the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modeling boreal forest’s mineral soil and peat C stock dynamics with Yasso07 model coupled with updated moisture modifier
Abstract. As soil microbial respiration is the major component of land CO2 emissions, differences in the functional dependence of respiration on soil moisture among the Earth system models (ESM) contributes significantly to the uncertainties in their projections.
Using soil organic C (SOC) stocks and CO2 data from a boreal forest – mire ecotone in Finland and Bayesian data assimilation, we revised the precipitation-based environmental function of the Yasso07 soil carbon model. We fit this function to the observed microbial respiration response to moisture and compared its performance against the original Yasso07 model and the version used in the JSBACH land surface model with a reduction constant for decomposition rates in wetlands.
The Yasso07 soil C model coupled with the calibrated unimodal moisture function with an optimum in dry soils accurately reconstructed observed SOC stocks and soil CO2 emissions and clearly outperformed previous model versions on paludified organo-mineral soils in forested peatlands and water-saturated organic soils in mires. The best estimate of the posterior moisture response of decomposition used both measurements of SOC stocks and CO2 data from the full range of moisture conditions (from dry/xeric to wet/water-saturated soils). We observed unbiased residuals of SOC and CO2 data modelled with the moisture optimum in well-drained soils, suggesting that this modified function accounts more precisely for the long-term SOC change dependency according to ecosystem properties as well as the contribution of short term CO2 responses including extreme events.
The optimum moisture for decomposition in boreal forests was in dry well-drained soils instead of the mid-range between dry and water-saturated conditions as is commonly assumed among many soil C and ESM models. Although the unimodal moisture modifier with an optimum in well-drained soils implicitly incorporates robust biogeochemical mechanisms of SOC accumulation and CO2 emissions, it needs further evaluation with large scale data to determine if its use in land surface models will decrease the uncertainty of projections.
-
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
(1844 KB)
-
Supplement
(521 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1844 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(521 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1523', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1523', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Dec 2023
The manuscript presents an updated environmental modifier for the soil organic matter decay function within Yasso07 model. The authors use the field measurements of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil heterotrophic respiration in an upland-peatland complex in southern Finland to calibrate the environmental modifier function, which simulates the effects of soil temperature and moisture on the organic matter decay. The study is timely and well-suited for publication in the GMD following authors’ addressing the comments and suggestions outlined below.
It was somewhat surprising to see the parameters in Tables 1 and 2 not aligning very well. Q10’s estimated with the data assimilation using SOC and SOC+CO2 flux were much higher compared with those estimated using NLS approach using the heterotrophic CO2 flux alone and SWCopt were much lower. Authors attributed the difference to different basal respiration rates in Yasso07 and NLS, however I would argue that Q10 and SWCopt control the curvature the respiration’s curve, and basal respiration rate, being a scaling parameter, should not affect the values of Q10 and SWC opt in such a profound way. I think such a difference in these parameter values may be attributed to the weighing of the observations in the data assimilation approach: SOC stocks appear to have a much larger influence on the posterior parameters compared to the CO2 flux. The posterior values of parameters a and b from the equation 6 were not reported (I assume they were estimated, because there are prior values reported in the Table S1), so it was impossible for me to evaluate whether that may have been the case. I would suggest doing one more calibration experiment to explore whether the data weighing is an issue and calibrate the Yasso07 with CO2 observations alone. If the parameters are similar to the NLS, the weighing of the observations is likely the culprit. If it is, I would suggest weighing the observations by their individual errors: the larger is the error associated with the observation’s mean value, the lesser weight it should be attributed within the calibration algorithm. This way the algorithm would not “hack” itself to produce the smallest error, but rather be forced to gain information from the more precise observations.
It was not clear from the methods whether the data used for model validation were the same as the data used for model calibration. If the data were the same, I would suggest re-doing the calibration with less observations and reserving a portion of the observations for model validation. If the two observation sets are already separated, please include this information in the methods section.
The units of respiration are in g CO2, and within the model the units associated with C transfers are in g C, were the units of respiration converted to gC before calibration?
Below is the list of the minor comments and suggestions:
L23-24: “ “…calibrated against SOC and CO2 data using Bayesian MCMC approach showed …..”
L70: “…in underestimation…”
L55: what metal are the collars made of? Can it affect respiration rate?
L66-67: please include the depth increments
L176: “Breast height…”
L214: if inputs and pools are functions of time, I suggest adding (t) next to the vector elements
L216-218: I suggest revision of this statement. it's a product of a column vector by a row vector C(t), where the elements of the column vector are the fractions that were not transferred among the pools.
L240: the focus of this publication is different, I think a more appropriate reference is this one: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1259-2012
L278: N instead of n?
L440-443: this statement does not align with the results of the NLS regression of the respiration data performed in this study
L283: “the mean volumetric…”
Figure 4: please include legend for colors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1523-RC2 -
AC1: 'Final response to Reviewers on egusphere-2023-1523', Boris Tupek, 15 Feb 2024
Egusphere-2023-1523
Reply to reviewers on “Modeling boreal forest’s mineral soil and peat C dynamics with Yasso07 model coupled with Ricker moisture modifier”
Tupek et al. boris.tupek@luke.fi
We thank both reviewers for thoughtful and insightful evaluation of our study, and for constructive comments which helped to improve the paper!
Our replies are included as a separate document because we used highlighted text in yellow,
or green when referring to the implementation of the comments in the revised paper.The replies are constructed to address:
A) major comments and their implementation in revision (section "General reply and improvements")
B) detail response to each comment specific to Reviewer #1 and Reviewer#2 and their implementation in revisionEven though, the replies are specific they can slightly overlap if reviewers commented on the same issues.
Best regards,
Boris Tupek
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1523', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1523', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Dec 2023
The manuscript presents an updated environmental modifier for the soil organic matter decay function within Yasso07 model. The authors use the field measurements of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil heterotrophic respiration in an upland-peatland complex in southern Finland to calibrate the environmental modifier function, which simulates the effects of soil temperature and moisture on the organic matter decay. The study is timely and well-suited for publication in the GMD following authors’ addressing the comments and suggestions outlined below.
It was somewhat surprising to see the parameters in Tables 1 and 2 not aligning very well. Q10’s estimated with the data assimilation using SOC and SOC+CO2 flux were much higher compared with those estimated using NLS approach using the heterotrophic CO2 flux alone and SWCopt were much lower. Authors attributed the difference to different basal respiration rates in Yasso07 and NLS, however I would argue that Q10 and SWCopt control the curvature the respiration’s curve, and basal respiration rate, being a scaling parameter, should not affect the values of Q10 and SWC opt in such a profound way. I think such a difference in these parameter values may be attributed to the weighing of the observations in the data assimilation approach: SOC stocks appear to have a much larger influence on the posterior parameters compared to the CO2 flux. The posterior values of parameters a and b from the equation 6 were not reported (I assume they were estimated, because there are prior values reported in the Table S1), so it was impossible for me to evaluate whether that may have been the case. I would suggest doing one more calibration experiment to explore whether the data weighing is an issue and calibrate the Yasso07 with CO2 observations alone. If the parameters are similar to the NLS, the weighing of the observations is likely the culprit. If it is, I would suggest weighing the observations by their individual errors: the larger is the error associated with the observation’s mean value, the lesser weight it should be attributed within the calibration algorithm. This way the algorithm would not “hack” itself to produce the smallest error, but rather be forced to gain information from the more precise observations.
It was not clear from the methods whether the data used for model validation were the same as the data used for model calibration. If the data were the same, I would suggest re-doing the calibration with less observations and reserving a portion of the observations for model validation. If the two observation sets are already separated, please include this information in the methods section.
The units of respiration are in g CO2, and within the model the units associated with C transfers are in g C, were the units of respiration converted to gC before calibration?
Below is the list of the minor comments and suggestions:
L23-24: “ “…calibrated against SOC and CO2 data using Bayesian MCMC approach showed …..”
L70: “…in underestimation…”
L55: what metal are the collars made of? Can it affect respiration rate?
L66-67: please include the depth increments
L176: “Breast height…”
L214: if inputs and pools are functions of time, I suggest adding (t) next to the vector elements
L216-218: I suggest revision of this statement. it's a product of a column vector by a row vector C(t), where the elements of the column vector are the fractions that were not transferred among the pools.
L240: the focus of this publication is different, I think a more appropriate reference is this one: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1259-2012
L278: N instead of n?
L440-443: this statement does not align with the results of the NLS regression of the respiration data performed in this study
L283: “the mean volumetric…”
Figure 4: please include legend for colors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1523-RC2 -
AC1: 'Final response to Reviewers on egusphere-2023-1523', Boris Tupek, 15 Feb 2024
Egusphere-2023-1523
Reply to reviewers on “Modeling boreal forest’s mineral soil and peat C dynamics with Yasso07 model coupled with Ricker moisture modifier”
Tupek et al. boris.tupek@luke.fi
We thank both reviewers for thoughtful and insightful evaluation of our study, and for constructive comments which helped to improve the paper!
Our replies are included as a separate document because we used highlighted text in yellow,
or green when referring to the implementation of the comments in the revised paper.The replies are constructed to address:
A) major comments and their implementation in revision (section "General reply and improvements")
B) detail response to each comment specific to Reviewer #1 and Reviewer#2 and their implementation in revisionEven though, the replies are specific they can slightly overlap if reviewers commented on the same issues.
Best regards,
Boris Tupek
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
448 | 147 | 34 | 629 | 51 | 21 | 28 |
- HTML: 448
- PDF: 147
- XML: 34
- Total: 629
- Supplement: 51
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Aleksi Lehtonen
Alla Yurova
Rose Abramoff
Stefano Manzoni
Bertrand Guenet
Elisa Bruni
Samuli Launiainen
Mikko Peltoniemi
Shoji Hashimoto
Xianglin Tian
Juha Heikkinen
Kari Minkkinen
Raisa Mäkipää
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1844 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(521 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper