the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Sep 2024
Mount Pinatubo’s effect on the moisture-based drivers of plant productivity
Abstract. Large volcanic eruptions can significantly affect the state of the climate, including stratospheric sulfate concentrations, surface and top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes, stratospheric and surface temperature, and regional hydroclimate. The prevalence of higher natural variability in how the regional rainfall responds to the volcanic-induced climate perturbations creates a knowledge gap in understanding of how eruptions affect ecohydrological conditions and plant productivity. Here we will explore the understudied store (soil moisture) and flux (evapotranspiration) of water as the short-term ecohydrological control over plant productivity in response to the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. We used the NASA’s Earth system model for modeling of the 1991’s Mt. Pinatubo eruption and detection of hydroclimate response. The model simulates a radiative perturbation of -5 Wm-2 and mean surface cooling of ~ 0.5 °C following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991. The rainfall response is spatially heterogenous, due to dominating variability, yet still shows suppressed rainfall in the northern hemisphere after the eruption. We find that up to 10–15 % of land regions show a statistically significant agricultural response. Results confirm that these higher-order impacts successfully present a more robust understanding of inferred plant productivity impacts. Our results also explain the geographical dependence of various contributing factors to the compound response and their implications for exploring the climate impacts of such episodic forcings.
Competing interests: One of the co-authors is member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
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
(2824 KB)
-
Supplement
(1902 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2824 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1902 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2280', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ram Singh, 25 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2280', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2280/egusphere-2024-2280-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ram Singh, 25 Dec 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2280', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2024
The submitted manuscript examines how the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption impacted hydroclimatic conditions and water-related drivers of plant productivity through a series of Earth system model simulations. Unlike previous studies that mainly focused on radiation and temperature changes, according the authors, this work emphasizes the secondary impacts of volcanic eruptions by analyzing agricultural drought indices (SMDI and ETDI) to infer their effects on plant productivity. These indices reveal distinct moisture-driven dry and wet patterns in early 1992 and subsequent years over tropical and mid-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, linked to volcanic forcing from the eruption. The authors focus on three regions and argue that insufficient/excess soil moisture leads to corresponding decreases/increases in evapotranspiration and plant productivity. In high-latitude areas with excessive root-zone soil moisture, temperature and radiation appear to play a key role in determining plant growth.
Overall, while the manuscript contains some but very limited novel insights, it is poorly written, riddled with typos, and difficult to follow. The lack of attention to formatting suggests the manuscript was submitted in an early draft state. I strongly recommend that Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics consider this manuscript only after at least significant revisions.
Major concern:
Lines 347-349: Why did the authors choose to show anomalies of PCH relative to the climatology from 1950-2014 rather than comparing simulations with and without the Mt. Pinatubo eruption?
Specific Comments:
Line 25: Please clarify what “dominating variability” refers to.
Lines 26-27: Is it typical to group both wetting and drying (increase and decrease) under “statistically significant agricultural response”?
Lines 67-68: The phrase “NPP (Net Primary Productivity)” should be revised to “Net Primary Productivity (NPP).”
Line 95 and elsewhere: Citing literature using “and references therein” is uncommon. Consider revising.
Line 141: Please provide the full name of MODIS.
Lines 153, 247, 254, 257, etc.: Citation formats are uncommon. Please standardize them.
Lines 170-173: Verify whether it is accurate to state that 15 Tg of the total ~15.2 Tg SO₂ was emitted on June 15th.
Line 176 or Table 1: Describe the experiments in the text instead of solely relying on the table.
Line 259: Clarify what is meant by “ground energy.” Does “incoming solar radiation” refer to net solar radiation (downward minus upward)?
Line 261: What does “0.0864/2.45” represent? Please clarify.
Line 338: Define “MSU.”
Line 358: Note that TLS refers to “temperature of the lower stratosphere,” not “tropical lower stratosphere.”
Line 369: Consider using the "seasonal variations in incoming solar radiation."
Line 446: “Then” should be corrected to “than.”
Lines 566-569: Please describe the drivers in the same order as presented in the figure.
Line 615: What is meant by “post-1050”?
Lines 694-695: There should be a minus sign before “8 W m-2.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2280-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ram Singh, 25 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2280', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2280/egusphere-2024-2280-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ram Singh, 25 Dec 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,012 | 161 | 261 | 1,434 | 82 | 31 | 53 |
- HTML: 1,012
- PDF: 161
- XML: 261
- Total: 1,434
- Supplement: 82
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 53
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Kostas Tsigaridis
Diana Bull
Laura P. Swiler
Benjamin M. Wagman
Kate Marvel
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2824 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1902 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
The submitted manuscript examines how the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption impacted hydroclimatic conditions and water-related drivers of plant productivity through a series of Earth system model simulations. Unlike previous studies that mainly focused on radiation and temperature changes, according the authors, this work emphasizes the secondary impacts of volcanic eruptions by analyzing agricultural drought indices (SMDI and ETDI) to infer their effects on plant productivity. These indices reveal distinct moisture-driven dry and wet patterns in early 1992 and subsequent years over tropical and mid-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, linked to volcanic forcing from the eruption. The authors focus on three regions and argue that insufficient/excess soil moisture leads to corresponding decreases/increases in evapotranspiration and plant productivity. In high-latitude areas with excessive root-zone soil moisture, temperature and radiation appear to play a key role in determining plant growth.
Overall, while the manuscript contains some but very limited novel insights, it is poorly written, riddled with typos, and difficult to follow. The lack of attention to formatting suggests the manuscript was submitted in an early draft state. I strongly recommend that Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics consider this manuscript only after at least significant revisions.
Major concern:
Lines 347-349: Why did the authors choose to show anomalies of PCH relative to the climatology from 1950-2014 rather than comparing simulations with and without the Mt. Pinatubo eruption?
Specific Comments:
Line 25: Please clarify what “dominating variability” refers to.
Lines 26-27: Is it typical to group both wetting and drying (increase and decrease) under “statistically significant agricultural response”?
Lines 67-68: The phrase “NPP (Net Primary Productivity)” should be revised to “Net Primary Productivity (NPP).”
Line 95 and elsewhere: Citing literature using “and references therein” is uncommon. Consider revising.
Line 141: Please provide the full name of MODIS.
Lines 153, 247, 254, 257, etc.: Citation formats are uncommon. Please standardize them.
Lines 170-173: Verify whether it is accurate to state that 15 Tg of the total ~15.2 Tg SO₂ was emitted on June 15th.
Line 176 or Table 1: Describe the experiments in the text instead of solely relying on the table.
Line 259: Clarify what is meant by “ground energy.” Does “incoming solar radiation” refer to net solar radiation (downward minus upward)?
Line 261: What does “0.0864/2.45” represent? Please clarify.
Line 338: Define “MSU.”
Line 358: Note that TLS refers to “temperature of the lower stratosphere,” not “tropical lower stratosphere.”
Line 369: Consider using the "seasonal variations in incoming solar radiation."
Line 446: “Then” should be corrected to “than.”
Lines 566-569: Please describe the drivers in the same order as presented in the figure.
Line 615: What is meant by “post-1050”?
Lines 694-695: There should be a minus sign before “8 W m-2.”