the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A general physiologically driven representation of leaf turnover in grasslands in the QUINCY land surface model (revision: 974a6b7f)
Abstract. Terrestrial vegetation plays an important role in shaping the Earth’s climate due to its control on the global carbon cycle. Understanding and predicting vegetation phenology and biomass turnover into soil organic matter is therefore of great importance for our understanding and quantification of carbon exchange with the atmosphere, which varies seasonally. In the past, models of tree phenology have been developed extensively, but equivalent models for herbaceous ecosystems, which cover a significant area of the terrestrial land surface and provide many ecosystem services to humans, have been much more poorly developed for both the start and the end of season. These limitations may be due to spatially and temporally sparse observational data in grasslands, but more importantly, their distribution across a large range of climatic and environmental conditions, as well as a lack of understanding of underlying processes. It follows that a refined autumn phenology model for grasslands is a necessary component of land surface models (LSMs). Here we present a novel approach to grassland autumn phenology by introducing a general, dynamic leaf turnover model controlled by environmental conditions into the QUINCY (QUantifying Interactions between terrestrial Nutrient CYcles and the climate system) LSM and show that decoupling leaf senescence from growing season triggers improves site-level carbon dynamics in herbaceous systems globally. We tested the model at 59 sites with differing climates and show that our model was able to reduce errors in gross primary productivity (GPP) predictions as well as in the timing of the onset of leaf senescence, especially in seasonally dry and very cold sites. Our model is able to reduce the root mean square error (RMSE) of daily GPP at a seasonally dry site from 1.25 to 0.76 g C m−2 d−1. At a seasonally cold and light-limited site, RMSE decreased from 0.6 to 0.46 g C m−2 d−1 and at a temperate, oceanic site, from 1.56 to 1.20 g C m−2 d−1. Our study provides a way forward towards general, non PFT or site-specific autumn phenology modules in LSMs, as well as improving predictions of carbon fluxes in grassland ecosystems globally.
- Preprint
(17265 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Mar 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5731 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 11 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Josua Seitz, 13 Feb 2026
reply
Dear editor,
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Below we respond point by point to the concerns raised.
- QUINCY model code - QUINCY is incorporated into the ICON Earth System Model as one of its land components. The latest release of ICON including QUINCY is available here: https://gitlab.dkrz.de/icon/icon-model or as a Zenodo repository here https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17085112. Changes to specific components for this manuscript are included in our Zenodo repository (see below).
- Manuscript specific code - all manuscript specific code that was previously in a GitHub repository is now archived on Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17579253, including QUINCY files that have been modified for the turnover model.
- PhenoCam data on NASA EarthData website - NASA has a policy regarding long-term retention, which can be found here https://doi.org/10.5067/DOC/ESO/RFC-042. If this is not acceptable for publication in GMD please let us know but we hope that this is sufficient at this stage and we will be in touch with PIs of the sites that we have used to see if it is possible to archive that portion of the data ourselves.
- PLUMBER2 data on Research Data Australia website - this dataset has been previously published in another Copernicus journal (ESSD https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/449/2022/essd-14-449-2022-assets.html). If ESSD published datasets do not comply with GMD policy we will look into archiving this as well, although similarly to the PhenoCam dataset we hope that the discussion and review paper can proceed.
We will amend the code and data availability section in the text of the manuscript upon revision, unless there is another mechanism through which we can do it now.
Please let us know if there any other changes that we should make,
Kind regards,
Josua Seitz on behalf of all authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5731-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 13 Feb 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Thanks for your reply, and for storing the QUINCY code properly. Regarding the PLUMBER2 data, given that it is published previous in ESSD, we can accept it too. For the PhenoCam data, I find their policy excessively inconclusive regarding the preservation of the data, without specific information about it. Moreover, given the current state of affairs in the USA, it is doubtful that the NASA will continue providing such services in the future. As the assets published by NASA are under Public Domain, I would ask you to store a copy of the data used in trusted long-term repository that complies with our policy, which will better serve long-term preservation.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5731-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Josua Seitz, 16 Feb 2026
reply
Dear editor,
Thank you for your reply.
We understand the concerns and have stored a copy of the PhenoCam data for the three sites that we used in the study as a csv file. We have uploaded this as a new version in the associated Zenodo archive (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17579252) including a script detailing how the data was accessed and saved using the PhenoCam API package in R.
Kind regards,
Josua Seitz on behalf of all authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5731-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Josua Seitz, 16 Feb 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Josua Seitz, 13 Feb 2026
reply
Data sets
PLUMBER2: forcing and evaluation datasets for a model intercomparison project for land surface models. Anna Ukkola https://researchdata.edu.au/plumber2-forcing-evaluation-surface-models/1656048
Majadas de Tietar: Ecosystem level and understorey carbon, water, and energy fluxes in a Mediterranean tree-grass ecosystem Arnaund Carrara et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1314194
PhenoCam An ecosystem phenology camera network Andrew Richardson https://phenocam.nau.edu/webcam/
Model code and software
QUINCY land surface model Tea Thum https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/en/bsi/projects/quincy/software
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 266 | 332 | 29 | 627 | 20 | 23 |
- HTML: 266
- PDF: 332
- XML: 29
- Total: 627
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
First, you state in your manuscript that " QUINCY model codes are available under a GPL v3 license", and despite it you do not provide it openly published in a permanent repository. We can not accept this. The GPLv3 enables you to publish, share and modify the code, and therefore is clear that you have the right to publish it. Therefore, you must publish the QUINCY model.
Also, you have link a GitHub site for part of the code you use; however, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. In addition, you have archived the data used and produced in your work in other sites, such as EarthData at NASA, Research Data Australia or the PhenoCam webpage, which do not fulfil GMD’s requirements for a persistent data archive because:
- They do not appear to have a published policy for data preservation over many years or decades (some flexibility exists over the precise length of preservation, but the policy must exist).
- They do not appear to have a published mechanism for preventing authors from unilaterally removing material. Archives must have a policy which makes removal of materials only possible in exceptional circumstances and subject to an independent curatorial decision,
If we have missed a published policy which does in fact address this matter satisfactorily, please post a response linking to it. If you have any questions about this issue, please post them in a reply.
Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular, as it should have never been accepted for peer-review or Discussions in the journal given the above mentioned issues. The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish your code and data in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
The 'Code and Data Availability’ section must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor