--- name: brycewang-stanford/agricultural-and-forest-meteorology source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-agricultural-and-forest-meteorology@1/SKILL.md source_sha256: e5a7a6416a96 --- # 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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Agricultural and Forest Meteorology [Topic tags] <2–3 closest land–atmosphere topics> [Land–atmosphere process] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```