the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Long-term climatic and management drivers of cropland gross primary production (GPP) from eddy covariance explained by interpretable machine learning
Abstract. Understanding the long-term response of cropland gross primary production (GPP) to climate variability remains limited, despite the key role of agricultural carbon fluxes in climate change mitigation. Here, we analyze two decades of eddy covariance measurements from a Swiss cropland site to assess how climate and management influence GPP dynamics of three winter crops: wheat, barley, and rapeseed. Crop-specific growing seasons were characterized by fitting logistic functions to cumulative GPP as a function of growing degree days, allowing the extraction of phenological metrics and growth rates. In parallel, an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model combined with SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) was used to identify the dominant climatic and management drivers of daily GPP and their temporal patterns.
Air temperature and vapor pressure deficit exhibited significant increasing trends over the study period, consistent with ongoing climate change. However, no corresponding trends were detected during either actual or fixed winter growing season (October–July). Instead, significant warming and atmospheric drying were determined to occur during the post-harvest off-season (August–September). This shows that a crop rotation dominated by winter crops acts as a climate-smart strategy for the Oensingen site, enabling crops to escape intensifying peak summer heat and atmospheric dryness. Across crops, cumulative GPP trajectories and growth rates were largely similar. Winter wheat was the only crop showing a significant increase in maximum cumulative GPP over time, yet this increase was not reflected in grain yield, confirming that GPP is a poor predictor of harvested production. Machine-learning results identified incoming radiation, air temperature, and nitrogen fertilization as the dominant drivers of GPP, highlighting the importance of explicitly accounting for management variables in cropland carbon flux studies.
Overall, the absence of strong crop-specific divergence and limiting responses suggests that the studied crops have not yet experienced climatically constraining conditions for carbon uptake. These findings emphasize the need for long-term, multi-site cropland observations that integrate management data to better assess crop-climate interactions under future climate change.
- Preprint
(7716 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Oct 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5253', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5253', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Oct 2026
reply
Review on Maxwell et al Long-term climatic and management drivers of cropland gross primary production (GPP) from eddy covariance explained by interpretable machine learning
The study focuses on modelling GPP of cropland using interpretable machine learning. The manuscript is shaped nicely along several research questions, and in general well-written. The strengths of the study is a long-term measurement data set, which allowed to assess effects of potential trends in variables, as well as the attempt to add fertilization. Though in general analysis is solid, there are several statements that need to be corrected/explained or additional analyses might be needed to support them. Although I lean towards minor revision meaning no need to redo modelling, there are some issues with interpretation; also comparison model vs measurements needs to be better visualized and discussed before the manuscript is accepted.
Major comments
- 21, L 448-450: too strong statement about a key role, please rewrite. Based on Fig. A2, the effect of fertilization is much smaller than that of two main variables. In fact, I am struggling a bit to see fertilization in the data. Could you guide a reader a bit, where should we see it? I could imagine it should be steeper curves in Fig. 4d-f but it is hard to see at that scale. Following this, have the authors tried to run a model without a fertilization variable at all; how would it influence the scores? From Fig. 3, it follows that fertilization practices are largely the same for the same type of crop, thus the model could probably learn the patterns from the type of the crop and fertilization variable could probably be redundant in this data set.
- Instead, interannual variability in accumulated GPP of wheat and barley is visible: the data shows a large variation over the years. I wonder if the model is able to capture this variability?
- A comment on Figs. 7-9: while they look nice, it is not obvious how to explain them and the authors dedicate only one short paragraph to these three figures. The baseline here is not at the lowest levels of GPP, so especially winter SHAPs in these figures are tricky to interpret and graphical representation puts a strong accent on the baseline making it look like something unusual occurred when GPP crosses that point. The authors state in L337-338 that the change from SHAPs from negative to positive indicates the transition from winter to active growth phase. This is not true; the change indicates crossing the baseline which in this case does not indicate the above-mentioned transition. Better explanation of the figures would be welcome.
- I would appreciate a somewhat more detailed discussion on the data set and implications for your model and results. The model with all the crops performed well but the model for wheat only performed even better. Does it mean that there is a functional difference between the GPP of different crops, which the one-in-all model tends to ignore? The data set in the model for all the crops is strongly dominated by wheat; would you expect then that a good model for wheat then makes a base for a good overall model? I mean the model learns on wheat, which are then applied to both other crops with some (pretty constant as mentioned by the authors) adjustments made for a given culture. It would be interesting to see scatter plots for a test data set, modelled vs measured, for all three different cultures separately; wheat correlations are likely higher than those for underrepresented cultures and this will have an effect on interpretation, which is done for all the crops separately. If the dedicated models give lower scores for the underrepresented crops, could those crops be modelled better by the one-for-all model?
Minor comments
- In fact, the study is a combination of more conventional data analysis methods and machine learning (which is a strength, not an issue, in my point of view), and out of 4 results subsections only one is about machine learning. I am not sure though how much machine learning has really explained here, given the uncertainties of how the management variables should be implemented and what they really show. This study is more of analysis of drivers of cropland GPP using explainable (or interpretable) machine learning in the current implementation of these variables rather than strongly stated 'drivers explained', so I would suggest reconsidering the title.
- Tables A.2-A.6: slope is dimensional. The units separately for each quantity are not needed if they were provided for the slopes. It would be easier for a reader to see slopes with units to estimate trends.
- Table A.1 ‘Grass 03 Apr 2020 19 Oct 2020’ – is this correct? Fig. 3 shows barley at that time.
- L57: wording, what is short-term climate variability? I would also advice against using words climate change on relatively short times (in climate context) of 20 years when conventional times in meteorology are at least 30; warming trend might be better. Or probably the authors are already aware of other studies stating that there is a warming trend due to climate change in the area, then a citation would be appropriate.
- L72: access date 2026 is too uncertain.
- L140-141: what is meant by SPI representing water availability for the plants ‘more realistically’ than raw daily precipitation? Is not it derived from precipitation? Please explain.
- Section 2.2: please add information on the percentage of the data set gapfilled, and/or any relevant information, for example if the data was missing mainly for any single crop.
- L184, L191-194: Procedure and curves described her could be nice to illustrate by a simple figure in Appendix.
- L 211-215 describe essentially the variable used for fertilization, which does not belong to section 2.6, which describes the model and relevant procedures for modelling. I suggest to put it in the end of section 2.5, which describes derivation of variables for the analyses in this paper. It does not fit exactly the title, but also definition of GDD in this section does not fit the title exactly, so maybe also the title of section 2.5 could be changed.
- L234: please open which maturity processes are meant.
- L309-312: discussion of significant trends based on 3-4 points. Even though it is acknowledged that the data sets are short right after, I would not include this at all.
- L329: I am not sure those are marginal effect. ‘Marginal’ by definition are derived assuming other variables are kept constant, this is not the case here.
- L 331: I do not see saturation in PPFD curve as well as I do not see a clear optimum in T curve, the peak is wide between 15 and 20C. This has an implication in Discussion in L405-409, where the authors claim the optimum is lower than in other studies. Maybe it is not that low.
- L410: SHAPs for T above 20C are not negative, they are decreasing. There is only a handful of negative SHAPs at higher T.
- L412-414: I don’t understand the sentence, please clarify what is meant.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5253-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 357 | 170 | 55 | 582 | 57 | 53 |
- HTML: 357
- PDF: 170
- XML: 55
- Total: 582
- BibTeX: 57
- EndNote: 53
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper makes a valuable scientific contribution by examining the relationships between climate, management practices, and GPP across multiple years and crop types.
Several findings are particularly noteworthy. At the annual scale, air temperature increased significantly by 0.06 °C yr⁻¹ (p = 0.02), accompanied by an increase in VPD. However, these trends were not evident when the analysis was restricted to the fixed October-July growing season. For winter wheat and winter barley combined, seasonal cumulative GPP was significantly correlated with total yield and harvest index, but not with grain yield (Figure 5). These findings suggest that increases in carbon uptake do not necessarily translate directly into increases in grain yield.
Overall, the study provides useful insights into the relationships between climate, management, and cropland carbon uptake. The manuscript can be considered for publication after addressing the minor issues raised in the review. I have attached the specific comments with the file attached with this report.