the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Vapor pressure deficit plays a pivotal role in the carbon dioxide sink of the Jingxin Wetland
Abstract. Large uncertainties exist in the carbon sink and energy balance of wetland ecosystems under climate change conditions. This can be attributed, in part, to the limited understanding of the simultaneous impact of climate and carbon dynamics as well as that of energy equilibria. In addition, the temporal patterns and interconnections of carbon dynamics and energy equilibria, as inferred from ground observations, remain ambiguous. In this study, carbon dioxide flux data of the Jingxin Wetland from August 2021 to August 2023 were analyzed to evaluate the relative influence of climate change on the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and energy equilibrium. The findings demonstrate that the Jingxin Wetland has a formidable capacity for carbon sequestration. Furthermore, the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) emerged as a key determinant of ecosystem carbon flux, whereas latent heat flux (LE) serves as the primary consumer of net radiation. Throughout the research period, net radiation (Rn) accounted for 73.5 % of the total radiation. During both vegetation growth and dormancy seasons, Rn emerged as a principal factor influencing LE, which in turn affected the state of carbon cycling in the wetland ecosystems by impacting variations in the VPD during the growing season. Overall, our research outcomes shed light on the interplay between climate, carbon cycles, and energy budgets in wetland ecosystems, offering valuable insights for future investigations and conservation endeavors.
- Preprint
(2789 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2714 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2787', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Nov 2024
reply
The carbon balance of wetlands has become a research hotspot in the context of global change. The authors conducted a study on carbon flux in the Jingxin Wetland located in Northeast China, based on two years of observations. Overall, the content of the manuscript does not provide substantial insights or advancements to the current understanding of the topic. The findings presented appear to be rather basic and do not contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge in this field. Specific issues are as follows:
-
The manuscript use Pearson's correlation coefficient to analyse the effect of environmental facotrs on carbon fluxes, however, the authors did not indicate the significance of the correlation coefficients, which affects the credibility of the results. Additionally, this method does not account for multicollinearity among independent variables, potentially skewing the analysis of environmental variables' impacts on carbon flux and, consequently, the conclusions drawn.
-
There is a lack of information regarding data completeness, such as the proportion and maximum length of missing values, which may affect the effectiveness of data imputation.
-
The figure titles and legends are unclear. For example, the meaning of "n=0.2" in Figure 2 for EOS and SOS is not explained. The significance of the red dashed line in Figure 3 is also unclear. It is recommended to replace the error bars with shading to better illustrate the diurnal pattern of CO2 flux, and the figure title should specify that it represents monthly average diurnal variations.
-
The title of Figure 5 needs revision, as it clearly does not represent cumulative carbon flux but rather total carbon flux.
-
The authors failed to explore the differences between years in depth. For instance, the significant discrepancies between July and August 2022 compared to the same period in 2021 should be addressed.
- The discussion in the manuscript lacks depth, and the conclusions drawn do not provide significant or valuable insights. There is a need for a more thorough exploration of the implications of the findings.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2787-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Cui Guishan, 16 Dec 2024
reply
Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We highly appreciate your feedback and have made revisions and improvements to the paper accordingly. Below are our responses to each of the points raised:
- Regarding the Pearson correlation coefficient and the issue of multicollinearity
You pointed out that we did not indicate the significance of the Pearson correlation coefficient and did not consider the issue of multicollinearity. In the revised version, we will include significance tests for the correlation coefficients (e.g., using ridge regression to address multicollinearity) and provide a detailed explanation in the Methods section on how multicollinearity among the independent variables was detected and handled through statistical analysis. We believe these improvements will enhance the reliability of the results.
- Regarding data integrity and handling of missing values
Regarding the issue of data integrity, we will provide detailed information about the missing values in the revised manuscript, including the proportion and maximum length of the missing data. Our data integrity is generally above 90%. Additionally, we will describe the data imputation methods in detail and discuss the potential impact of the imputation process on the results.
- Clarity of figure titles and legends
Thank you for your feedback on the figure titles and legends. We will revise all figures based on your suggestions and provide more explanations in the legends and titles. For example, in Figure 2, 'n=0.2' refers to 0.2 times the distance between two troughs of the NDVI fitting curve, and the red dashed line in Figure 4 represents the maximum and minimum values of NEE. Additionally, we will replace the error bars with shading to more clearly present the daily variation pattern of CO2 flux. The figure title will be changed to 'Monthly Average Diurnal Variation'.
- The issue with the title of Figure 5
You pointed out that the title of Figure 5 was inaccurate, and we appreciate your correction. We have revised the title of Figure 5 to 'Total Carbon Flux' to more accurately reflect the content of the figure.
- Regarding the differences between different years
You mentioned that we did not explore the differences between different years in depth. We had previously conducted research, and the differences between the two years were not clear, which is why we decided not to include an interannual comparison. We will add further explanation in the Discussion section to provide more clarity.
- Regarding the depth of the Discussion section
We fully agree with your suggestion to deepen the Discussion section. We will expand this section to provide more explanations of the results and explore the implications of our findings for wetland carbon balance research, particularly in the context of global change and its potential applications and impacts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2787-AC1
-
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2787', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Dec 2024
reply
This study, based on eddy covariance observations, analyzed the factors influencing carbon, water, and heat fluxes in a typical wetland ecosystem. While it contributes to understanding the carbon and water cycles in wetland ecosystems, the attribution analysis relies solely on correlation methods, lacking a mechanistic explanation. Therefore, this study requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication in this journal.
For example, at the diurnal and hourly scales of NEE before gap-filling, different ranges of photosynthetically active radiation, air temperature, and vapor pressure deficit can be analyzed to identify the key factors influencing daytime NEE. The relationship between nighttime temperature, soil moisture, and nighttime unfilled NEE can be used to examine the key factors affecting soil respiration. Additionally, attribution analysis of daily carbon, water, and heat fluxes during the growing season can be conducted using structural equation modeling, which would further elucidate the mechanisms of the wetland carbon and water cycles.
There are many similar studies available for reference. For example,
Jia X et al (2014) Biophysical controls on net ecosystem CO exchange over a semiarid shrubland in northwest China. Biogeosciences 11: 4679–4693
Zhang T, Zhang Y, Xu M, Zhu J, Chen N, Jiang Y, Huang K, Zu J, Liu Y, Yu G(2018b) Water availability is more important than temperature in driving the carbon fluxes of an alpine meadow on the Tibetan Plateau. Agric For Meteorol 256-257:22–31
García A et al (2017) Patterns and controls of carbon dioxide and water vapor fluxes in a dry forest of central Argentina. Agric For Meteorol 247:520–532Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2787-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
173 | 48 | 61 | 282 | 15 | 3 | 5 |
- HTML: 173
- PDF: 48
- XML: 61
- Total: 282
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1