Dynamics of Energy Fluxes in a Mediterranean Vineyard: Influence of Soil Moisture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
A few samples in my comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please find attached to this message the Reviewer 1 - Review Report.pdf file with the answers and corrections to the manuscript.
Best Regards,
Ricardo Egipto
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript focuses on the measurement and modelling of energy fluxes within a vineyard. The well-written Introduction clearly presents the objective, i.e. the need to model energy fluxes in order to deduce the proportion linked to evapotranspiration and optimise water inputs. The particularities of the vineyard (heterogeneities induced by cultivation in rows, drip irrigation) are well set out and underline the difficulties to be solved. A table clearly summarises the different types of modelling possible for energy fluxes in a canopy, which makes it possible to situate the approach adopted, i.e. the three-source clumped model. This approach is particularly well suited to the VSP system with a fairly wide row spacing (low density) and a drip irrigation deficit. The originality of the manuscript lies mainly in the estimation of latent heat fluxes and their decomposition between the different compartments of the system (canopy, soil under the canopy, inter-row soil). Interesting results relate to the quantification of the effect of soil water content in relation to irrigation. Finally, the manuscript concludes with a convincing validation of the three-source clumped model. Overall, the manuscript has no notable flaws. However, some improvements could be made on the different sections as indicated below.
Materials and Methods
The experimental methods are appropriate, well described and carefully applied, although a few points need to be clarified.
L119: We would have liked to know how many days without rain there were before each day of measurements, as this has an influence on soil evaporation. Please mention here the irrigation days.
L191, 198 and 227and 370: Why is it specified that the net radiometers and thermohygrometers are 'facing south'? Shouldn't the radiometers be horizontal with no particular azimuth?
The model is very detailed and easy to understand. A few points (in particular certain choices of parameter values) could be discussed.
L231-235, L 279 and L308: Are the values for eddy diffusivity decay, taken from Shuttleworth and Wallace, and for ground and canopy roughness length and zero-plane displacement height, taken from Lhomme et al., as well as the drag coefficient cd, taken from Shuttleworth and Gurney, valid in this case?
L244: I didn't understand how a single Tc value could be deduced from the thermal image? Regrettably, I didn’t see any result on Tc.
L256-257: I agree that the temperature of the foliage should be calculated by excluding the pixels in the thermal image corresponding to the wood and bunches. However, shouldn't they be included to determine the temperature Tc to be taken into account in equation 7?
Equation 11 and L234 specify 2 different ways of calculating the canopy roughness length z0. Equation 12 and L235 specify 2 different ways of calculating the zero-plane displacement height dp. L286: I did not understand how the surface area occupied by each individual vine was calculated (in particular, was the limit between 2 adjacent vines overlapping on the same row fixed)?
L288: It should be noted here that the approximation made to the LAI can be as much as 10%, which must be directly reflected in the fluxes calculations. This source of error should be discussed. However, it is not clear to me where LAI was used in the following calculations.
L308: It is not clear what justifies the choice of 0.30 m for the mean surface flux height between vine rows.
Results and Discussion
The results show that the fluxes calculations based on the measurements and the model are very consistent with expectations and between observation days. A few clarifications should be made as indicated below.
L449-451: I find it difficult to see how Figure 4a provides information on the influence of albedo. L494-497: It is difficult to see how it can be stated that 'higher soil moisture content, both in the topsoil layer and in the soil profile where the roots extract water, significantly contributes to reducing soil and vine canopy temperatures'.
Validation of the model on fluxes calculated with the three-source clumped model and measured at the reference level is convincing, with a relative error that remains minimal.
Conclusions
L594-596: this passage on the possible consequences of water inputs on cluster temperature control is more of a discussion than a conclusion to the manuscript.
Other minor points:
L51 : the ‘canopy fraction (f)’ is not easily understandable here; I suggest to detail a little bit more as done in L339
L52 : sensitive->sensible
L93: put Vitis vinifera in italics
L303: delete the punctuation mark
L316-317 : residuals -> unknowns
L343 : ‘EC’ not defined
L381-393: this paragraph, which deals with an overall assessment of the balance of fluxes at the reference level, should be titled separately from the previous paragraph, which deals with the Reference soil heat flux
Fig. 3: the legend should explain the meaning of the 2 regressions presented (in equations and symbols)
Fig 4: I wonder whether 'energy available TO each compartment' might not be more appropriate than 'energy available FROM each compartment'
L468: it does not seem to me that 'comprising' is the right term to use here.
L472 : irritation -> irrigation
Table 3 : add units for RMSE et MBE
L603 : hydric -> water
Comments on the Quality of English Languagesee comments for authors
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses attached to this message, in the Reviewer 2 - Review Report.pdf file, and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Best Regards,
Ricardo Egipto
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
