The Dynamics of Transpiration to Evapotranspiration Ratio under Wet and Dry Canopy Conditions in a Humid Boreal Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Autors, 

For me, this article is very valuable and suitable for Forest.
It is a methodical and substantive contribution to the knowledge of dynamics of transpiration to evapotranspiration ratio under wet and dry canopy conditions in a humid boreal forest.

The methodology does not raise any objections.
The discussion is extensive and raises all aspects of the text.
The article adapted to the requirements of MDPI magazine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General observations

Tables and figures usually appear after they are first mentioned in the text. Many, many acronyms are used, which makes continues reading quite difficult. I suggest reduce them as much as possible. Please homogenize where the letters that identify the figure panels are placed in the figure legend: before or after the descriptions. I suggest before. Conclusions chapter has several results.

 

Lines 30 – 38. The paragraph is off topic. Climate change is not assessed in the document, in fact, if I am not mistaken, the references in this paragraph are only used here. Instead, taking into account the main objective of the study, “to assess the impact of high precipitation on the dynamics of E_T/E…” the chapter should include information about precipitation or humidity in the region and/or whether these parameters have been identified as drivers of E_T / E dynamics.

Line 91. Is it really necessary to emphasize that the measurements will be made “as accurately as possible”? Readers expect that full work to be as accurate as possible.

Line 92. Include the scientific name of balsam fir

Figure 1. (a), (b) and (d) panels. Canopy height categories cannot be identified. I suggest to use more contrast in the colors or grouping the categories.

Table 1. Mention if values of DBH, LAI and S­_T correspond to the average.

Figure 3. This figure is difficult to read.

Why don’t only W_L is used as Y axis? If both “R [mm]” and “LWS [raw count]” are required, why are the values not included? The axis to interpreting the black bars (R) is missed! On the top line LWS – 6 m and more, use LWS (6 m) instead.

Line 253.  You say “…, but was still deemed satisfactory.”; then in line 256 you start the paragraph with “Besides the errors from the calibration coefficients, …”. Are you talking about different things? re-phrase if necessary.

Line 259 – 262. “Nevertheless, none of ……….... circumferential variation”. So, what the significant difference is attributed?

Line 275. “…, ranging from 4 up to 116.5 h, …”; why the longest wetting–drying events (e.g. 116 h) are not shown in the figure 3? If the figure is based in the average duration of the events, you should mention it!

Figure 7. The data collection is half-hourly, but X axis is hourly. If it is not mentioned, there is confusion in reading the figure. You could show the date in a subdivision of the X axis, i.e. first division = hours; second division = date.

Line 348 - 349. Please use the Latin names for tree species.

Line 475 - 476. “… the variation of ET/E between our two measurement sites was related to differences in LAI.” However, in line 438 you say “The difference in ET/E between sites was likely related to LAI, …” Is it a statement or a probability?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx