Dear Albert,

I agree with you that an extended definition of "Earth" should include the atmosphere too. The term decided "Atmosphere-Terretrial/Aquatic biosphere" sounds as ideally serving in your research. Some critique would be raised by the repetition of the second part of "-sphere" for both contexts: "atmo- (air-)" and bio-". However, for the scopes of your analysis, you are intuitively bridging together those "bio-" mechanisms that are subtly met and nurturing of all "atmo- (air-), terrestrial-, aquatic-" domains.

Very thoughtful and fruitful discussion! Sincere wishes for the best success at your research!

The correct terms are atmosphere versus community and substrate. Community is all living things in the ecosystem and substrate is the natural surface or medium on which an organism grows, lives or is attached, which includes water, but excludes air. You were just getting stuck using words that encompassed everything in a natural environment :)

It will be useful to clearly define the boundary of the system of your research and then explain your fluxes from there. If you are defining biotic/abiotic as your focus interaction with their environment is probably what you are trying to explain. The atmosphere can be part of the ecosystem with how you define it. Instead of thinking as an interface, you should define it as exchanges between objects and the environment. One way you can discuss is using dimensions of ecosystems (vertical, longitudinal, horizontal, and temporal). Gaseous exchange with atmosphere could be explained along the vertical dimension. Transitional areas between ecosystems are often described as ecotones, but I don't think this is what you are looking for when discussing gaseous exchanges.

Even though I do not know the exact analysis contained in your manuscript, I would recommend that the single term of "Atmosphere-Earth" interface should precisely describe your analysis, meeting also the considerations raised by the reviewer.

Since you mean the interface between the atmosphere and any other ecosystem compartment, I would recommend " Atmosphere interface(s)" or "Atmospheric interface(s)"

But, actually, the entity of "interface(s)" in single or plural nouns it implies that there are at least two counterpart entities that are associated to each other. Therefore one, or more, pairs of interacting-affected terms it is anticipated.

The term of "Atmosphere interface(s)" also infers that these "interfaces" are all included and framed within the "atmospheric system", whereas the interfaces of "atmosphere-ecosystem" are actually developed through the proximity of the "atmospheric system" (paired with) other "natural system(s)/context(s)".

Thanks all for your input.

That's definitely not an easy concept to solve. There are many articles and books out there talking about the "atmosphere-ecosystem" or "atmosphere-biosphere" interface or interactions. We understand what does terms refer to, however, it is the first time a reviewer came with a very valid point. There is actually overlap and one of the components (atmosphere) is inside the other larger component (ecosystem or biosphere).

Our manuscript is not a typical research paper (even though we show real experimental data) but a concept that applies to all systems (aquatic and terrestrial ecossytems) in general. Therefore it is a bit complicated to focus into a specific interface as we really need to point the interaction between the atmosphere and the rest of ecosystem components.

As suggested above, I think that it is better to define first and then probably use the term of "Atmopshere-Terretrial/Aquatic biosphere" interface/interactions.

That's a bit long but I think that it specifies more accurately our point although it probably is still debatable.

Griogorios - Regarding "Atmosphere-Earth", although I can see your point here, I am sure that this will bring confusion as "Earth" is understood as the whole planet and therefore it includes the atmosphere too.

Dear Albert,

I agree with you that an extended definition of "Earth" should include the atmosphere too. The term decided "Atmosphere-Terretrial/Aquatic biosphere" sounds as ideally serving in your research. Some critique would be raised by the repetition of the second part of "-sphere" for both contexts: "atmo- (air-)" and bio-". However, for the scopes of your analysis, you are intuitively bridging together those "bio-" mechanisms that are subtly met and nurturing of all "atmo- (air-), terrestrial-, aquatic-" domains.

Very thoughtful and fruitful discussion! Sincere wishes for the best success at your research!

That is a good point too, repetition of "sphere" in both terms. I fear that using "atmo-terrestrial/aquatic biosphere" interface could be not intuitive for everyone, although I do not dislkie this idea to be honest.. I kinda like the idea, and probably it should be clear if defined initially for a first time.

Thanks a lot! :)

In oceanography we use the term ( Atmospheric ocean circulation) to refer to the interaction of the atmosphere with the ocean, but this term also excludes the interaction of the atmosphere with land, so I think that the term (Interaction of the atmosphere with the Earth's ecosystem) is more comprehensive, as the ecosystem includes both terrestrial and the aquatic environment.

Albert Rivas-Ubach

Dear Dr. Rivas-Ubach,

"Atmosphere-Terrestrial/Aquatic biosphere" interface/interactions sound good for your purpose. But why not simplify it to "Atmosphere-Biosphere Interface or ABI for short? I think there is no need to indicate the terrestrial/aquatic terms since it is understood that the biosphere includes both ecosystems.

Thanks.

Victor

The interface is actually very complex in many cases on land. It is much simpler when dealing with water bodies. An example is the thermal situation. Kudryavtsev and colleagues used the term thermal offset to explain changes in the observed temperatures in the upper layers of the soil and vegetation and the air. There is a definite change in thermal regime between each layer of vegetation cover, snow if present, organic soil layers, and each mineral soil horizon. These are modified seasonally as vegetation comes alive and becomes dormant in many climatic zones as well as slope angle and orientation relative to the sun. Drainage also varies and the thermal properties of water are also involved. For more information see:

Kudryavtsev, V. A., Garagula, L. S., Kondrat'yeva, K. A. & Melamed, V. G., 1974. Osnovy merzlotnogo prognoza. MGU. 431p. [I Russia].

Harris, S. A., Brouchkov, A. and Cheng Guodong, 1917. Permafrost. CRC Press, Bocan Rouge, pp. 93-96.

In general, the Atmosphere-Lithosphere interface is probably as inclusive as possible together with the Atmosphere-Water interface for the surfaces of ocean, sense and smaller water bodies.

Stuart.

Victor B. Asio

I do also understand the meaning of Atmosphere-Biosphere interface, however, it is true that the "biosphere" included the Atmosphere as one of its components. This is actually the main problem.

I am arriving to the conclusion that, even widely spread in the bibliography and commonly understood, the terms "atmosphere-ecosystem" and "atmosphere-biosphere" are not accurate and there is not a specific way to refer to this interface/interaction. Therefore, I think I will just provide this "concept" in an explanation form. Something like "the interaction (or interface) between the atmosphere and the other ecosystem (or biosphere) components (i.e., plants, water, ...)."

This seems to me the only way to be more accurate.

I would just need a term to refer to all ecosystem components (litosphere, plants, animals, humans, buildings, rivers, oceans, lakes, ...) together but excluding the atmosphere. That term seems to be non-existent. May be the moment to propose something new?? LoL