Heat Budget of Sub-Mediterranean Downy Oak Landscapes of Southeastern Crimea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please clearly write the methodology, so that easily understood without any doubt. Attaches is the comments to the manuscript that should be revised and give better explanation
Need to explain:
What the research location looks like is easy to describe. This concerns whether the forest is natural forest, disturbed forest (no longer virgin), secondary forest, etc. tree heights varying between 3.5 and 6 meters
How old is the trees left?
Are those at bare land free of shrubs or grasses ?
There is no information about the tree’s phenology, i.e, branches structure of the trees, deciduous, etc.
Record air temperature and humidity at heights of 0.5 m and 2 m above the soil surface, while the trees heights vary between 3.5 and 6 meters, why? Is there any clear suggestion?
To portray the condition of tree crowns and their radiation attenuation characteristics, measurements were conducted during various seasons, including the winter (leafless phase), the onset of spring (vegetation emergence), late spring, and the early half of summer (full crown development), under clear and calm weather conditions, at the same places ?
In Figure 2. Daily average radiation balance values within the open area of the downy oak forest zone during the study period, How many times period you did your research ?
In Figure 7. Distribution of total solar radiation during the leafless period, dan Figure 8. Distribution of reflected solar radiation during the leafless period , It appears that on several observation dates the values are not too much different, even though this is comparing conditions without vegetation with those with vegetation, what is the reason behind this?
Figure 17. Air temperature in the open area and under the canopy of the downy oak forest, colour as indicator for open area and under canopy was different as before. It makes confusing. It is suggested to make the same colour as before, where blue for open area and brown for under canopy.
Authors mention that the differential analysis of soil temperature between the open area and the forested environment manifests a relatively uniform pattern in contrast to air temperature values, exhibiting a less pronounced abruptness, why?
At the conclusion, authors stated that the features of air and soil temperatures changes on the open area and under the forest canopy by seasons are considered. Is there any clear explanation?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: What the research location looks like is easy to describe. This concerns whether the forest is natural forest, disturbed forest (no longer virgin), secondary forest, etc. tree heights varying between 3.5 and 6 meters. How old is the trees left? Are those at bare land free of shrubs or grasses ? There is no information about the tree’s phenology, i.e, branches structure of the trees, deciduous, etc.
Response 1: We have incorporated a more comprehensive exposition of the characteristics pertaining to the studied forests within the manuscript.
Point 2: Record air temperature and humidity at heights of 0.5 m and 2 m above the soil surface, while the trees heights vary between 3.5 and 6 meters, why? Is there any clear suggestion?
Response 2: The deployment of the weather station employed in our research adhered rigorously to established norms, with meteorological parameter registration carried out at predetermined elevations of 0.5 and 2 meters within an open erea. The deployment of the weather station employed in our research adhered rigorously to established norms, with meteorological parameter registration carried out at predetermined elevations of 0.5 and 2 meters within an open field. To ensure methodological consistency in the computation of heat balance components and the comparability of findings within the forested domain, measurement sensors were positioned at the same levels. The main focus is on the formation of the subcanopy space, where meteorological parameter values differ from those in the open area.
Point 3: To portray the condition of tree crowns and their radiation attenuation characteristics, measurements were conducted during various seasons, including the winter (leafless phase), the onset of spring (vegetation emergence), late spring, and the early half of summer (full crown development), under clear and calm weather conditions, at the same places ?
Response 3: Measurements to depict the condition of tree canopies and characteristics of their radiation attenuation in different seasons were carried out in the same locations following a specified grid within the key study area as depicted in Figure 1.
Point 4: In Figure 2. Daily average radiation balance values within the open area of the downy oak forest zone during the study period, How many times period you did your research ?
Response 4: Figure 2 graphically presents diurnal values of the radiation balance in the open field spanning the temporal window from December 1, 2022, to July 31, 2023. For each of the assessed parameters, 24 data points, constituting hourly measurements, were amassed within each day's dataset.
Point 5: In Figure 7. Distribution of total solar radiation during the leafless period, dan Figure 8. Distribution of reflected solar radiation during the leafless period , It appears that on several observation dates the values are not too much different, even though this is comparing conditions without vegetation with those with vegetation, what is the reason behind this?
Response 5: Figures 7 and 8 depict the distribution of solar radiation not in comparison between the open area and the forest but rather the amount of radiation being intercepted by tree canopies and the radiation penetrating beneath the canopy. According to the content of the article, during the winter period, the average transmission of solar radiation by the canopy is 43.2%, with the remaining portion being intercepted by the canopies, totaling 100% of all radiation entering the ecosystem, consistent with the value in the open area.
Point 6: Figure 17. Air temperature in the open area and under the canopy of the downy oak forest, colour as indicator for open area and under canopy was different as before. It makes confusing. It is suggested to make the same colour as before, where blue for open area and brown for under canopy.
Response 6: We have rectified the color scheme employed in Figure 17 for better clarity and understanding of the material.
Point 7: Authors mention that the differential analysis of soil temperature between the open area and the forested environment manifests a relatively uniform pattern in contrast to air temperature values, exhibiting a less pronounced abruptness, why?
Response 7: Analysis of soil temperature between the open area and the forested environment manifests a relatively uniform pattern in contrast to air temperature values. The soil profile represents a relatively stable structure that gradually warms or cools depending on the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, unlike the air, which experiences constant horizontal and vertical mixing.
Point 8: At the conclusion, authors stated that the features of air and soil temperatures changes on the open area and under the forest canopy by seasons are considered. Is there any clear explanation?
Response 8: In the conclusions, we have expanded the information regarding the characteristics of air and soil changes in the open area and under the forest canopy across seasons.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is focused on the heat budget calculations of downy oak landscape (SE Crimea) based on the basic meteo measurements in open area and under the forest canopy. The measurement and calculation methods are correct. It´s a pity that measurements (and calculations) were not located also above the canopy due to canopy importance for heat budget of the whole forest ecosystems.
Some comments to methodology part:
1. I recommend to add some detailed characteristics of the forest site e.g. Leaf Area Index (LAI), Canopy coverage (in %, 100 % means full canopy coverage).
2. The experimental measurements under the canopy were also done at the same levels as in the case of open area ? Please add this information to the manuscript.
3. The measurements at the open area site have been located at what surface (natural grass, bedrocks, ... ?) Please add this information to the manuscript.
4. Hourly meteo data - these data were accurate data for the measuring time, or hourly data have been as integrated values from some intervals (e.g. average values during 5 minutes) ?
5. Do we have any precipitation data for better understanding of LE data (evaporation) ?
General comments
The most unexpected results are negative values for heat expenditure on evaporation. Negative values determine the intensive condensation processes (and longterm period with relative humidity near the level of 100 %). The dew condensation under the canopy is not expected process, only fog/cloud advective processes could lead to such effects. I recommend to add an information about the LE values from open area (whether at the open area has been detected the same trend of negative values). And also the precipitation data could be help to understand this process.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: I recommend to add some detailed characteristics of the forest site e.g. Leaf Area Index (LAI), Canopy coverage (in %, 100 % means full canopy coverage).
Response 1: The article indicates the percentage of radiation transmitted by the canopy and describes the conditions for retaining solar radiation. To expound upon the forest canopy and its transmissive capabilities, we employed an alternative LAI methodology, encompassing instrument-based illumination measurements beneath the canopy and in the open area, as per a predefined grid of points, as illustrated in Figure 1. This methodology also includes a characterization of crown coverage in percentages and its density (%).
Point 2: The experimental measurements under the canopy were also done at the same levels as in the case of open area ? Please add this information to the manuscript.
Response 2: The installation of the weather station employed in our research adhered to a rigorous adherence to established norms and standards. Meteorological parameter registration took place at predefined heights of 0.5 and 2 meters within the open area, aligning with methodologically prescribed standards. To ensure the utmost fidelity in the application of the methodology for computing the various components of the heat balance and to ensure the comparability of results within the forested ecosystem, the measurement sensors were positioned at identical elevations.
Point 3: The measurements at the open area site have been located at what surface (natural grass, bedrocks, ... ?) Please add this information to the manuscript.
Response 3: Within the manuscript, we have integrated additional details regarding the open measurement site.
Point 4: Hourly meteo data - these data were accurate data for the measuring time, or hourly data have been as integrated values from some intervals (e.g. average values during 5 minutes) ?
Response 4: The method of capturing hourly data differs for each sensor, aligning with the characteristics of the measured parameter. Temperature and humidity values are recorded simultaneously at the time of measurement, while precipitation and evaporation values are cumulative for the measurement period (the manufacturer-specified data refresh interval is approximately 20 seconds). Solar radiation data is recorded as the average value over the specified period in Watts per square meter per hour, corresponding to the amount of radiation received per unit area per hour.
Point 5: Do we have any precipitation data for better understanding of LE data (evaporation) ?
Response 5: The weather station employed in our measurements is equipped to record time-dependent precipitation levels. However, it is important to underscore that these precipitation records are not explicitly integrated into our calculations. Our methodology is predicated on the primacy of humidity at varying elevations as the chief determinant in the computation of evaporation rates. Notably, in the presence of rainfall, this parameter registers 100% humidity at all measurement points, thereby resulting in an instantaneous evaporation rate of "0."
Point 6: The most unexpected results are negative values for heat expenditure on evaporation. Negative values determine the intensive condensation processes (and longterm period with relative humidity near the level of 100 %). The dew condensation under the canopy is not expected process, only fog/cloud advective processes could lead to such effects. I recommend to add an information about the LE values from open area (whether at the open area has been detected the same trend of negative values). And also the precipitation data could be help to understand this process.
Response 6: Furthermore, as noted by the reviewer and duly acknowledged within the text, the study area experiences nearly daily fog and cloudy weather during the examined period, significantly impacting evaporation and condensation values. We thank you for identifying this inaccuracy, and we have included an accurate chart of heat expenditure due to evaporation in the manuscript. The open area exhibits the same conditions as the forest.
