the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Amazon rainforest ecosystem exchange of CO2 and H2O through turbulent understory ejections
Abstract. We investigate the role of short-term variability on the mean ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide and water vapor. Specifically, we focus on quantifying how the intermittent turbulent exchange at the forest-atmosphere interphase – characterized by sweeps, ejections and outward/inward interactions – contributes to the mean exchange. To this end we analyze observations of high-resolution (isotopic) flux measurements taken at 25 m above the forest canopy at the Amazon Tall Tower Observatory (ATTO) during the dry season. We identify short-term turbulent eddies that eject carbon dioxide and water vapor from the understory (0–15 m) into the atmosphere. The H2O ejected from the understory is shown to be depleted in deuterium (2H) by 10 ‰ compared to H2O originating from the top canopy. We show that this matches the depleted water vapor isotopic compositions found in understory leaf and soil samples. The diurnal cycle of the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 is presented as a function of the sweeping and ejection motions and understory flux contributions. Understory contributions average 1.4 % of NEE, but reach up to 20 %. In exploring the connection between intermittent canopy turbulence and cloud passages, we found a weak but coherent temporal relationship (r = 0.027) between cloud passages and ejections, without a predominant influence of large clouds. These findings deepen our understanding of the gas exchange of the Amazon rainforest, which is urgent for predicting and possibly preventing the regions transition from a carbon sink to a source.
- Preprint
(4753 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-452', Peter A. Taylor, 14 May 2025
reply
While I have a basic understanding of turbulent fluxes, I am not an expert in canopy issues. Overall I see this as an interesting paper illustrating aspects of turbulent fluxes through and above the Amazon rainforest canopy.
It would be good to see some statements and ideally profile information on mixing ratios of CO2, H2O and 2H2O below, through and above the canopy in day and night time if any of these are available. The ejection concept seems to say that, above the canopy in daytime, there is generally a downward flux of CO2 but when material is ejected from below the canopy, and turbulent fluctuations CO2' and H2O' are both > 0 it is implied that the sub canopy can be a CO2 source while the canopy itself is a sink. It could be interesting to see fluxes below the canopy, as well as above, to see if there is absorption of sub-canopy CO2 as it passes through the canopy.
Nighttime seems less certain while Fig 2 shows a positive CO2 flux in early morning. The discussion in Section 3, focussed on quadrant analyses from Figures 1 and 2 is very good.
Links to cloud cover are explained and are interesting.
Detailed comments.
Abstract Was the "the depleted water vapor isotopic compositions" measured in understory air? or just leaf and soil samples?
p3 The quadrant analysis in Figure 1, and especially 1c represents the important information presented here. As I read it there should be 36,000 points in each of Figs 1a,b,c (30 min each) but only 7200 (4Hz) isotopic composition measurements. I am not sure what is meant by "a hyperbolic isolation function". Also the acronym ODR for the best fit straight lines, in the caption to Fig 1c, could be explained in section 2.1.
p3,5 The definition of an understory ejection as 0.5s with w > 0 and above a regression line, seems a little arbitrary. Were other criteria tried?
p4 Figure A3 might need more explanation, or at least a forward reference to Figure 3.
p7, 9, Fig 3, Was it a 13 day or a 14 day campaign? Could impact the number of data points averaged in Fig 3. It might also be useful to say how many days had sufficient "frequent understory ejections" in the 30 min time slots. What was the limit for data in Fig 1D - looks like about 6%.
-----------------------------------------------------
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-452-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
155 | 18 | 10 | 183 | 10 | 9 |
- HTML: 155
- PDF: 18
- XML: 10
- Total: 183
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1