shield_lock
JinDaGe
← Back to skills
extension
Category: Productivity & OfficeNo API key required

agricultural-and-forest-meteorology

Use when targeting Agricultural and Forest Meteorology or deciding whether a land–atmosphere manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the land–atmosphere-process and flux-measurement bar, micrometeorological evidence expectations, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

personAuthor: TashanworldhubOpenAPI
open_in_newRepositorydownloadDownload package

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>