the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatiotemporal variations in terrestrial biospheric CO2 fluxes of India derived from MODIS, OCO-2 and TROPOMI satellite observations and a diagnostic terrestrial vegetation model
Abstract. Accurate quantification of regional terrestrial fluxes is essential for improving our knowledge of the carbon sequestration potential of ecosystems, ecosystem functioning, and emission reduction demand in the context of climate change mitigation. However, the quantification is challenging owing to methodological and observational constraints, especially for regions with severe gaps in the ground-based observational network, like India. This study examines the potential of recent satellite missions, such as TROPOMI and OCO-2 providing retrievals of Solar-Induced chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF) to improve terrestrial biosphere CO2 flux estimates over India. Here, we present high-resolution estimates of Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) and Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) over India on a 0.1°×0.1° grid at a temporal resolution of 1 hour from 2012 to 2020. These products can be used for various applications such as those related to the carbon cycle (e.g., inverse modelling of CO2), benchmarking terrestrial biosphere models over the region, and understanding ecosystem responses to climate change. We follow a satellite-based diagnostic data-driven approach using a biosphere model, namely the Vegetation Photosynthesis and Respiration Model (VPRM) simulating both GPP and NEE, based on light use efficiency and satellite observations of the near-infrared radiance of vegetation (NIRv). We calibrate the standard VPRM GPP estimates using SIF-GPP relationship and investigate the model performance by comparing the simulations with eddy-covariance flux tower measurements. Our best model predictions are with a mean bias error (MBE) = 2.4 µmol m-2 s-1, root mean squared error (RMSE) = 3.8 µmol m-2 s-1 and squared correlation coefficient (R2) = 0.56 when evaluating with observations at a monthly scale over the period from 2012 to 2018. The observed seasonal anomalies in NEE and GPP range from -4.9 to 8.0 µmol m-2 s-1 and -7.0 to 17.0 µmol m-2 s-1, respectively, and are well captured by our model. The model simulations are highly correlated with observations during 2018, the only common year when both EC and SIF observations are available, with R2 values of 0.68 and 0.74 for NEE and GPP, respectively. Incorporating the SIF signals in the vegetation model improves model performance in capturing the seasonality and magnitudes of GPP, thereby improving the estimates of NEE. We show the influence of soil temperature and soil moisture on ecosystem respiration and refined the VPRM's ecosystem respiration calculation to better constrain the fluxes, resulting in simulations closer to the observations. Ecosystem respiration fluxes are less well constrained than ecosystem productivity fluxes due to limited observations. Based on satellite observations and the refined model, the annual NEE and GPP estimates range from -0.38 Pg C yr-1 to -0.53 Pg C yr-1 (land C sink) and 3.39 Pg C yr-1 to 3.88 Pg C yr-1, respectively, over India for the years from 2012 to 2020. The biospheric flux distribution over the region is found to be associated with ecosystem heterogeneity, variations in precipitation, and soil characteristics at a regional scale. Overall, our results show that the satellite-based SIF data products can potentially inform ecosystem-scale vegetation responses across biomes in India. Future improvements in the terrestrial biosphere CO2 flux estimates over India can be attained through the carbon cycle data assimilation with the availability of both flux and mixing ratio observations of CO2.
- Preprint
(2815 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(568 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-817', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jun 2023
The manuscript by Ravi et al. deals with the estimation of CO2 fluxes in India using a combination of model and vegetation-related remote sensing data. I think the study has some interesting points, such as the exploitation of SIF data to improve model-based estimate of carbon fluxes and the analysis of the spatio-temporal variation of these fluxes in India. The text is overall well written and the figures are clear.
On the other hand, I have a number of methodological issues regarding the way in which SIF is used to improve GPP estimates by the model (this is the part that I can better cover):
- SIF products: two SIF products are chosen, one (TROPOSIF) is a real SIF product based on TROPOMI, whereas the other (GOSIF) is a merge of OCO-2 SIF retrievals and MODIS reflectance. TROPOSIF data have a coarser spatial resolution and a shorter time series than GOSIF, but a better temporal resolution and supposedly a higher sensitivity to vegetation physiological processes. I haven’t been able to understand why the two products are chosen, since I don’t see the synergies between the two exploited in the study (only a comparison in Fig.5).
- SIF-GPP scaling: actually, is there a real need for SIF products to improve VPRM GPP estimates? At the moment, SIF data are scaled to GPP using a 3rd SIF based product (GOSIF-GPP) as the GPP reference, and the resulting GPP(SIF) is used to scale the VPRM GPP output. I wonder, could one just directly link GOSIF-GPP to VPRM GPP for this scaling, without going through the separate SIF products as an intermediate step?
I think the authors should more clearly justify the use of the two SIF products, or move to a framework in which only GOSIF-GPP is used if there was no added-value in the use of the separate SIF products.
Other comments:
Title: I would remove the list of satellites, as “CO2 fluxes of India derived from satellite observations”
Abstract: I think it is too long and would greatly benefit from shortening.
L122: I would say that current SIF retrievals actually suffer from low precision (high noise) rather than from systematic errors
L123: the discussion on when and where SIF can be related to GPP (high light conditions etc) is important, and I think it should be extended.
L128: Frankenberg et al. (2011) is a reference for GOSAT SIF, and Joiner et al., (2013) should be the one for GOME-2
L134-154: reads more as Methods than as Introduction
L159: could you discuss how representative that one flux tower is for all the ecosystems in India? And is the tower footprint wide enough to allow comparison to 0.05 or 0.1º data?
L236: The reference for TROPOSIF is Guanter et al. (2021) (Koehler et al. would be for the Caltech SIF product)
L243: TROPOSIF is daily, not hourly; also, how are the TROPOSIF data being used? Cloud fraction? Wavelength? Daylength-corrected or not? All these things really matter, especially in the frequently cloud-covered regions in India
L346: I actually find it surprising how low these correlations are (perhaps only due to random noise?)
L362: only 743-758 nm retrievals should be used for TROPOSIF, there are issues with 735-758 nm retrievals (see Guanter et al., 2021)
L374: the double growing season and the impact of climate on SIF in India are also discussed in https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320008111 and https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14302
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-817-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
We are greatly thankful to Reviewers 1 and 2 for providing insightful comments on our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments, suggestions, and concerns raised by the reviewers and incorporated associated modifications in the manuscript.
The author's comments on the review are attached as a supplement.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-817', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2023
This is a review of "Spatiotemporal variations in terrestrial biospheric CO2 fluxes of India derived from MODIS, OCO-2 and TROPOMI satellite observations and a diagnostic terrestrial vegetation model" by Ravi, et al., under consideration for publication in Biogeosciences.The article presents a novel method to estimate regional gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (Re), and net ecosytem exchange (NEE) in regions sparsely covered by eddy covariance (EC) observations. This topic is important, as large areas of the world's land mass are not well characterised by EC observations. The authors begin with an ecosystem model, VPRM, with an extensive history of peer-reviewed publications documenting its application to regional flux estimation. Traditionally VPRM would be calibrated against EC observations; the authors address the sparsity of EC sites in India by nudging VPRM's fluxes toward solar-induced fluorescence (SIF)-derived GPP and Re derived from the FLUXCOM global analysis of eddy covariance datasets. This approach is, to my knowledge, novel and in my opinion worthwhile. The paper is well-written. I outline below some questions and concerns I have; in my opinion the article may be published in Biogeosciences if these are addressed.
CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
=================================This study has presented a novel way of estimating GPP, Re, and NEE via coupling SIF observations, FLUXCOM/FLUXNET, and VPRM. These new flux estimates are *different* from previous estimates; In my opinion, ideally this study should answer the overarching question "are these new flux estimates *better* than existing methods". The authors demonstrate that their results fit the Betul EC dataset better than the TRENDYv10 ensemble or the individual driver datasets (SIF, FLUXCOM, FLUXNET) used. However, I am somewhat perplexed by the methodology described in sections 2.2 and 2.3. I am concerned that the assessment of model improvement relies on improved correlation at a single EC site (Betul) with no assessment of goodness of fit versus parsimony relative to VPRMstd or discussion of how representative Betul is of India.
It makes sense to me to use other datasets (SIF, FLUXCOM/FLUXNET) to drive VPRM in the absence of EC data. But eq (8) makes the modified GPP a linear function of SIF-derived GPP. This raises several concerns. First, it makes sense to me that GPPvprm,mod fits the Betul data better than the GPPvprm alone, because GPPvprm,mod introduces additional parameters to the model. I think it is necessary to some sort of fit-parsimony calculation (e.g. Akaike's Information Criterion, Bayesian Information Criterion, etc.) to assess whether VPRMrefined truly improves VPRMstd.
Second, did you consider estimating VPRMstd parameter values by minimizing its difference with the SIF-derived GPP products over your domain? This seems a more rigourous approach to me.
Betul is not the only EC site in India: see also Barkot Flux Research Site, IARI Flux Site, Haldwani Forest Plantation, all operating since 2012. IARI Flux Site seems of particular relevance, as it observes a cropland and croplands comprise almost 70 percent of India's land area (L557). Did you consider estimating parameters for VPRMstd by minimising the VPRMstd error against all these EC sites? Seems to me you would then have a much better starting point than those estimated against Amazonian biomes (L225). You could build in SIF to the VPRM GPP equation (eq 8), estimate the SIF, LSWI, and PAR parameters jointly, and test against held-out EC data. I think some text is needed to justify the current setup of the study.
When calibrating Reco,vprm,mod parameters (L278-283), did you remove Betul's data from the calibration dataset? This is important because you are evaluating model performance against Betul. How did you calibrate the parameters? You must describe this -- there are entire papers on this topic, and there is no description here.
FLUXCOM and FLUXNET are global datasets. What sites did you use when calibrating the respiration model (L283 to 288)? Are those sites in India? If not, why do you think they will work better than or are more appropriate than, say, the Amazonian parameters which you note (L227) might lead to reduced model performance?
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
===============================This study uses a great many datasets for different phases of model tuning and evaluation. I think the article would benefit greatly from a flowchart-style figure early in the text summarizing which datasets informed which pieces of the process.
L226: what modifications did you make to these parameters, and why? Please make this explicit.
How good is the GPP-SIF relationship in India? These lines note that the relationship weakens during drought stress, and India has a distinct wet/dry season.
L260: The sigma indicates a summation; what are you summing over? Also, what is epsilon? I assume some sort of error term, but it is not defined. Please define it and explain how you determined its value.
L264: How do you derive or obtain this relationship between GPPsif and GPPvprm?
L350: "the highest SIF values": are you talking about SIF, or SIF-derived GPP? SIF and GPP are inversely correlated; if the desert areas have the lowest values I presume you are talking about SIF-derived GPP, not SIF itself.
L389: I'm confused; GPP and SIF are inversely correlated, but these scalars describe a linear relationship with positive slope.
L659-661: Please remove this sentence - it is a tautology. VPRM is driven by temperature, moisture, and radiation; it follows that its GPP, Re, and NEE spatial heterogeneity must vary with those drivers!
Is the code used for analysis and plotting publicly available?
Table 2 is confusing: Do the 'a.' and 'b.' in the caption correspond to the aT, bT, aM, bM, etc? If so, the different typesetting (boldface in caption, italics in table) is confusing. If not, what do a and b from the caption refer to in the table? There is a "2" floating in space between the Savanna and Shrubland lines, and two "6"s floating in space below the Mixed Forest line.
Fig. 1: The colormap makes it very hard to distinguish Savanna, Grassland, Shrubland in the map, and deciduous forest from mixed. Please consider higher-contrast colors.
Fig 3: Are the GOSIF values in the first row scaled up as described in L361-365? The GOSIF values in the plot do not appear 3 to 4 times the TROPOSIF values. If the plot shows the adjusted values, please note in the caption.
Fig 5: please show VPRMrefined in this figure. VPRMrefined is your main product, yes?
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
==============================================L77: change "their net" to "their net difference"
L88-89: "its importance in the global carbon budget": citation needed
L105: "coarse resolution, e.g., 2' x 2'" - did the authors really mean two minutes? 1/30 degrees by 1/30 degrees is much higher resolution than anything in this study or most others. Did the authors mean "2° x 2° (that is, 2 degrees by 2 degrees)?
L148: "We expect...": citation needed
L346: change "regirdded" to "regridded"
L354: "(2019 to 2020)": please remove the parentheses
L530: "uptake capacity of the Indian region by -0.14 Pg" - is there a word missing between "region" and "by"? Please reword.
L563: "The highest productivity of forest ecosystems over Grassland": This confuses me - please reword.
L671: "when the respiration model parameters calibrated using FLUXNET": parameters ARE/WERE calibrated?
Fig 5: Is the solid black line in the legend correspond to the dashed black line in the plot?
Fig 10, 11: These colormaps make it very difficult to resolve one line from one another in these two plots. Please consider dots, dashes, different plot markers to help distinguish.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-817-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
Response to Reviewers’ Comments
We are greatly thankful to Reviewers 1 and 2 for providing insightful comments on our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments, suggestions, and concerns raised by the reviewers and incorporated associated modifications in the manuscript.
The author's comments to the review are attached as a supplement.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-817', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jun 2023
The manuscript by Ravi et al. deals with the estimation of CO2 fluxes in India using a combination of model and vegetation-related remote sensing data. I think the study has some interesting points, such as the exploitation of SIF data to improve model-based estimate of carbon fluxes and the analysis of the spatio-temporal variation of these fluxes in India. The text is overall well written and the figures are clear.
On the other hand, I have a number of methodological issues regarding the way in which SIF is used to improve GPP estimates by the model (this is the part that I can better cover):
- SIF products: two SIF products are chosen, one (TROPOSIF) is a real SIF product based on TROPOMI, whereas the other (GOSIF) is a merge of OCO-2 SIF retrievals and MODIS reflectance. TROPOSIF data have a coarser spatial resolution and a shorter time series than GOSIF, but a better temporal resolution and supposedly a higher sensitivity to vegetation physiological processes. I haven’t been able to understand why the two products are chosen, since I don’t see the synergies between the two exploited in the study (only a comparison in Fig.5).
- SIF-GPP scaling: actually, is there a real need for SIF products to improve VPRM GPP estimates? At the moment, SIF data are scaled to GPP using a 3rd SIF based product (GOSIF-GPP) as the GPP reference, and the resulting GPP(SIF) is used to scale the VPRM GPP output. I wonder, could one just directly link GOSIF-GPP to VPRM GPP for this scaling, without going through the separate SIF products as an intermediate step?
I think the authors should more clearly justify the use of the two SIF products, or move to a framework in which only GOSIF-GPP is used if there was no added-value in the use of the separate SIF products.
Other comments:
Title: I would remove the list of satellites, as “CO2 fluxes of India derived from satellite observations”
Abstract: I think it is too long and would greatly benefit from shortening.
L122: I would say that current SIF retrievals actually suffer from low precision (high noise) rather than from systematic errors
L123: the discussion on when and where SIF can be related to GPP (high light conditions etc) is important, and I think it should be extended.
L128: Frankenberg et al. (2011) is a reference for GOSAT SIF, and Joiner et al., (2013) should be the one for GOME-2
L134-154: reads more as Methods than as Introduction
L159: could you discuss how representative that one flux tower is for all the ecosystems in India? And is the tower footprint wide enough to allow comparison to 0.05 or 0.1º data?
L236: The reference for TROPOSIF is Guanter et al. (2021) (Koehler et al. would be for the Caltech SIF product)
L243: TROPOSIF is daily, not hourly; also, how are the TROPOSIF data being used? Cloud fraction? Wavelength? Daylength-corrected or not? All these things really matter, especially in the frequently cloud-covered regions in India
L346: I actually find it surprising how low these correlations are (perhaps only due to random noise?)
L362: only 743-758 nm retrievals should be used for TROPOSIF, there are issues with 735-758 nm retrievals (see Guanter et al., 2021)
L374: the double growing season and the impact of climate on SIF in India are also discussed in https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320008111 and https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14302
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-817-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
We are greatly thankful to Reviewers 1 and 2 for providing insightful comments on our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments, suggestions, and concerns raised by the reviewers and incorporated associated modifications in the manuscript.
The author's comments on the review are attached as a supplement.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-817', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2023
This is a review of "Spatiotemporal variations in terrestrial biospheric CO2 fluxes of India derived from MODIS, OCO-2 and TROPOMI satellite observations and a diagnostic terrestrial vegetation model" by Ravi, et al., under consideration for publication in Biogeosciences.The article presents a novel method to estimate regional gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (Re), and net ecosytem exchange (NEE) in regions sparsely covered by eddy covariance (EC) observations. This topic is important, as large areas of the world's land mass are not well characterised by EC observations. The authors begin with an ecosystem model, VPRM, with an extensive history of peer-reviewed publications documenting its application to regional flux estimation. Traditionally VPRM would be calibrated against EC observations; the authors address the sparsity of EC sites in India by nudging VPRM's fluxes toward solar-induced fluorescence (SIF)-derived GPP and Re derived from the FLUXCOM global analysis of eddy covariance datasets. This approach is, to my knowledge, novel and in my opinion worthwhile. The paper is well-written. I outline below some questions and concerns I have; in my opinion the article may be published in Biogeosciences if these are addressed.
CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
=================================This study has presented a novel way of estimating GPP, Re, and NEE via coupling SIF observations, FLUXCOM/FLUXNET, and VPRM. These new flux estimates are *different* from previous estimates; In my opinion, ideally this study should answer the overarching question "are these new flux estimates *better* than existing methods". The authors demonstrate that their results fit the Betul EC dataset better than the TRENDYv10 ensemble or the individual driver datasets (SIF, FLUXCOM, FLUXNET) used. However, I am somewhat perplexed by the methodology described in sections 2.2 and 2.3. I am concerned that the assessment of model improvement relies on improved correlation at a single EC site (Betul) with no assessment of goodness of fit versus parsimony relative to VPRMstd or discussion of how representative Betul is of India.
It makes sense to me to use other datasets (SIF, FLUXCOM/FLUXNET) to drive VPRM in the absence of EC data. But eq (8) makes the modified GPP a linear function of SIF-derived GPP. This raises several concerns. First, it makes sense to me that GPPvprm,mod fits the Betul data better than the GPPvprm alone, because GPPvprm,mod introduces additional parameters to the model. I think it is necessary to some sort of fit-parsimony calculation (e.g. Akaike's Information Criterion, Bayesian Information Criterion, etc.) to assess whether VPRMrefined truly improves VPRMstd.
Second, did you consider estimating VPRMstd parameter values by minimizing its difference with the SIF-derived GPP products over your domain? This seems a more rigourous approach to me.
Betul is not the only EC site in India: see also Barkot Flux Research Site, IARI Flux Site, Haldwani Forest Plantation, all operating since 2012. IARI Flux Site seems of particular relevance, as it observes a cropland and croplands comprise almost 70 percent of India's land area (L557). Did you consider estimating parameters for VPRMstd by minimising the VPRMstd error against all these EC sites? Seems to me you would then have a much better starting point than those estimated against Amazonian biomes (L225). You could build in SIF to the VPRM GPP equation (eq 8), estimate the SIF, LSWI, and PAR parameters jointly, and test against held-out EC data. I think some text is needed to justify the current setup of the study.
When calibrating Reco,vprm,mod parameters (L278-283), did you remove Betul's data from the calibration dataset? This is important because you are evaluating model performance against Betul. How did you calibrate the parameters? You must describe this -- there are entire papers on this topic, and there is no description here.
FLUXCOM and FLUXNET are global datasets. What sites did you use when calibrating the respiration model (L283 to 288)? Are those sites in India? If not, why do you think they will work better than or are more appropriate than, say, the Amazonian parameters which you note (L227) might lead to reduced model performance?
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
===============================This study uses a great many datasets for different phases of model tuning and evaluation. I think the article would benefit greatly from a flowchart-style figure early in the text summarizing which datasets informed which pieces of the process.
L226: what modifications did you make to these parameters, and why? Please make this explicit.
How good is the GPP-SIF relationship in India? These lines note that the relationship weakens during drought stress, and India has a distinct wet/dry season.
L260: The sigma indicates a summation; what are you summing over? Also, what is epsilon? I assume some sort of error term, but it is not defined. Please define it and explain how you determined its value.
L264: How do you derive or obtain this relationship between GPPsif and GPPvprm?
L350: "the highest SIF values": are you talking about SIF, or SIF-derived GPP? SIF and GPP are inversely correlated; if the desert areas have the lowest values I presume you are talking about SIF-derived GPP, not SIF itself.
L389: I'm confused; GPP and SIF are inversely correlated, but these scalars describe a linear relationship with positive slope.
L659-661: Please remove this sentence - it is a tautology. VPRM is driven by temperature, moisture, and radiation; it follows that its GPP, Re, and NEE spatial heterogeneity must vary with those drivers!
Is the code used for analysis and plotting publicly available?
Table 2 is confusing: Do the 'a.' and 'b.' in the caption correspond to the aT, bT, aM, bM, etc? If so, the different typesetting (boldface in caption, italics in table) is confusing. If not, what do a and b from the caption refer to in the table? There is a "2" floating in space between the Savanna and Shrubland lines, and two "6"s floating in space below the Mixed Forest line.
Fig. 1: The colormap makes it very hard to distinguish Savanna, Grassland, Shrubland in the map, and deciduous forest from mixed. Please consider higher-contrast colors.
Fig 3: Are the GOSIF values in the first row scaled up as described in L361-365? The GOSIF values in the plot do not appear 3 to 4 times the TROPOSIF values. If the plot shows the adjusted values, please note in the caption.
Fig 5: please show VPRMrefined in this figure. VPRMrefined is your main product, yes?
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
==============================================L77: change "their net" to "their net difference"
L88-89: "its importance in the global carbon budget": citation needed
L105: "coarse resolution, e.g., 2' x 2'" - did the authors really mean two minutes? 1/30 degrees by 1/30 degrees is much higher resolution than anything in this study or most others. Did the authors mean "2° x 2° (that is, 2 degrees by 2 degrees)?
L148: "We expect...": citation needed
L346: change "regirdded" to "regridded"
L354: "(2019 to 2020)": please remove the parentheses
L530: "uptake capacity of the Indian region by -0.14 Pg" - is there a word missing between "region" and "by"? Please reword.
L563: "The highest productivity of forest ecosystems over Grassland": This confuses me - please reword.
L671: "when the respiration model parameters calibrated using FLUXNET": parameters ARE/WERE calibrated?
Fig 5: Is the solid black line in the legend correspond to the dashed black line in the plot?
Fig 10, 11: These colormaps make it very difficult to resolve one line from one another in these two plots. Please consider dots, dashes, different plot markers to help distinguish.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-817-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
Response to Reviewers’ Comments
We are greatly thankful to Reviewers 1 and 2 for providing insightful comments on our manuscript. We have addressed all the comments, suggestions, and concerns raised by the reviewers and incorporated associated modifications in the manuscript.
The author's comments to the review are attached as a supplement.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Aparnna Ravi P, 24 Jul 2023
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
495 | 219 | 53 | 767 | 71 | 39 | 31 |
- HTML: 495
- PDF: 219
- XML: 53
- Total: 767
- Supplement: 71
- BibTeX: 39
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1