the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Apr 2025
Species-specific relationships between net primary productivity and forest age for subtropical China
Abstract. The relationship between net primary productivity (NPP) and forest age varies among forest species, yet there were no available NPP–age relationships established for various forest species in subtropical China for use in forest carbon modeling. This study explored the NPP–age relationships for seven forest species in subtropical China using data from the Strategic Priority Project of Carbon Budget (SPPCB), National Forest Inventory (NFI) Type I (NFI-I), and Type II (NFI-II) data using the Semi-Empirical Model (SEM). Forest species included Pinus massoniana (P. massoniana), Cunninghamia lanceolata (C. lanceolata), Eucalyptus robusta (Eucalyptus), Other Coniferous Forests (OCF), Softwood Broadleaf (SWB), Hardwood Broadleaf excluding Eucalyptus (HWB), and Mixed Forests (MF). Based on these three datasets, we were able to derive subtropical forest species-specific NPP–age relationships. Compared with China-wide NPP–age relationships previously derived from the SPPCB dataset, these species-specific relationships derived in this study resulted in improved simulations of aboveground biomass for subtropical forests using a process-based InTEC model, suggesting that these species-specific NPP–age relationships are valuable for forest carbon modeling and management in subtropical China.
- Preprint
(1915 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1062', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rong Shang, 08 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1062/egusphere-2025-1062-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rong Shang, 08 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1062', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jul 2025
Accurately establishing the relationship between Net Primary Productivity (NPP) and forest age is a crucial prerequisite for precisely simulating ecosystem carbon sequestration capacity. This study presents the first attempt to establish this relationship at the species scale, with a specific focus on improving NPP prediction accuracy for mature forests. Validation demonstrated that the NPP-age relationship based on the species scale effectively enhanced the accuracy of aboveground biomass (AGB) estimates simulated by the ecological model. This research holds significant scientific merit. The paper addresses an appropriate topic, features a rigorous experimental design, provides thorough argumentation, and maintains a well-structured presentation. It is recommended for acceptance after minor revisions.
Specific Suggestions:
- Figure 1a: Since the variable represented is categorical, the use of a color gradient is not recommended.
- AGB Validation Data: The specifics of the AGB data used for validation need further clarification. This includes details on how the data was acquired and its spatial scale. Furthermore, regarding the InTEC model simulation, the grid size employed must be explicitly stated. This is particularly important given the vastly differing spatial resolutions of the model input data (Table 3). Clarify how these data were harmonized to a common scale for simulation. Additionally, address whether scale discrepancies exist between the model-simulated AGB and the ground-collected AGB, and if so, how these were reconciled.
- Lines 174-177: The content in these lines would be more suitably placed within the figure caption.
- Lines 225-230: Several citations must be supplemented in this section.
- Line 247 ("three previously built NPP–age curves for entire China"): Clarify the meaning of "three NPP-age curves". If this refers to curves for different forest cover types mentioned later, note that more than three types appear to exist. Additionally, it is recommended that the Methods section briefly describe how these prior China-wide NPP-age curves were constructed and explain the methodology used for their effective comparison with the relationship proposed in this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1062-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rong Shang, 08 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1062/egusphere-2025-1062-AC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1062', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jul 2025
Net primary productivity (NPP) of forests changes with the age. The relationship between NPP and age is crucial for quantifying the carbon sink of forests. The study investigates the species-specific relationships between NPP and forest age over subtropical China on the basis of different sources of field data. Overall, this manuscript is well-written. The topic is interesting. After some modifications, this manuscript is publishable.
In the calculation of dB, biomass in two different years is required. For the SPPCB dataset, are there biomass values in two different years available?
Are the values of variable C in equations (2) and (3) the same? Lf is the turnover of leaves per year. Equation (1) assumes that the NPP allocated into leaves is equal to the turnover of leaves for evergreen forests. It means that the foliage carbon does not change annually. This is true for mature evergreen forests. For young evergreen forests, this assumption is questionable to some extent. The foliage carbon of young evergreen forests increases year by year. The NPP allocated into leaves is larger than the turnover loss.
Leaf area index changes seasonally. Is the annual maximum of LAI used in Equation (3)? Please clarify.
As shown in Table 2, the foliage turnover ratio is smaller than 1.0 for all species. Are these species all evergreen?
The period from 1901 to 1985 was used for the spin-up of the initial model parameters. What do you mean? Do model parameters change with time? It is better to change “the initial model parameters” into “carbon pools”. What is the role of the BEPS model? It is not clear how the spin-up was implemented.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1062-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rong Shang, 08 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1062/egusphere-2025-1062-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rong Shang, 08 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1062', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jul 2025
Accurately establishing the relationship between Net Primary Productivity (NPP) and forest age is a crucial prerequisite for precisely simulating ecosystem carbon sequestration capacity. This study presents the first attempt to establish this relationship at the species scale, with a specific focus on improving NPP prediction accuracy for mature forests. Validation demonstrated that the NPP-age relationship based on the species scale effectively enhanced the accuracy of aboveground biomass (AGB) estimates simulated by the ecological model. This research holds significant scientific merit. The paper addresses an appropriate topic, features a rigorous experimental design, provides thorough argumentation, and maintains a well-structured presentation. It is recommended for acceptance after minor revisions.
Specific Suggestions:
- Figure 1a: Since the variable represented is categorical, the use of a color gradient is not recommended.
- AGB Validation Data: The specifics of the AGB data used for validation need further clarification. This includes details on how the data was acquired and its spatial scale. Furthermore, regarding the InTEC model simulation, the grid size employed must be explicitly stated. This is particularly important given the vastly differing spatial resolutions of the model input data (Table 3). Clarify how these data were harmonized to a common scale for simulation. Additionally, address whether scale discrepancies exist between the model-simulated AGB and the ground-collected AGB, and if so, how these were reconciled.
- Lines 174-177: The content in these lines would be more suitably placed within the figure caption.
- Lines 225-230: Several citations must be supplemented in this section.
- Line 247 ("three previously built NPP–age curves for entire China"): Clarify the meaning of "three NPP-age curves". If this refers to curves for different forest cover types mentioned later, note that more than three types appear to exist. Additionally, it is recommended that the Methods section briefly describe how these prior China-wide NPP-age curves were constructed and explain the methodology used for their effective comparison with the relationship proposed in this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1062-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rong Shang, 08 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1062/egusphere-2025-1062-AC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 446 | 58 | 15 | 519 | 16 | 27 |
- HTML: 446
- PDF: 58
- XML: 15
- Total: 519
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Net primary productivity (NPP) of forests changes with the age. The relationship between NPP and age is crucial for quantifying the carbon sink of forests. The study investigates the species-specific relationships between NPP and forest age over subtropical China on the basis of different sources of field data. Overall, this manuscript is well-written. The topic is interesting. After some modifications, this manuscript is publishable.
In the calculation of dB, biomass in two different years is required. For the SPPCB dataset, are there biomass values in two different years available?
Are the values of variable C in equations (2) and (3) the same? Lf is the turnover of leaves per year. Equation (1) assumes that the NPP allocated into leaves is equal to the turnover of leaves for evergreen forests. It means that the foliage carbon does not change annually. This is true for mature evergreen forests. For young evergreen forests, this assumption is questionable to some extent. The foliage carbon of young evergreen forests increases year by year. The NPP allocated into leaves is larger than the turnover loss.
Leaf area index changes seasonally. Is the annual maximum of LAI used in Equation (3)? Please clarify.
As shown in Table 2, the foliage turnover ratio is smaller than 1.0 for all species. Are these species all evergreen?
The period from 1901 to 1985 was used for the spin-up of the initial model parameters. What do you mean? Do model parameters change with time? It is better to change “the initial model parameters” into “carbon pools”. What is the role of the BEPS model? It is not clear how the spin-up was implemented.