the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Seasonal dynamics and spatial drivers of mangrove gross primary productivity revealed by tower and satellite observations
Abstract. Mangrove gross primary productivity (GPP) plays a critical role in coastal carbon cycling, yet its seasonal dynamics and spatial variability remain insufficiently characterized. Here, we integrated eight months of half-hourly eddy covariance measurements with 10-m Sentinel-2 imagery to quantify seasonal GPP, calibrate light use efficiency, and examine the spatial drivers of productivity in the Qinglangang mangrove forest, Hainan Island, China. Tower-derived GPP averaged 6.67 ± 1.81 g C m⁻² d⁻¹, peaking at 8.57 g C m⁻² d⁻¹ in July. Bootstrap-calibrated maximum light use efficiency (εmax) exhibited seasonal variation, with values of 1.491, 1.965, and 1.897 g C MJ⁻¹ APAR in spring, summer, and autumn, respectively. Incorporating sea surface temperature and salinity constraints did not improve half-hourly GPP predictions, indicating limited predictive value of monthly oceanic climatologies at sub-seasonal timescales. The seasonally calibrated model yielded landscape-scale GPP estimates of 3.27 ± 2.08, 7.14 ± 4.06, and 3.16 ± 1.78 g C m⁻² d⁻¹ across the three seasons, respectively. Spatial attribution using XGBoost and SHAP identified leaf area index as the dominant predictor, accounting for 69.9 % of total feature importance, whereas meteorological variables alone explained only 19–23 % of spatial GPP variability. Random forest analysis further indicated a greater contribution of distance from the coastline than elevation. These findings demonstrate the seasonal dependence of mangrove light use efficiency and the importance of canopy structure in shaping landscape-scale productivity, providing a basis for integrating flux observations with high-resolution satellite estimates of mangrove GPP.
- Preprint
(2819 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 27 Nov 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5811', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Oct 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 212 | 71 | 32 | 315 | 37 | 34 |
- HTML: 212
- PDF: 71
- XML: 32
- Total: 315
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 34
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This study calibrates a light use efficiency model for mangroves using eddy covariance flux tower observations, predicts the seasonal dynamics of mangrove gross primary productivity, and evaluates the drivers of its spatial variability. Overall, the manuscript presents relatively comprehensive data analyses and methodological approaches. However, substantial improvements are still needed in model development, manuscript organization, and language. I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be reconsidered for acceptance.
Major Comments
(1) The most critical concern lies in the development and parameterization of the VPM model.
First, the study introduces sea surface temperature and salinity scalars into the original VPM framework. However, why are the water stress and phenology scalars from the original VPM excluded? A clear justification should be provided.
Second, what is the theoretical or empirical basis for the functional forms of the sea surface temperature and salinity scalars? Have alternative formulations been considered or tested?
Furthermore, the authors should explicitly acknowledge that the model calibration in this study primarily focuses on adjusting the maximum light use efficiency (εmax). This raises an important concern: much of the temporal variability in GPP may effectively be incorporated into the seasonal variation in εmax. If this is the case, the temporal variations in other components of the VPM, particularly the environmental scalars, may become less meaningful. Independent validation data are strongly recommended to demonstrate the reliability of the model formulation.
(2) The manuscript lacks a clear focus in terms of its scientific content and organization.
The title highlights both the "seasonal dynamics" and "spatial drivers" of GPP. However, these two aspects do not necessarily need to receive equal emphasis in the manuscript. I suggest that the authors focus more strongly on one of these aspects to establish a clearer and more coherent scientific narrative. At present, the manuscript attempts to address too many topics, making it difficult to identify its central scientific contribution.
Specific Comments
(1) Line 15: The authors should place greater emphasis on the influence of the unique environmental conditions of mangrove ecosystems.
(2) Lines 17–20: Please explicitly mention that the Vegetation Photosynthesis Model (VPM) was used in this study.
(3) Line 25: This conclusion is questionable because the calibration approach may have effectively incorporated much of the temporal variability in GPP into changes in εmax.
(4) Lines 26–27: Please clarify that these results represent spatial predictions derived from remote sensing data.
(5) Line 28: It is unnecessary to specify the particular machine learning methods in the abstract.
(6) Line 30: Instead of reporting a range, consider providing the overall contribution of each category of explanatory variables.
(7) Line 42: Since the study mainly focuses on aboveground productivity, the discussion of belowground carbon could be removed, particularly given the high proportion of carbon stored in mangrove soils.
(8) Line 55: For the statement "values span an order of magnitude", please provide the specific numerical range.
(9) Lines 59–64:This section could be considerably condensed.
(10) Lines 70–72: This part could be further expanded to better explain the relevant research gaps and scientific motivations.
(11) Line 99: Does the study site have any distinctive environmental characteristics that justify emphasizing the analysis at a "single site"? If so, these characteristics should be clearly described. Otherwise, there is no need to emphasize this point.
(12) Lines 129–134: I suggest reorganizing them to establish a clearer and more coherent progression.
(13) Line 166: Please confirm whether the image is indeed a false-color composite.
(14) Line 176:What does "FC" stand for? Please also check throughout the manuscript that all abbreviations are defined at their first occurrence.
(15) Line 186: Please ensure that the subscript in Rref is correctly formatted. Similar notation should be checked throughout the manuscript for consistency.
(16) Equation (9):Is the inclusion of the Rd term necessary here, given that the dependent variable is GPP?
(17) Line 280: Section 2.7 appears to be somewhat disconnected from the main focus of the manuscript. I suggest considering the removal of this entire section.
(18) Line 305: Has the data source for sea surface temperature (SST) been clearly specified?
(19) Lines 362–374: This section should be reorganized. Much of the descriptive information could be moved to the Materials and Methods section.
(20) Figures 10–12: Scatter plots or line plots may be more appropriate for presenting the SHAP values and their relationships with the explanatory variables.