Articles | Volume 25, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-12197-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.Amazon rainforest ecosystem exchange of CO2 and H2O through turbulent understory ejections
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 07 Oct 2025)
- Preprint (discussion started on 06 Mar 2025)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-452', Peter A. Taylor, 14 May 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Robbert Moonen, 10 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-452', David Bowling, 28 May 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Robbert Moonen, 15 Jul 2025
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Robbert Moonen on behalf of the Authors (15 Jul 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (17 Jul 2025) by Leiming Zhang
AR by Robbert Moonen on behalf of the Authors (25 Jul 2025)
Manuscript
While I have a basic understanding of turbulent fluxes, I am not an expert in canopy issues. Overall I see this as an interesting paper illustrating aspects of turbulent fluxes through and above the Amazon rainforest canopy.
It would be good to see some statements and ideally profile information on mixing ratios of CO2, H2O and 2H2O below, through and above the canopy in day and night time if any of these are available. The ejection concept seems to say that, above the canopy in daytime, there is generally a downward flux of CO2 but when material is ejected from below the canopy, and turbulent fluctuations CO2' and H2O' are both > 0 it is implied that the sub canopy can be a CO2 source while the canopy itself is a sink. It could be interesting to see fluxes below the canopy, as well as above, to see if there is absorption of sub-canopy CO2 as it passes through the canopy.
Nighttime seems less certain while Fig 2 shows a positive CO2 flux in early morning. The discussion in Section 3, focussed on quadrant analyses from Figures 1 and 2 is very good.
Links to cloud cover are explained and are interesting.
Detailed comments.
Abstract Was the "the depleted water vapor isotopic compositions" measured in understory air? or just leaf and soil samples?
p3 The quadrant analysis in Figure 1, and especially 1c represents the important information presented here. As I read it there should be 36,000 points in each of Figs 1a,b,c (30 min each) but only 7200 (4Hz) isotopic composition measurements. I am not sure what is meant by "a hyperbolic isolation function". Also the acronym ODR for the best fit straight lines, in the caption to Fig 1c, could be explained in section 2.1.
p3,5 The definition of an understory ejection as 0.5s with w > 0 and above a regression line, seems a little arbitrary. Were other criteria tried?
p4 Figure A3 might need more explanation, or at least a forward reference to Figure 3.
p7, 9, Fig 3, Was it a 13 day or a 14 day campaign? Could impact the number of data points averaged in Fig 3. It might also be useful to say how many days had sufficient "frequent understory ejections" in the 30 min time slots. What was the limit for data in Fig 1D - looks like about 6%.
-----------------------------------------------------