the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) in evergreen conifer forests with a terrestrial biosphere model
Abstract. Solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) is a small light signal emitted during the initial steps of photosynthesis and can be observed across scales (from photosystem level to satellites). To be able to model SIF, we need to understand the mechanistic processes (including both physical and biological) leading to the observed SIF signal. In this work, we implemented a representation of SIF emission and transmission processes into the terrestrial biosphere model QUINCY ('QUantifying Interactions between terrestrial Nutrient CYcles and the climate system'). We tested the model across three different boreal coniferous forests located in North America and Europe that have eddy covariance derived CO2 fluxes and tower-based SIF observations. We find that alternative SIF radiative transfer approaches (one based on mSCOPE, one on two-stream radiative transfer model L2SM, and one empirically based) overestimate the SIF signal, but show no large differences in the timing of their seasonal and diurnal predictions. The two-stream radiative transfer model approach, L2SM, provided stable performance while being comparatively computationally efficient. We find that our parameterization for sustained non-photochemical quenching is important for successfully simulating the timing of the SIF seasonal cycle. However, our parameterization did not work equally well across all three sites, likely because of different temperature regimes at the sites. We further evaluated the potential of remote sensing -based SIF from TROPOMI (the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument) to provide accurate information on SIF and found that it can potentially be used in model development. This study illustrates the usefulness of observations at different spatial scales and the linkages between SIF and GPP and their seasonal development at three different evergreen forest sites.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Biogeosciences.
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.- Preprint
(1641 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(799 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4432', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Nov 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-4432/egusphere-2025-4432-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-4432-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tea Thum, 19 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4432', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Dec 2025
This manuscript presents a comprehensive effort to implement sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) into the terrestrial biosphere model QUINCY and to evaluate simulated SIF against both tower-based and satellite (TROPOMI) observations at multiple evergreen conifer forest sites. The topic is timely and relevant, as SIF has become an important observational constraint for photosynthesis and gross primary productivity (GPP), yet remains insufficiently represented in many terrestrial biosphere models. The integration of mechanistic radiative transfer and non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) processes within QUINCY represents a valuable step forward. The manuscript is generally well structured and clearly written, and the use of multiple independent observational data sets strengthens the evaluation. However, the novelty of the approach relative to previous SIF-enabled modelling studies is not always clearly articulated, and several methodological aspects require further clarification to ensure reproducibility. In addition, the interpretation of the results could be expanded to better highlight the ecological and physiological implications of the findings. Overall, I find the study promising and suitable for publication after moderate revisions addressing the comments below.
Major Comments
1. Novelty and Positioning within Existing Literature
The manuscript would benefit from a clearer statement of what is new compared to existing approaches that simulate SIF within terrestrial biosphere or land surface models. While the introduction provides a good overview of the importance of SIF, it remains unclear how the present implementation in QUINCY advances beyond previous studies (e.g., SCOPE-based or simplified SIF schemes). I recommend adding a short paragraph explicitly outlining the novel aspects of this work and its main added value.
2. Description of the SIF Implementation
The description of the SIF module in the Methods section is relatively high level. For a modelling study, additional technical detail is needed. For example, the authors could consider providing more justification for the chosen parameter values and indicating whether they are site-specific, plant functional type-specific, or globally fixed. You can also add typical parameter value ranges in Table 2. You can also consider adding a schematic diagram summarizing the SIF calculation within the QUINCY framework. These additions would significantly improve transparency and reproducibility.
3. Model Evaluation and Metrics
The comparison with tower-based and TROPOMI SIF is a strong aspect of the study. However, the evaluation would benefit from a more consistent quantitative assessment. Please report standard performance metrics (e.g., RMSE, bias, correlation coefficient) consistently across all sites and modelling configurations, for example, Figures 2-5. In addition, the scale mismatch between tower measurements and satellite pixels should be discussed more explicitly, particularly in the interpretation of model–TROPOMI comparisons.
4. Interpretation of Results
The Results section focuses mainly on model performance, but the Discussion could be strengthened by deeper interpretation of the findings. For example, what do the results imply about the seasonal regulation of photosynthesis in evergreen conifer forests? How does the inclusion of NPQ affect the relationship between SIF and GPP across seasons? Are the differences among sites indicative of meaningful ecological or climatic controls? Expanding on these points would broaden the relevance of the study.
5. Uncertainties and Limitations
Please discuss the main sources of uncertainty in both the model and the observations (e.g., uncertainty in tower-based SIF retrievals, satellite noise, parameter uncertainty). A clearer discussion of model limitations would help place the results in context.
Minor Comments:
- Table 1 could be improved by adding time period information of SIF measurements.
- Ensure that all acronyms are defined at first use. For example, TBMs were defined multiple times in L35, L39 and L145.
- Improve figure readability (font sizes, legend clarity) and consider expanding figure captions. For example, the font sizes of Figure 4 and 6 are too small.
- Minor language edits are recommended to improve clarity and conciseness in a few sections.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4432-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 419 | 63 | 26 | 508 | 54 | 21 | 22 |
- HTML: 419
- PDF: 63
- XML: 26
- Total: 508
- Supplement: 54
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1