the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulating the drought response of European tree species with the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS (v4.1, 97c552c5)
Abstract. Due to climate change severe drought events have become increasingly commonplace across Europe in recent decades with future projections indicating that this trend will likely continue, posing questions about the continued viability of European forests. Observations from the most recent pan-European droughts suggest that these types of "hotter droughts" may acutely alter the carbon balance of European forest ecosystems. Yet, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the possible future impacts of severe drought on the European forest carbon sink. Dynamic vegetation models can help to shed light on such uncertainties, however, the inclusion of dedicated plant hydraulic architecture modules in these has only recently become more widespread. Such developments intended to improve model performance also tend to add substantial complexity, yet, the sensitivity of the models to newly introduced processes is often left undetermined. Here, we describe and evaluate the recently developed mechanistic plant hydraulic architecture version of LPJ-GUESS and provide a parameterization for 12 common European forest tree species. We quantify the uncertainty introduced by the new processes using a variance-based global sensitivity analysis. Additionally, we evaluate the model against water and carbon fluxes from a network of eddy covariance flux sites across Europe. Our results indicate that the new model is able to capture drought-induced patterns of evapotranspiration along an isohydric gradient and manages to reproduce flux observations during drought better than standard LPJ-GUESS. Further, the sensitivity analysis suggests that hydraulic process related to hydraulic failure and stomatal regulation play the largest roles in shaping model response to drought.
- Preprint
(2999 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3352', Nicolas Martin-StPaul, 03 Dec 2024
Dear Authors,I have been asked to review the paper but unfortunately, I don't have time to perform an in-depth peer-review now. I also feel this is not so usefull as the paper is already in minor revision.I still took the time to read the paper on demand on the editor. While I found the overall idea of great interest of coupling forest dynamic models with plant hydraulic, I have a few concerns :Part of the traits database used to parametrize plant hydraulic model is wrong, in particular for cavitation resistance (P50) more than half of the species have wrong data. This is probably because author used data that have not been filtered for different artefacts that affect P50 measurements (Cochard et al 2013). I encourage the author to have a look to this database which is dedicated for plant hydraulic models and acknowledge uncertainties in parametrizaiton : https://zenodo.org/records/854700This database is from this papers : Martin-StPaul, N., Delzon, S., & Cochard, H. (2017). Plant resistance to drought depends on timely stomatal closure. Ecology Letters, 20(11), 1437–1447. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12851. This paper explains how the data should be filter to avoid artifacts> I know it is hardly acceptable to rerun simulations at this stage. So I would at least encourage the author to be cautious and add some "warnings" in their discussion in regard to the parametrization of plant hydraulic models from traits database to avoid dubious data to spread in the other model parametrization. There are some discussion in this point in this paper :Ruffault, J., Pimont, F., Cochard, H., Dupuy, J.-L., & Martin-StPaul, N. (2022). SurEau-Ecos v2.0: A trait-based plant hydraulics model for simulations of plant water status and drought-induced mortality at the ecosystem level. Geoscientific Model Development, 15(14), 5593–5626. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5593-2022>Regarding the sensitivity analysis, I think the author should compare their results to recent modelling papers in the field of plant hydraulic :Ruffault, J., Pimont, F., Cochard, H., Dupuy, J.-L., & Martin-StPaul, N. (2022). SurEau-Ecos v2.0: A trait-based plant hydraulics model for simulations of plant water status and drought-induced mortality at the ecosystem level. Geoscientific Model Development, 15(14), 5593–5626. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5593-2022Cochard, H., Pimont, F., Ruffault, J., & Martin-StPaul, N. (2021). SurEau: A mechanistic model of plant water relations under extreme drought. Annals of Forest Science, 78(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-021-01067-y> There is no real validation that the new model allows to predict drought stress/drought vulnerability of multiple species. This is not really a problem because the paper intends to present a new model but it should be stated and called for evaluation.> Also note there are some typos/strange things in Figure 5 :- the unit for ETR is strange (mm/m) in general mm is used.- the unit for GPP is wrong : I have never seen GPP in mm/m.best regardsCochard, H., Badel, E., Herbette, S., Delzon, S., Choat, B., & Jansen, S. (2013). Methods for measuring plant vulnerability to cavitation: A critical review. Journal of Experimental Botany, 64(15), 4779–4791. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert193Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2024-3352-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3352', Yitong Yao, 02 Jan 2025
This paper focuses on improving plant hydraulic architecture within the LPJ-GUESS model, validated using flux tower data during drought periods. Overall, the content aligns well with the scope of the journal, as the integration of more complicated plant hydraulic modules with better performance is increasingly common in these state-of-the-art land surface models. However, I have several concerns regarding the clarity, methodology, and results in this study.
Major comments:
The description of the model needs to be more organized, with a clear distinction between the old and new model versions. There are typo errors, especially in the equations, and some symbols are not explained immediately after their introduction. These issues reduce the clarity of this section.
The reasons behind the less improved performance of GPP should be discussed in depth. For instance, the biochemical processes related to Vcmax could be explored as a contributing factor.
The overestimation and underestimation of ET for certain data points during drought and non-drought years require further analysis. The author should investigate and explain these discrepancies more thoroughly.
Validation of species-specific ET rates is crucial for evaluating model performance effectively. While field measurements may be limited, some partial validation is necessary to support the results.
Figure 2, Figure 3: The use of annual-scale evaluation may be too coarse and could dilute the significance of certain patterns. The author should consider whether a finer temporal scale would better capture the model's performance
λ and Ψ50 - Both parameters represent aspects of isohydricity. The author should clarify whether their variance decomposition results could be affected by potential redundancy or collinearity.
Table 1 - Clarify whether the parameter ranges in Table 1 correspond to all 12 species used in the study.
second-order interactions - Specify what the second-order interactions account for in the model and their ecological relevance.
Section 3.2- Is there any validation for the results presented in this section? If not, the author should address this gap. Check the typo please. ‘-day’ should not be the superscript.
For the validation - the author only presents Figure 5, which appears to aggregate data from all flux towers and tree species. To provide a more detailed evaluation, the author should clarify how the model performs across different tree species. Are there notable differences in model accuracy between species, and if so, what might explain these variations? Including species-specific validation results would strengthen the analysis.
Minor comments:
Figure 1: The light blue color in the flowchart appears unnecessary and could be removed.
The labeling should be consistent. For example, both "standard mortality mechanisms" and "mortality" are used, which could confuse readers.
L33: check please
L37: check please
L75: does the author mean that, in the old model version, ET and canopy conductance are not coupled?
L121-125: check the unit please
L128: explain the source of awl?
L126: which processes?
L140-141: unclear
L143: Confirm if photosynthesis is computed using the FVCB model. How is stomatal conductance expressed? Are any empirical stomatal models used?
Eq. 4 Provide justification or references for using this equation.
L150-151: unclear - clarify the source of Emax and Wr.
Ede - are there any iterative optimization used in the computation of Ede and gc?
L162: typo
L181: unclear
Eq. 11: letter r?
Eq. 17: cs?
L331: vegetation carbon? GPP or biomass?
Section 3.3: check the unit of ET
L387-388: unclear
L403-404: Discuss potential redundancy among variables related to isohydricity (e.g., ΔΨmax) and its impact on the reliability of variance decomposition results.
Section 4.1 - the author should discuss more on the different behaviors of ‘mean annual canopy conductance’ and its implications.
L410-413: I understand that when the actual hydraulic conductance approaches zero, the maximum hydraulic conductance of root, stem, and leaf does not necessarily impose a limit on the actual hydraulic conductance. But what about non-stressed conditions? Would the sensitivity test show different results under stressed and non-stressed conditions?
Section 4.2 - check the logic flow please. L420-424: the author confirmed the performance of LPJ-GUESS-HYD, but in the next paragraph, the author stated how they validate the model performance.
L427-429: Explain the differences in ET across species, given that VPD should theoretically be consistent.
L437: There are many studies discussing the relative importance of VPD and soil moisture. The author should consider comparing the contributions of increased VPD and decreased soil moisture in explaining ET variations, if possible. This comparison would provide valuable insights into the dominant drivers of ET dynamics in the model and their alignment with observed patterns.
L438-440: Include a plot validating the species-specific ET response, as this is a key result of the study.
L451-455: unclear. The author should provide a more detailed discussion of potential reasons for the undesirable performance of the modeled GPP.
L481-482: does leaf area decrease during drought in the LPJ-GUESS-HYD model? This process should ideally be included. If it is not, the author should clarify how leaf area dynamics are represented in the current model version and discuss whether the absence of such a mechanism could impact the model's performance during drought conditions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3352-CC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3352', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jan 2025
This paper focuses on improving plant hydraulic architecture within the LPJ-GUESS model, validated using flux tower data during drought periods. Overall, the content aligns well with the scope of the journal, as the integration of more complicated plant hydraulic modules with better performance is increasingly common in these state-of-the-art land surface models. However, I have several concerns regarding the clarity, methodology, and results in this study.
Major comments:
The description of the model needs to be more organized, with a clear distinction between the old and new model versions. There are typo errors, especially in the equations, and some symbols are not explained immediately after their introduction. These issues reduce the clarity of this section.
The reasons behind the less improved performance of GPP should be discussed in depth. For instance, the biochemical processes related to Vcmax could be explored as a contributing factor.
The overestimation and underestimation of ET for certain data points during drought and non-drought years require further analysis. The author should investigate and explain these discrepancies more thoroughly.
Validation of species-specific ET rates is crucial for evaluating model performance effectively. While field measurements may be limited, some partial validation is necessary to support the results.
Figure 2, Figure 3: The use of annual-scale evaluation may be too coarse and could dilute the significance of certain patterns. The author should consider whether a finer temporal scale would better capture the model's performance
λ and Ψ50 - Both parameters represent aspects of isohydricity. The author should clarify whether their variance decomposition results could be affected by potential redundancy or collinearity.
Table 1 - Clarify whether the parameter ranges in Table 1 correspond to all 12 species used in the study.
second-order interactions - Specify what the second-order interactions account for in the model and their ecological relevance.
Section 3.2- Is there any validation for the results presented in this section? If not, the author should address this gap. Check the typo please. ‘-day’ should not be the superscript.
For the validation - the author only presents Figure 5, which appears to aggregate data from all flux towers and tree species. To provide a more detailed evaluation, the author should clarify how the model performs across different tree species. Are there notable differences in model accuracy between species, and if so, what might explain these variations? Including species-specific validation results would strengthen the analysis.
Minor comments:
Figure 1: The light blue color in the flowchart appears unnecessary and could be removed.
The labeling should be consistent. For example, both "standard mortality mechanisms" and "mortality" are used, which could confuse readers.
L33: check please
L37: check please
L75: does the author mean that, in the old model version, ET and canopy conductance are not coupled?
L121-125: check the unit please
L128: explain the source of awl?
L126: which processes?
L140-141: unclear
L143: Confirm if photosynthesis is computed using the FVCB model. How is stomatal conductance expressed? Are any empirical stomatal models used?
Eq. 4 Provide justification or references for using this equation.
L150-151: unclear - clarify the source of Emax and Wr.
Ede - are there any iterative optimization used in the computation of Ede and gc?
L162: typo
L181: unclear
Eq. 11: letter r?
Eq. 17: cs?
L331: vegetation carbon? GPP or biomass?
Section 3.3: check the unit of ET
L387-388: unclear
L403-404: Discuss potential redundancy among variables related to isohydricity (e.g., ΔΨmax) and its impact on the reliability of variance decomposition results.
Section 4.1 - the author should discuss more on the different behaviors of ‘mean annual canopy conductance’ and its implications.
L410-413: I understand that when the actual hydraulic conductance approaches zero, the maximum hydraulic conductance of root, stem, and leaf does not necessarily impose a limit on the actual hydraulic conductance. But what about non-stressed conditions? Would the sensitivity test show different results under stressed and non-stressed conditions?
Section 4.2 - check the logic flow please. L420-424: the author confirmed the performance of LPJ-GUESS-HYD, but in the next paragraph, the author stated how they validate the model performance.
L427-429: Explain the differences in ET across species, given that VPD should theoretically be consistent.
L437: There are many studies discussing the relative importance of VPD and soil moisture. The author should consider comparing the contributions of increased VPD and decreased soil moisture in explaining ET variations, if possible. This comparison would provide valuable insights into the dominant drivers of ET dynamics in the model and their alignment with observed patterns.
L438-440: Include a plot validating the species-specific ET response, as this is a key result of the study.
L451-455: unclear. The author should provide a more detailed discussion of potential reasons for the undesirable performance of the modeled GPP.
L481-482: does leaf area decrease during drought in the LPJ-GUESS-HYD model? This process should ideally be included. If it is not, the author should clarify how leaf area dynamics are represented in the current model version and discuss whether the absence of such a mechanism could impact the model's performance during drought conditions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3352-RC2
Model code and software
LPJ-GUESS v4.1.1 Model Code J. Nord et al. https://zenodo.org/records/8065737
LPJ-GUESS-HYD code used in this study P. Papastefanou et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14000806
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
231 | 107 | 9 | 347 | 4 | 2 |
- HTML: 231
- PDF: 107
- XML: 9
- Total: 347
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1