Rainfall interception and redistribution by a common  North American understory and pasture forb,  <i>Eupatorium capillifolium</i> (Lam. dogfennel)

Gordon, D. Alex R.; Coenders-Gerrits, Miriam; Sellers, Brent A.; Sadeghi, S. M. Moein; Van Stan II, John T.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4587-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4587-2020

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

Special issue:

Water, isotope and solute fluxes in the soil–plant–atmosphere...

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4587-2020

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

Articles | Volume 24, issue 9

Research article

|

22 Sep 2020

Research article |

| 22 Sep 2020

Rainfall interception and redistribution by a common North American understory and pasture forb, Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam. dogfennel)

D. Alex R. Gordon, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Brent A. Sellers, S. M. Moein Sadeghi, and John T. Van Stan II

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Sep 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 05 Nov 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', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2019
- AC1: 'Reviewer 1 response', John Van Stan, 07 Apr 2020
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Mar 2020
- AC2: 'Reviewer 2 response', John Van Stan, 07 Apr 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (20 Apr 2020) by Natalie Orlowski

AR by John Van Stan on behalf of the Authors (20 Apr 2020)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (30 Apr 2020) by Natalie Orlowski

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 May 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The presentation and clarity have improved. I want to highlight the description of the field measurements and the time-aggregate partitioning estimates, both of which are much more through now. However, two major limitations remain:
1) The water balance estimates are based on questionable and largely untested assumptions regarding overstory throughfall. It is neither clear nor explored how the neglected spatial variability of actual throughfall, as well as temporal changes and limitations in the curve fitting underlying the extrapolation, affect the conclusions. There are numerous potential systematic confounding factors at play. Furthermore, the overstory throughfall measurements that form the basis of the extrapolation are not well documented (AGU presentation), further limiting my ability to assess their validity. These issues continue to be downplayed throughout the manuscript. For instance, they are not addressed in the abstract.
2) A further limitation in the data acquisition pertains to the estimates of the storage capacity. These are based on the mass change that chopped up samples that had been soaked in water for days underwent during oven drying. The processes and temporal scales involved are so discrepant from regular interception that they should be mentioned in the discussion. I have additional reservations regarding the interpretation. In the results, 0.43 mm was introduced as an estimate of the specific stem storage capacity, but in the discussion this value is explained by (l 296) the "large densities, up to 700,000 stems ha-1 (Dias et al., 2018) – 56,770 stems ha-1 at our study site." I fail to see how the density has a direct effect on the specific storage.

To summarize, I continue to have substantial concerns about the authors' conclusions as to the understory partitioning inferred from incomplete data and questionable assumptions.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (02 Jun 2020)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Jun 2020) by Natalie Orlowski

AR by John Van Stan on behalf of the Authors (13 Jul 2020)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (29 Jul 2020) by Natalie Orlowski

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (13 Aug 2020)

ED: Publish as is (14 Aug 2020) by Natalie Orlowski

AR by John Van Stan on behalf of the Authors (17 Aug 2020) Manuscript

Short summary

Where plants exist, rain must pass through canopies to reach soils. We studied how rain interacts with dogfennel – a highly problematic weed that is abundant in pastures, grasslands, rangelands, urban forests and along highways. Dogfennels evaporated large portions (approx. one-fifth) of rain and drained significant (at times > 25 %) rain (and dew) down their stems to their roots (via stemflow). This may explain how dogfennel survives and even invades managed landscapes during extended droughts.