Agricultural And Forest Meteorology

---
name: agricultural-and-forest-meteorology
description: 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.
---

# 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] <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>
```