Monitoring of Seasonal Under-Vine CO2 Effluxes in a Vineyard under Different Fertilization Practices
, Andrea Cresti 1, Andrea Rengo 2, Mauro Eugenio Maria D’Arcangelo 1 and Elena Brunori 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present manuscript deals with an undoubtedly very current and interesting topic. Nevertheless, some shortcomings lead me to suggest a profound reworking of the manuscript. To improve the work, I provide some constructive criticism.
Introduction:
- References 4-5-6-7 all pertain to ecosystems different from the Mediterranean one. I suggest integrating works conducted in Mediterranean environments.
- Lines 48-58: The importance of water content and its influence on soil respiration is discussed, and subsequently, the authors shift the focus to how agricultural practices, including fertilization (a central aspect of the study), can influence respiration, then returning to discuss the role of water content. In these few lines, there is little linearity in the discourse, and especially, no study is cited on how fertilization can influence mineralization processes, as already mentioned, a central aspect of this work.
Materials and Methods:
· The control monitoring is missing, or if the "treatment" defined as C corresponds to the normal vineyard management (as reported in caption figure 7), then the experimental design needs better explanation.
· The monitoring chamber was relocated between different years throughout the experiment. As a result, it is not possible to analyze the dataset from the two years of monitoring as a single unified dataset with repeated measures, which undermines the statistical robustness of the findings. Nonetheless, even after dividing the dataset into two sub-datasets (one year of data each), the author does not present any model – analysis that effectively highlight the statistical differences between the two treatments. In addition, although the influence of temperature and soil water content on data analysis has been mentioned several times, there is no model considering these covariates. I suggest an approach using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.
· Soil respiration measurements were taken using a device also referred to as a prototype by the authors. I suggest reporting a calibration of the monitoring chambers in the paper.
Discussion:
- Lines 361-378: The discussions are not supported by the statistics presented by the author.
General Comments:
- Review the use of acronyms; sometimes, they are defined but not used later in the text.
- The resolution (image quality) of the figures needs improvement. Additionally, in Figure 7a-b, the layout differs from the previous figures, and the legend contains data in Italian. Figure 8 has an Italian heading.
- It would be appropriate to include climatic data.
Author Response
Authors responses
Dear Editor, thanks you and reviewers for the suggestions. We adopted them to improve the work. Below responses to each of the reviewers' comments. Best regards
Reviewer 1
The present manuscript deals with an undoubtedly very current and interesting topic. Nevertheless, some shortcomings lead me to suggest a profound reworking of the manuscript. To improve the work, I provide some constructive criticism.
Advise: References 4-5-6-7 all pertain to ecosystems different from the Mediterranean one. I suggest integrating works conducted in Mediterranean environments.
Answer: We added these recent works conduced in Mediterranean areas:
- Munjonji, L., Ayisi, K.K., Mafeo, T.P., Maphanga, T., Mabitsela, K.E., 2021. Seasonal variation in soil CO2 emission and leaf gas exchange of well-managed commercial Citrus sinensis (L.) orchards. Plant Soil 465, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-04986-x.
- Montanaro, G., Doupis, G., Kourgialas, N., Markakis, E., Kavroulakis, N., Psarras, G., ... & Nuzzo, V. (2023). Management options influence seasonal CO2 soil emissions in Mediterranean olive ecosystems. European Journal of Agronomy, 146, 126815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126815
And we keep the others done in Semi-arid environment like the Mediterranean area.
Advise: Lines 48-58: The importance of water content and its influence on soil respiration is discussed, and subsequently, the authors shift the focus to how agricultural practices, including fertilization (a central aspect of the study), can influence respiration, then returning to discuss the role of water content. In these few lines, there is little linearity in the discourse, and especially, no study is cited on how fertilization can influence mineralization processes, as already mentioned, a central aspect of this work.
Answer: we rearranged the introduction section took in consideration the advise of all reviewers.
Advise: Materials and Methods: The control monitoring is missing, or if the "treatment" defined as C corresponds to the normal vineyard management (as reported in caption figure 7), then the experimental design needs better explanation.
Answer: we rewrite some sentences in order to explained it better.
- Advise: The monitoring chamber was relocated between different years throughout the experiment. As a result, it is not possible to analyse the dataset from the two years of monitoring as a single unified dataset with repeated measures, which undermines the statistical robustness of the findings. Nonetheless, even after dividing the dataset into two sub-datasets (one year of data each), the author does not present any model – analysis that effectively highlight the statistical differences between the two treatments. In addition, although the influence of temperature and soil water content on data analysis has been mentioned several times, there is no model considering these covariates. I suggest an approach using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.
Answer: Each monitoring chamber remained located in the same spot (under vine) in the vineyard for the 2021 and 2022, they are removed only for a few days at pre-harvest to facilitate the passage of the mechanical harvester, and relocated soon after in post-harvest to be finally removed at the end of October at the end of each studied seasons (2021-2022).
Among GLM we applied a simple regression model to exploring the effect of soil temperature and moisture on TSR for OMN and C treatment.
Advise: Soil respiration measurements were taken using a device also referred to as a prototype by the authors. I suggest reporting a calibration of the monitoring chambers in the paper.
Answer: the Chamber soil prototype was built based on prototypes already published in the literature [41, 42] and as reported at https://www.vienna-scientific.com/products/. Our prototype is an assembly of sensors already calibrated by the source company, the box was designed on the basis of other works in the literature and in addition the values found are comparable with the TSR values of other systems in the same cultivation environment. We therefore did not consider calibration work in field to be necessary, given also the applicability of the tool for a European project of only a few years.
In addition, we have added the technical data sheets of the two types of sensors used (Figure 2s and 3s).
Advise: Discussion: Lines 361-378: The discussions are not supported by the statistics presented by the author
Answer: we added statistical analysis and we modified the discussion section.
General Comments:
Advise:Review the use of acronyms; sometimes, they are defined but not used later in the text.
Answer: we checked it and removed where not necessary
Advise: The resolution (image quality) of the figures needs improvement. Additionally, in Figure 7a-b, the layout differs from the previous figures, and the legend contains data in Italian. Figure 8 has an Italian heading.
Answer: we checked all resolution and modified the misprints
Advise:It would be appropriate to include climatic data.
Answer: we added in supplementary data indicating the relative humidity and rainfall pattern in the study sites, using a weather station in situ.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research of the paper is of great significance, providing a basis for energy conservation, emission reduction, and sustainable development in agricultural practice production. However, there are some shortcomings in the article.
1. Titles should not include commas
2. The first paragraph of the introduction is too long; it is recommended to split it into 2-3 paragraphs. The significance and necessity of studying carbon dioxide emissions from grapes can be merged with the last paragraph of the introduction.
3. It should be emphasized the significance of the impact of different fertilization treatments on the seasonal and diurnal changes of carbon dioxide, which is consistent with the content of your research. Please reorganize and rewrite the introduction section.
4. The discussion should emphasize the comparison of your results with others and analyze the reasons for it. I suggest that the discussion section be conducted based on the two aspects of the paper's research (seasonal and diurnal variations of carbon dioxide) to make the article more readable.
Author Response
Authors responses
Dear Editor, thanks you and reviewers for the suggestions. We adopted them to improve the work. Below responses to each of the reviewers' comments. Best regards
Reviewer 2.
General comment
The research of the paper is of great significance, providing a basis for energy conservation, emission reduction, and sustainable development in agricultural practice production. However, there are some shortcomings in the article.
Advise:Titles should not include commas
Answer: we apologize, we removed it.
Advise:The first paragraph of the introduction is too long; it is recommended to split it into 2-3 paragraphs. The significance and necessity of studying carbon dioxide emissions from grapes can be merged with the last paragraph of the introduction. It should be emphasized the significance of the impact of different fertilization treatments on the seasonal and diurnal changes of carbon dioxide, which is consistent with the content of your research. Please reorganize and rewrite the introduction section.
Answer: we rearranged the introduction section took in consideration the advise of all reviewers.
Advise:The discussion should emphasize the comparison of your results with others and analyze the reasons for it. I suggest that the discussion section be conducted based on the two aspects of the paper's research (seasonal and diurnal variations of carbon dioxide) to make the article more readable.
Answer: we modified discussion section according to all reviewer’s comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
c
Author Response
Authors responses
Dear Editor, thanks you and reviewers for the suggestions. We adopted them to improve the work. Below responses to each of the reviewers' comments. Best regards
Reviewer 3
Advise:The main criticism points are:
1- There is much grammatical, punctuation, syntax errors, so sever English language
editing is needed. For example:
- Line #16 – use ( were acquired) instead of (acquired)
- Line #14 – use (chamber techniques) instead of (a chamber techniques).
- Line #18 – (are assessed) instead of (a assessed).
- Line #19 – (ranging) not (ranged).
- Line #31 – (the keys) not (keys).
- Line #34 – (results in climate-neutral systems) not( in climate neutral systems)
- Line #34 – (They require) not (They requires)
- Line #43 – (are concerned about) not (concerned on)
- Line #43 – (an agricultural field) not (agricultural field)
- Line #44 – (widespread) not (wide spread)
- Line #44 – (in the world,) not (in the worlds,)
And also there are many spelling and grammatical errors in all manuscript Please review and
amend it.
Answer: we welcome your suggestions and we modified the manuscript and we’ll ask for journal’s professional language editing services.
Advise:- What is the statistical design used for? It’s unclear
Answer: we rewritten some sentences in Materials and Methods in order to explained it better.
Advise:- In introduction please add general paragraph about SOM and its effects because Organic
matter is a key component of soil that affects its physical, chemical, and biological
properties.
Answer- we rearranged the introduction section took in consideration the advise of all reviewers.
Advise:- It is preferable to describe the characteristics of the fertilizers used.
Answer –This information are already present in Material and methods. In addition, we have added the technical data sheets of the two types of fertilizers used (Figure 4s and 5s).
Advise:- What are the Patterns and controlling factors of soil carbon sequestration?
Answer – we added this information after run the GLM to exploring the effect of soil temperature and moisture on TSR for OMN and C treatment.
Advise:- The discussion lacks scientific reasons
Answer - we rearranged the introduction section took in consideration the advise of all reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The new version of the paper has significantly improved compared to the previous version, as follows: • In general, the text flows more smoothly and linearly. • The description of the experimental design is clearer. • The quality of the figures has improved, although figure 8 still needs improvement. • The references are more appropriate, but reference 60 needs to be replaced as it is not a peer review.
However, the authors' decision regarding the statistical analysis remains a weak point. Despite the previous suggestion, in this new version, even though it has improved compared to the previous one, the authors choose a statistic that, in my opinion, is incomplete and simplistic. This decision compromises the quality of the work, making it less competitive compared to many other manuscripts that address similar topics. Consequently, the discussions are also greatly affected by this decision.
Author Response
Thank you for your work and useful advice to improve our manuscript.
Regarding your comment: The quality of the figures has improved, although figure 8 still needs improvement.
We have modified figure 8 by enlarging the graphics and text, the quality of the figure is at 300 dpi.
Regarding your comment: reference 60 needs to be replaced as it is not a peer review.
We have replaced reference 60.Wosten, J. H. M., Groenendijk, P., Veraart, J. A., & van der Lugt, L. M. Soil organic matter and its importance for water management. (2019). Stowa.
with
Lal, R. Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research. European Journal of Soil Science, 2009, 60 (2), 158-169.
Regarding the statistical analysis in order to analyse how CO2 effluxs varied with time (season 2021 and 2022) and treatment (C and OMN) we used generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) and a results table was added in supplementary materials.
Line 189-190; 275-276; 708-709.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has made extensive revisions to the paper, and I personally believe that after carefully checking the format of the article, it can be directly published.
Author Response
Thank you for your work and useful advice to improve our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The manuscript is generally well written
The authors responded precisely to comments raised by the reviewer. The manuscript can be considered for publication in its current version
Sincerely
Author Response
Thank you for your work and useful advice to improve our manuscript.
