agricultural-and-forest-meteorology

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (agricultural-and-forest-meteorology)

Journal positioning

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology is Elsevier's outlet for the interaction between

agricultural and forest ecosystems and the atmosphere: the land–atmosphere exchange of

energy, water, carbon, and trace gases; micrometeorology and boundary-layer processes;

eddy-covariance and other flux measurement; phenology; and crop- and forest–climate

interactions. Its defining expectation is a **genuine land–atmosphere or

biosphere–atmosphere process contribution** — an advance in how vegetated surfaces exchange

mass and energy with the atmosphere, or in how that exchange is measured, modeled, or

scaled. A pure crop-agronomy study with no atmospheric coupling, or a pure climate-modeling

paper with no surface-process component, is a poor fit however competent. This skill is a

fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current

author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

author instructions and data policy.

When to trigger

• The author names Agricultural and Forest Meteorology and wants a fit/framing check for a

land–atmosphere paper.

• A crop, forest, or ecosystem study must be re-framed around its energy/water/carbon

exchange or micrometeorological process to fit, or recognized as out of scope.

• The author is choosing between this journal, agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment,

global-change-biology, and a climate venue.

• The author needs the journal's flux-measurement and micrometeorological evidence

expectations.

Scope & topic fit

• Land–atmosphere exchange of energy, water (evapotranspiration), CO2, CH4, N2O, and other

trace gases over croplands, grasslands, and forests.

• Micrometeorology and surface-layer processes: turbulence, footprint, surface energy

balance, canopy–atmosphere coupling.

• Eddy-covariance, chamber, and remote-sensing flux measurement, including methodology, gap

filling, partitioning, and network/large-sample synthesis.

• Phenology and its climatic drivers, and feedbacks between vegetation phenology and surface

fluxes.

• Crop– and forest–climate interactions: water and heat stress, drought response, and

climate effects on productivity when an atmospheric-exchange process is central.

• Land-surface and SVAT modeling that represents or is constrained by surface-flux

observations.

Method & evidence bar

• The contribution must rest on a land–atmosphere or biosphere–atmosphere process — not

agronomic yield or ecological pattern alone.

• Flux data must follow accepted processing: coordinate rotation, density (WPL) corrections,

quality control, footprint/energy-balance-closure reporting, and clear gap-filling and

partitioning methods.

• Observational studies need adequate site characterization, instrument calibration, and

representativeness; single-site, single-season claims must be framed honestly.

• Models must be evaluated against flux or micrometeorological observations with appropriate

skill metrics and uncertainty, and benchmarked against a credible reference.

• Scaling claims (site to region, plot to canopy) require explicit, defensible upscaling

logic, not assertion.

• Data should be available or sourced per Elsevier and journal policy; network-data use

(e.g., flux networks) should be properly cited and acknowledged.

Structure & house style

• Standard Elsevier research-article structure (Introduction, Site/Data, Methods, Results,

Discussion, Conclusions); re-check current article types and length on the live guide.

• The introduction must establish the surface–atmosphere process gap, not just an

agronomic or ecological motivation.

• Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing: flux time series, diurnal/seasonal

composites, energy-balance closure, and model–observation comparisons with uncertainty.

• A highlights list and a structured or graphical abstract are commonly expected — re-check

current requirements on the live guide.

• Methods and data-availability statements must let a reader reproduce the flux processing

and central result.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and

../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the

current Agricultural and Forest Meteorology page you checked.

• Search the live site for "Agricultural and Forest Meteorology guide for authors" and

follow the current Elsevier version.

• Re-check article types, highlights/abstract format, and word/figure expectations.
• Confirm the data-availability/research-data policy and any flux-network data-citation

expectations.

• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use

disclosure, and open-access options.

• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions

win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The central contribution is a land–atmosphere/biosphere–atmosphere process, not yield or pattern alone.
• [ ] Flux processing (corrections, QC, footprint, closure, gap filling, partitioning) is reported and defensible.
• [ ] Site characterization, calibration, and representativeness are adequate and honestly framed.
• [ ] Models are evaluated against flux/micrometeorological data with skill metrics and uncertainty.
• [ ] Any site-to-region scaling has explicit, defensible upscaling logic.
• [ ] Highlights, abstract format, and data-availability statement meet current requirements.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A pure crop-agronomy or variety/management trial with no land–atmosphere exchange component.
• A pure climate-modeling or atmospheric-dynamics paper with no surface-flux or vegetation process.
• Eddy-covariance results with no QC, energy-balance closure, or footprint/gap-filling description.
• Single-site, single-season flux study presented as broadly generalizable without caveats.
• Model results with no comparison to flux/micrometeorological observations or uncertainty.
• Missing data-availability statement or uncited use of flux-network data.

Re-routing decision

• Agroecosystem-management or soil/biodiversity focus without atmospheric coupling → agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment.
• Ecosystem carbon/climate-change biology dominant → global-change-biology.
• Catchment water-balance / hydrological process dominant → journal-of-hydrology.
• Large-scale carbon/nutrient cycling framing → global-biogeochemical-cycles.
• Climate-dynamics or land–climate modeling dominant → journal-of-climate or nature-climate-change.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest land–atmosphere topics>
[Land–atmosphere process] <the energy/water/carbon/trace-gas exchange or micromet advance>
[Method/evidence] <does flux processing + model evaluation + scaling clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>