the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Construction and Application of a Pollen Emissions Model based on Phenology and Random Forests
Abstract. In recent years, the intensification of global climate change and environmental pollution has led to a marked increase in pollen-induced allergic diseases. This study leverages 16 years of continuous pollen monitoring data, alongside meteorological factors and plant functional type data, to construct a pollen emissions model using phenology and random forests (RF). This model is then employed to simulate the emission characteristics of three primary types of autumn pollen (Artemisia, Chenopod, and total pollen concentration), elucidating the emission patterns throughout the seasonal cycle in Beijing. Phenology and RF precisely simulate the start and end day of year of pollen, as well as the annual pollen production. There are significant spatiotemporal differences among the three types of pollen. On average, pollen dispersal begins around August 10, peaks around August 30, and concludes by September 25, with a dispersal period lasting approximately 45 days. Furthermore, the relationship between pollen emissions and meteorological factors is investigated, revealing that temperature, relative humidity (RH), and sunshine hours (SSH) significantly influence annual pollen emissions. Specifically, temperature and RH exhibit a strong positive correlation with annual pollen emissions, while SSH shows a negative correlation. Different pollen types display varied responses to meteorological factors. Finally, the constructed pollen emissions model is integrated into RegCM and validated using pollen observation data, confirming its reliability in predicting pollen concentrations. This study not only enhances the understanding of pollen release mechanisms but also provides scientific evidence for the selection and planting of urban greening plants.
- Preprint
(2750 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(580 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2000', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Nov 2024
This work by Li et al., has successfully constructed a pollen emission model based on phenology and random forest algorithm based on the 16 years of pollen observation data observed in Beijing. Moreover, the impact of temperature and relative humidity on the pollen emission has been reported. Furtherly, this pollen emission model was integrated into the regional climate model to validate the reliability of this model. The work presents a useful pollen prediction model for future prediction.
General points:
- why the data was stopped at 2021? Could this model be used to predict those for year 2022, 2023?
- there are too many figures and tables in this manuscript. I would suggest the authors to move some of them into the supporting information.
- previous literatures on pollen prediction model should be introduced in the introduction. How about the advancement of the current model when compared to those in the literatures?
Minor points:
Line 31: RegCM. The first time it appeared, the full name should be appeared first. Similar for sDOY, eDOY in lines 134-135.
Lines 58-62: references should be provided.
Line 95, Line 103: what is the difference between numerical model and pollen emission model? It would be better to clearly explain it here.
Line 123: how was this formula obtained? Was this a novel formula or from literatures?
Line 147: what is the meaning of Rs1, Rs2, Rssig?
Line 182: Has the RF algorithm been used for pollen emission simulation in the previous literatures?
Section 3.1.1: was temperature the only variable in this autumn phenology model?
Lines 548-551: please provide more details or discussions regarding the linkage between pollen amount and climate change.
Lines 617-625: it seems that basic information regarding the RegCM should be in the introduction section. It might be better for the authors to concise the current introduction and move such information into the introduction also.
Section 3.3.1: some of them should be in the introduction section, and some may be better be in the method section.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2000-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jiangtao Li, 13 Nov 2024
Thank you for your detailed and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have addressed all of your concerns and questions in the attached PDF. In the document, your review comments are displayed in black text, and our responses and corresponding revisions are highlighted in red. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2000', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Nov 2024
Predicting allergenic pollen concentrations is important for urban public health management in the context of climate change. This study attempted to construct a pollen emission model using phenology and random forests, which was further integrated into RegCM to predict pollen concentrations driven by meteorological forecasts. Although the topic is important, several concerns prevent me from recommending this paper for publication in ACP. First, the novelty of the method is insufficient. The authors claim that the use of phenology and RF is a major novelty of this study, but previous studies such as Lo et al. (2018) in North America, Shokouhi et al. (2024) in Europe, and Huete et al. (2019) in southeastern Australia have all considered phenology and used RF models for pollen forecasting. Therefore, the novelty of this study is questionable. Second, plant functional type is an important information to determine the source of pollen emission, especially the partitioning of grasses into cool season C3 and warm season C4 components. For an urban study such as this one, the spatial resolution of the PFT data should be sufficient to resolve the spatial heteorogeneity of the PFT (C3/C4 partitioning). Instead of searching for a fine-scale local PFT database and validating it against in-situ measurements, the authors used a coarse-resolution (~5 km) database from NCAR's CLM, originally developed for global simulations. Uncertainties associated with the coarse-resolution PFT data are not rigorously considered or critically discussed in the error propagation. Finally, the quality of the figures presented is generally poor, often lacking critical information for the reader to appreciate the figure (e.g. Fig. 11, the reason for using two identical y-axes but with different scales is not mentioned in the figure caption, very difficult to understand). As such, I think the quality and novelty of this study does not meet the standard of ACP.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2000-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
128 | 23 | 123 | 274 | 11 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 128
- PDF: 23
- XML: 123
- Total: 274
- Supplement: 11
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1