the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of Partitioning Methods to Identify Timescale-Dependent Drivers of Light Use Efficiency in a Wet Tropical Forest
Abstract. Tropical forests play a major role in the global terrestrial carbon cycle; however, substantial uncertainties remain regarding their capacity to continue acting as a carbon sink under changing climate conditions. This uncertainty is driven largely by the limited number of carbon flux observations in tropical regions. Using eddy covariance (EC) measurements over an 11-month period at La Selva, Costa Rica, we quantified net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and evaluated partitioning methods to estimate gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration. Daytime partitioning using morning flux data introduced substantial variability in respiration estimates due to rapidly changing micrometeorological conditions. In contrast, daytime afternoon, nighttime, and sundown partitioning methods produced strong agreement and physiologically realistic results. We therefore use the afternoon daytime partitioning method for subsequent light use efficiency (LUE) analysis. The La Selva rainforest functioned as a strong temporally stable carbon sink with no detectable seasonal trend, averaging 2.5 µmol CO2 m-2 s-1, corresponding to an annual carbon uptake of 947 g C m-2 yr-1. GPP averaged 11.8 µmol CO2 m-2 s-1. Random forest modeling revealed timescale-dependent environmental controls on LUE, with photosynthetically active radiation dominating short-term variability, while temperature and atmospheric moisture increasingly constrained productivity at weekly timescales. VPD and temperature exerted a strong negative effect on half-hourly LUE, indicating vulnerability to increasing atmospheric dryness. Our findings demonstrate that partitioning method choice and temporal scale strongly shape inferred GPP magnitude and drivers in this wet tropical forest, with important implications for interpreting carbon flux estimates from EC measurements.
Status: open (until 09 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4828', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4828', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2026
reply
After more than three decades of global EC measurements, there is still a large data gap in
the tropics. As tropical forests contribute largely to carbon and water fluxes, this data gap is
a large source of uncertainty in estimating global carbon and water dynamics. This paper
adds to closing this gap with EC data from a wet tropical forest stie in Costa Rica, even
though the data coverage is only +- one year. I think the dataset is very valuable, however the
data processing is not very thoroughly explained in the paper, e.g. info about u* filtering, data
left after QC, shape and value of storage correction, …. In addition it seems like several
references are not on the right place and/or are not the main reference for the method or
results mentioned in the text. This might give the indication that the methods and claims are
not well supported. The partitioning methods explained in the text are missing details, which
leaves the reader in confusion and limits the understanding of the results and the re-usability
of the methods. Some large conclusions about partitioning methods are drawn and in my
opinion this conclusions are not yet well supported by the analyses carried out in the study.
While the set-up and ideas behind the study are very interesting, such as comparing different
partitioning techniques, looking into drivers on different timescales, … the study itself still
raises several questions and needs some more work before publishing.
Overall I would advice to check all references, to review the methods sections to more accurately describe the analyses on
the NEE as this is the strong basis for all following analyses, to more thoroughly describe
the partitioning methods used and more clearly indicate (dis)similarities with more
common methods and lastly to strengthen the comparison between partitioning methods to more fully underpin the decision to use the afternoon method. More detailed comments can be found in the attachmentCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4828-RC2
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 226 | 0 | 3 | 229 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 226
- PDF: 0
- XML: 3
- Total: 229
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
After more than three decades of global EC measurements, there is still a large data gap in
the tropics. As tropical forests contribute largely to carbon and water fluxes, this data gap is
a large source of uncertainty in estimating global carbon and water dynamics. This paper
adds to closing this gap with EC data from a wet tropical forest stie in Costa Rica, even
though the data coverage is only +- one year. I think the dataset is very valuable, however the
data processing is not very thoroughly explained in the paper, e.g. info about u* filtering, data
left after QC, shape and value of storage correction, …. In addition it seems like several
references are not on the right place and/or are not the main reference for the method or
results mentioned in the text. This might give the indication that the methods and claims are
not well supported. The partitioning methods explained in the text are missing details, which
leaves the reader in confusion and limits the understanding of the results and the re-usability
of the methods. Some large conclusions about partitioning methods are drawn and in my
opinion this conclusions are not yet well supported by the analyses carried out in the study.
While the set-up and ideas behind the study are very interesting, such as comparing different
partitioning techniques, looking into drivers on different timescales, … the study itself still
raises several questions and needs some more work before publishing.
Overall I would advice to check all references, to review the methods sections to more accurately describe the analyses on
the NEE as this is the strong basis for all following analyses, to more thoroughly describe
the partitioning methods used and more clearly indicate (dis)similarities with more
common methods and lastly to strengthen the comparison between partitioning methods to more fully underpin the decision to use the afternoon method. More detailed comments can be found in the attachment