Technical note: Long-term probe misalignment and proposed quality control using the heat pulse method for transpiration estimations

Larsen, Elisabeth K.; Palau, Jose Luis; Valiente, Jose Antonio; Chirino, Esteban; Bellot, Juan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2755-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2755-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2755-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 24, issue 5

Technical note

|

28 May 2020

Technical note |

| 28 May 2020

Technical note: Long-term probe misalignment and proposed quality control using the heat pulse method for transpiration estimations

Elisabeth K. Larsen, Jose Luis Palau, Jose Antonio Valiente, Esteban Chirino, and Juan Bellot

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 May 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jun 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review - Technical note on long-term probe misalignment and proposed quality control using the heat pulse method for transpiration estimations', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jul 2019
- AC1: 'Response to referee #1', Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen, 16 Sep 2019
RC2: 'Review - 'Technical note on long-term probe misalignment and proposed quality control using the heat pulse method for transpiration estimations'', Christoforos Pappas, 14 Aug 2019
- AC2: 'Response to referee, Christoforos Pappas', Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen, 17 Sep 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (25 Sep 2019) by Theresa Blume

AR by Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen on behalf of the Authors (06 Nov 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Nov 2019) by Theresa Blume

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Dec 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The technical note on long-term probe misalignment and proposed quality control using the heat pulse method for transpiration estimates has been reviewed by me for the second time now. The revisions performed by the authors have greatly improved both the readability and the presentation of the results. Particularly, the examples provided by the authors on the individual sap flow time-series and the presentation of the implications of probe misalignment (quantified into transpiration) clarifies the relevance of this work. Also, the addition of figures within the supplementary materials aids in further understanding the results presented within the manuscript. I particularly like Table 1 where one can clearly see the impact of the correction on the estimates. All my comments from the previous round were dealt with in a proper manner. I only have some minor comments presented below.

Minor comments:
Line 35: Consider including: 1) Peters et al. 2018. Quantification of uncertainties in conifer sap flow measured with the thermal dissipation method. New Phytologist & 2) Flo et al. 2019. A synthesis of bias and uncertainty in sap flow methods. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, as these manuscripts specially highlight the relevance of quantifying uncertainties in sap flow estimates and their offsets.
Line 37: For SHB one can use: Langensiepen M, Kupisch M, Graf A, Schmidt M, Ewert F. 2014. Improving the stem heat balance method for determining sap-flow in wheat. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 186:34-42.
Line 30: The manuscript from Jasechko et al. 2013 has received some criticism (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12925), consider citing: Schlesinger WH, Jasechko S. 2014. Transpiration in the global water cycle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 189-190:115-117.
Line 71: Why specifically 3 months? Is this the time in which the authors do not expect any wounding effect to develop? Or is this the time which is commonly used for monitoring? Please clarify.
Line 76: “…probe misalignment correction for the HRM..” Remove one dot at the end of this sentence please.
Line 86-87: Please explain why you drilled the sensors into the uphill side of the tree.
Line 273: “… 0.29 (cm cm3 cm-2 h-1)”. I presume the authors should remove cm?
Lines 274: “…(Table 1, Fig. 4) In terms of…”. A dot is missing after “Fig. 4)”.

Hide

RR by Miriam Coenders-Gerrits (13 Jan 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Jan 2020) by Theresa Blume

AR by Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen on behalf of the Authors (28 Jan 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (03 Feb 2020) by Theresa Blume

AR by Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen on behalf of the Authors (12 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Mar 2020) by Theresa Blume

AR by Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen on behalf of the Authors (12 Mar 2020)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (18 Apr 2020) by Theresa Blume

AR by Elisabeth Karlstad Larsen on behalf of the Authors (24 Apr 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

To improve long-term sap flow measurements when using the heat ratio method, this study introduces a dynamic probe misalignment correction method. This work uses sap flow data from four Aleppo pines from April 2017 to December 2018 and shows how a classical probe correction approach declines in accuracy over time. Additionally, it is proposed that a new set of statistical information be recorded along with the sap flow readings to ensure the quality of the raw data.