrase, find a better connection/transition.
L. 223-226: rephrase to provide a more direct message. What are "other forms of storms"?
L. 229: Eq. 1 does not contain rh2m nor SST
L. 229: Hard to follow the discussion here. Can it be said more clearly what decouples from one another?
L. 231-238: This message in this text is not very clear. What exactly is the difference between panels a and b? How do you explain the difference? And why is this a thermodynamic control? Wind speed would generally be categorized as dynamic rather than thermodynamic.
Could it be interesting to set these findings in perspective with histogram plots, and identify the percentile of evaporation events that contribute on average to Antarctic precipitation?
L. 241-246: It is not clear what information should be picked up from this paragraph, and what is the conclusion. The information is provided in an appendix figure instead of the main text, which makes it very difficult to see the relevant information together with the text. Either this paragraph and the appendix figure should be removed, or selected panels be shown in the main text to make the information accessible.
L. 253: This appendix figure is not self-explaining. How does it connect to what is said in the text? Is this a necessary figure to include?
L. 254: The contents of Fig. 8 are not described here, but after Fig. 9 is introduced. Reorder figures or discussion.
L. 258: "This hypothesis...". I have the impression the word hypothesis is used wrongly here. Terpstra et al., (2021) rather state this as a finding of their case study, and you hypothesize that this can be of more general validity, which is what you test in your analysis - correct?
Figure 8: How important is the 0.001 mm day-1 threshold value for these results?
Figure 9: Do all these figure panels need to be shown? Not all of them are discussed sufficiently at the moment.
The positive source latitude difference being more equatorward is counter-intuitive. Can this be reversed?
L. 263: I would make sense to flip numbering of Fig. 8 and 9 as they appear in the manuscript.
L. 287: Figure 10 is not properly introduced and described, only a general conclusion is given. As a reader, I am left alone in the interpretation of Fig. 10.
Figure B9: If this is a valuable result figure, it should be part of the main text, otherwise left out.
L. 303: Posing a rethorical question in a text can be confusing to the reader. Who should answer this?
L. 305: Fig. B10 is not described in the main text or appendix. If this is valuable material to include, it needs to be described properly somewhere.
L. 312: "we develop the dynamic": The impact of this tracking is not shown or discussed in the manuscript, and can thus not be part of the conclusions.
L. 315: "our preindustrial": puzzled by this ownership statement.
L. 319: "spatial patterns are...": unclear what this statement means.
L. 322: Bailey et al., 2019: is this the only/most relevant study to include? There are several older studies that looked into these aspects.
L. 323: The findings here appear to be very consistent with previous results. I think that is remarkable, that different methods end up with such similar numbers. It needs to be stated clearly that your results are confirming other work, maintaining and strengthening previous work that builds on these numbers. This is an important conclusion that needs to appear in the abstract, the results, and the conclusions, with referencing.
L. 328: "more precise value": as stated earlier, I am not convinced this is true. Your method advects mass-weighted averages, which means that part of the underlying variation is simply not visible.
L. 339: It might be useful to distinguish the HP/LP results and SAM results in two sentences or paragraphs.
References
Stohl, A., and Sodemann, H. (2010), Characteristics of atmospheric transport into the Antarctic troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D02305, doi:10.1029/2009JD012536.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1041-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Qinggang Gao, 23 Oct 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 367 | 133 | 29 | 529 | 16 | 21 |
- HTML: 367
- PDF: 133
- XML: 29
- Total: 529
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Qinggang Gao
Louise C. Sime
Alison McLaren
Thomas J. Bracegirdle
Emilie Capron
Rachael H. Rhodes
Hans Christian Steen-Larsen
Xiaoxu Shi
Martin Werner
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(26266 KB) - Metadata XML