consult/ bring in a micrometeorologist?

[teixeirak]

From R2: "Given the depth of what is known about within-canopy micrometeorology, I would have thought taking this on in a review wouldn’t be needed, or would be daunting and require too much detail to cover it all. As it is, I found the article launches into the empirical info too early in such an article. The article could be improved by going through the theory of how momentum and mass-transfers are attenuated through canopies and then show the empirical info from NEON in America. Overall there is too little on the theory end of things and too much 'case study' for this kind of article (see Monteith and Unsworth, and Gates to enhance the first-principle theory). As an aside, there need to be a number of improvements in Fig. 2, with lines made bolder and also height should be normalised to height relative to the top of the canopy given that trees were very different heights and meteorological masts went above the canopy to different degrees. Doing so would help make the authors’ point about differences in the Figure as well as convergence in certain properties inside canopies rather than everything being on a different y-scale.

Certainly, a discussion with a micrometeorologist or atmospheric scientist, if not already had, could improve the manuscript. Statements like l. 156: 'Wind speeds are also higher at the top of the canopy, owing to the buffering effect of the canopy' are an awkward read. Buffering? There could be much improvement by looking at it the other way: wind will blow as it does at the top of the canopy until encountering the plant canopy top as an aerodynamic drag element; then the additional leaf area entrains air movement and sweep-eject motion and eddies are attenuated through the canopy resulting in progressively lower windspeeds deeper into canopies. I don’t know how buffering enters into this, or what the authors mean here."

(separated out from issue #87)

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod , I wonder if we should bring in a micrometeorologist? That is one aspect that is under-represented on our coauthor team. We could potentially guess at the reviewer and invite them, or bring in someone else. This is something to consider, and helpful if you discuss with Lawren and @eoway.

[eoway]

@teixeirak I suggested Angela Rigden or Trevor Keenan. My guess is that Trevor Keenan will likely be overextended and I don't know him well. I do know Angela well and she works extensively with flux tower data and could be a great co-author.

[eoway]

After re-reading reviewer 2's comments, I think Trevor Keenan could actually be a great fit if he's willing.

[teixeirak]

@NidhiVinod and I have also discussed Tom Buckley (Lawren's suggestion) and Dennis Baldocchi (who we listed as a potential reviewer). I think any of the 3 would be good.

[eoway]

I don't know Tom Buckley's work well, but agree that Dennis Baldocchi would be great.

[NidhiVinod]

@eoway and @teixeirak, hard to pick one from the options above! Although Baldocchi would have been so excellent, I wasn't sure how he would feel about a short notice invite into the paper, so Lawren suggested Tom would be good for re-visting first principles and connecting it to recent work in micrometeorology. Tom accepted the invitation and is on board!