Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› agricultural-and-forest-meteorology
agricultural-and-forest-meteorology
GitHub用于评估稿件是否适合《Agricultural and Forest Meteorology》期刊，聚焦陆气交换、微气象及通量测量。提供范围匹配、框架重构建议及拒稿风险检查，辅助作者判断选题契合度与证据标准。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定该期刊并需进行适配性/框架检查
生态或作物研究需围绕能量/水/碳交换重构以符合期刊要求
在多个相关期刊间进行选择决策
需要确认通量测量和微气象学的证据标准
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill agricultural-and-forest-meteorology -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"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.mdand../../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-climateornature-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>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:16
