the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Canopy litterfall and soil respiration under rainfall and fog reduction in tropical montane cloud forests
Abstract. Tropical montane cloud forests (TMCFs) are globally important ecosystems that act as large carbon sinks. However, climate-driven declines in rainfall and cloud immersion threaten these forests, and their responses to declines in these distinct water sources remain poorly understood. Two separate large-scale experiments to reduce throughfall (TE) and fog (FE) in a Peruvian TMCF were conducted, to compare the temporal patterns and drivers of canopy litterfall and soil respiration, with nearby control (CON) plots.
Litterfall and soil respiration declined during the relatively dry season on the CON plots. Seasonal patterns of soil respiration were related to soil moisture, while litterfall was related to air temperature. Litterfall and soil respiration on the TE plot were suppressed overall and aseasonal, although litterfall pattern was offset FE-induced increases in litterfall from fine wood structures and epiphytes. On the FE plot, the only sign of altered seasonality was elevated litterfall from reproductive structures in the late dry season relative to the CON plot. There was little consistent interannual trend in either litterfall or respiration over time under the FE treatment. By contrast, the TE treatment was associated with a consistent decline in total litterfall, mainly caused by leaf litterfall while soil respiration initially declined for the first four years of the treatment followed by a rise likely associated with a concomitant increase in soil moisture. TE and FE appear to alter the amount and seasonality of reproductive activity in the canopy which could have major consequences for stand structure in a drier future climate.
- Preprint
(1485 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(365 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Aug 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2882', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jul 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78 | 11 | 8 | 97 | 13 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 78
- PDF: 11
- XML: 8
- Total: 97
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This study investigated the effects of fog and throughfall reduction on canopy litterfall and soil respiration in a tropical montane cloud forest. The authors established a fog manipulation experiment and a throughfall reduction experiment, monitored canopy litterfall and soil respiration over an eight-year period, and evaluated the influences of climatic variables on these ecosystem processes. The results suggest that throughfall reduction exerted much stronger effects than fog manipulation, with litterfall being primarily regulated by temperature and soil respiration mainly controlled by soil moisture.
The study addresses an important topic in a unique and understudied ecosystem and provides a valuable long-term dataset. However, I have a major concern regarding the experimental design that substantially limits the validity of the conclusions.
The most critical limitation is the lack of true treatment replication. In both the fog manipulation and throughfall reduction experiments, each treatment was applied to only a single plot with one corresponding control plot. Consequently, treatment effects are completely confounded with plot effects, making it impossible to distinguish treatment effects from inherent differences between plots. The multiple sampling units within each plot represent subsamples rather than independent experimental replicates and therefore cannot be treated as true replication for statistical inference. Under this design, the linear mixed-effects model and subsequent regression analyses can appropriately describe temporal dynamics and relationships between environmental variables and ecosystem responses within individual plots, but they cannot provide a statistically valid test of treatment effects, which is one of the primary objectives of this study. Because this limitation cannot be remedied through statistical analysis, I do not believe the current experimental design adequately supports the treatment comparisons presented in the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend rejection.
Specific comments