Leaf traits section comments

[NidhiVinod]

Leaf traits section comments

[NidhiVinod]

@TomBuckleyLab, wondering what your thoughts are on this, and if you would be able to help with this section?
and @eoway maybe you might know more about DGCMs?

Here is the google drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1dufZxLFGCjrRmpzagwA0npzxPDsIampN
Here is the R markdown file: https://github.com/EcoClimLab/vertical-thermal-review/blob/master/vertical-thermal-review.Rmd

[NidhiVinod]

to
Further, the range in trait values can be several times greater in multi-species canopy than
in understory species, based on their inherent species-specific traits and responses to
environmental conditions.

@teixeirak, wondering if this sentence is needed? or would be okay to remove it?

[NidhiVinod]

[NidhiVinod]

Reviewer 2

[NidhiVinod]

[NidhiVinod]

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , most of these seem pretty specific, so I'd suggest you work through them as best you can, and consult Lawren as needed.

[teixeirak]

Reviewer 2

It does seem that it could help to give a little more commentary on what we know about light vs height, starting with the basis of sun vs shade leaves.

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, this comment is to include citations in table 2 right? Would it be okay to include more citations, considering the number of citations we are allowed for New Phyt, or maybe the count for tables doesn't matter as much?

[teixeirak]

@teixeirak, this comment is to include citations in table 2 right? Would it be okay to include more citations, considering the number of citations we are allowed for New Phyt, or maybe the count for tables doesn't matter as much?

I wonder if the reviewer meant Appendix S3. That would make more sense.

Regarding references, I'd just include what you need to and not worry about the limit.

[eoway]

@TomBuckleyLab, wondering what your thoughts are on this, and if you would be able to help with this section? and @eoway maybe you might know more about DGCMs?

Here is the google drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1dufZxLFGCjrRmpzagwA0npzxPDsIampN Here is the R markdown file: https://github.com/EcoClimLab/vertical-thermal-review/blob/master/vertical-thermal-review.Rmd

Another paper that describes sun/shade/vertical variation in traits is Martin et al 2018: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01810/full

I can mention the vertical trait variation relevance in the modeling section, although I think we'll want to keep the statement fairly general since models vary quite a bit in how they do or don't incorporate vertical variation.

[teixeirak]

to Further, the range in trait values can be several times greater in multi-species canopy than in understory species, based on their inherent species-specific traits and responses to environmental conditions.

@teixeirak, wondering if this sentence is needed? or would be okay to remove it?

Ha-- I don't understand it either! (Maybe I did did at one point... maybe I wrote it!) Let's remove.

[NidhiVinod]

to Further, the range in trait values can be several times greater in multi-species canopy than in understory species, based on their inherent species-specific traits and responses to environmental conditions.
@teixeirak, wondering if this sentence is needed? or would be okay to remove it?

Ha-- I don't understand it either! (Maybe I did did at one point... maybe I wrote it!) Let's remove.

@teixeirak, thank you, okay removed this sentence

[NidhiVinod]

Reviewer 2

It does seem that it could help to give a little more commentary on what we know about light vs height, starting with the basis of sun vs shade leaves.

@teixeirak I wonder where would be good to add the commentary on light vs. height? I attempted to address the comment below in the conductance section:

Further, tree height also plays a role in determining the gradient of $g_s$ vertically, which has implications for $T_{leaf}$. With an increase in tree height, water travels a longer distance to meet the evaporative demands in sunlit canopy leaves. Longer water path length, higher irradiance and VPD imposes hydraulic constraints in sunlit canopy leaves [@schaferEffectTreeHeight2000; @ambroseEffectsHeightTreetop2010]. Therefore, although typically $g_s$ increases with light, upper canopy leaves of taller trees have lower $g_s$ and leaf water potential to enable high leaf water-use efficiency [@kenzoHeightrelatedChangesLeaf2015; @rijkersEffectTreeHeight2000a]. This, added to the tendency for sun leaves to have higher $T_{leaf}$, implies that high $T_{air}$ should decrease $g_s$ of canopy leaves more than understory leaves, particularly when water availability is limited.

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, this comment is to include citations in table 2 right? Would it be okay to include more citations, considering the number of citations we are allowed for New Phyt, or maybe the count for tables doesn't matter as much?

I wonder if the reviewer meant Appendix S3. That would make more sense.

Regarding references, I'd just include what you need to and not worry about the limit.

@teixeirak, do you think in S3, I need to include vertical or vertical-gradient. Would that change the methodology?
and the citations mentioned by R1, these to be included into the tables right?

[teixeirak]

Yes, I think you should at least include those references. They're suggesting that you should have included "vertical" or "vertical gradient" as search terms. That might identify a few more references, and you're welcome to try that search if you have time, but I think it would also work to just respond with: "Thank you. We have included the references given."

[NidhiVinod]

@teixeirak, I think this can be closed too?

[teixeirak]

I'll trust you on that. There's a lot here, and if we've missed anything we'll catch it when we review the response to reviewers.