the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ideas and perspectives: Research on ecosystem-atmosphere interactions in Asia: early career researcher opinion
Abstract. Due to a growing recognition of the need to study how ecosystems and the atmosphere interact with each other, many regional networks as well as the global network of regional networks, FLUXNET, were formed. Since 1999, when the AsiaFlux network was established, scientists in the region have been measuring the flux densities of energy, water vapor, and greenhouse gas exchanges to better evaluate ecosystem-atmosphere interactions and understand their underlying mechanisms. The network includes natural and managed ecosystems that span broad climatic and ecological gradients, as well as experience diverse management practices and disturbances. In this ideas and perspectives paper, from the view of early career researchers (ECRs), we synthesize key research foci in this network in recent years, with a focus on the latest AsiaFlux conferences, and highlight selected key discoveries. While achieving significant milestones, ECRs argue that the community should work together to emphasize the importance of long-term observations, rejuvenate the network’s shared and open-access database, and actively engage with stakeholders. With many unique ecosystem types in the Asian region, efforts and expertise from AsiaFlux can provide critical insights into the roles of climate change, extreme weather events, soil properties, vegetation physiology and structure, and management practices on the breathing of the biosphere. In closing, we hope this ideas and perspectives paper can inspire the future generation of flux scientists in Asia and promote exchanges between scientists across different cultures and career stages.
- Preprint
(891 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2024-2466', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Sep 2024
reply
It is not easy to review a paper like this because in general describing personal opinion rather than results. However with the “Ideas and Perspectives” defined as short manuscripts to “report new ideas and novel aspects of scientific investigations” I have to say that I didn’t find these characteristics in this manuscript.
It is basically a long report of a conference attended by the three authors, with a list of the presentation very general and not so new or interesting and an opportunities section that is general and definitely not linked to Asia or AsiaFlux.
Now, I don’t want to be too negative in particular toward early career researchers, and I have to say that the title was interesting: the opinion of the new generation of scientists on the Asian research in FLUXNET. Unfortunately, I didn’t find their opinion and critical view in this manuscript. For example (it is just an example, not a request of changes by a reviewer), it would be more interesting to read the view and evaluation of young Asian scientists on the large number of Asian FLUXNET data users contrasted by the very small data contribution from Asia (see Pastorello et al. 2020) and possible actions if needed.
That said, I really can only leave to the editor the decision. IF the journal accepts conference reports (like some other journal does), this can be ok, it is a little bit too long and not so interesting but ok.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2466-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sung Ching Lee, 01 Dec 2024
reply
Dear RC1,
We agree with the two reviewers that this manuscript shall be streamlined more, and it will be better submitted as a Conference Report. Thus, we have decided to edit it and resubmit it elsewhere.
Thank you for the review and comments.
Best,
Sung-Ching Lee
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2466-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sung Ching Lee, 01 Dec 2024
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2466', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2024
reply
This manuscript is presented as an "Ideas and Perspectives," but the organization, context, and presentation are confusing. In my opinion, the manuscript is between a conference report and a summary of recent advances by AsiaFlux. In general, I agree with the comments from Reviewer #1 as this manuscript needs major reorganization to be either a "Conference Report" or an "Ideas and Perspectives" contribution. Therefore, the current presentation requires substantial work and feedback from the journal editor to guide the authors.
I would like to propose two possibilities:
One option is to structure the manuscript as a 'Conference Report,' focusing on the primary outcomes of the meeting and the discussions held by the ECRs. While this format may align with the current manuscript's organization, the text should be substantially condensed (potentially by 50%) to succinctly synthesize the meeting's outcomes and key discussion points. A clearer and more concise text could enhance the impact of this contribution. As it stands, the manuscript feels overly lengthy and positioned between a conference report, a review, and a discussion of topics, all of which could be significantly streamlined.
Another option is to split the manuscript into two parts. The first could be a 'Conference Report,' adhering to journal guidelines and presenting a concise summary of the meeting's outcomes. The second could be an 'Opinion' paper, elaborating on the ideas and discussions of the ECRs. However, the current presentation of ECR perspectives needs more depth and a compelling call to action beyond the suggestion to share more data. While my intention is not to be overly critical, the manuscript requires significant reorganization, sharper focus, and greater conciseness to improve its clarity and impact.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2466-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sung Ching Lee, 01 Dec 2024
reply
Dear RC2,
We agree with the two reviewers that this manuscript shall be streamlined more, and it will be better submitted as a Conference Report. Thus, we have decided to edit it and resubmit it elsewhere.
Thank you for the review and comments.
Best,
Sung-Ching Lee
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2466-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sung Ching Lee, 01 Dec 2024
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
225 | 81 | 17 | 323 | 9 | 13 |
- HTML: 225
- PDF: 81
- XML: 17
- Total: 323
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1