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.
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.
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>
