Short-Term Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Cattle Slurry for Silage Maize: Effects of Placement and the Nitrification Inhibitor 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole Phosphate (DMPP)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 42. The word ‘development’ will be continuous and not like develop-ment

Line 73- NO3- will be as NO₃^-

Line 79- 20^oC is correct form and not like 20 C

Line 107- The 3 × 18 m²  is correct form of writing

Line 131- Zea mays will be italic as Zea mays

Line 149- 10 mL will be written as 10 ml

Line 152- 6mL will written as 6 ml

Line 161 –subsamples were extracted (were is to be added)

Line 166- by drying c. 10g of soil for 24 h – check the c. if it need to be omitted

Line 178- With three replicated field plots is correct

 

Line 352- NO3- will be corrected to NO₃^-

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please find the attachment, Response to reviewer 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Slurry injection is an effective measure to reduce ammonia emissions after field application, but with higher risk of nitrous oxide emission than surface application. This study compared soil mineral nitrogen dynamics and nitrous oxide emissions with two ways of application. First, traditional injection at 25 cm spacing between rows followed by ploughing (called “non-placed slurry”), and second, injection using a new so-called goosefoot slurry injector that placed the slurry in ploughed soil as a c. 30 cm broad band at 10 cm depth below maize crop rows with 75 cm spacing (named “placed slurry”).  Furthermore, the effect of treating slurry with the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) in Vizura® was tested with both application methods. The field experiment was conducted on a sandy loam soil in a temperate climate. Both nitrous oxide emissions, and the dynamics of soil mineral nitrogen, were monitored for eight weeks after slurry application and seeding of maize using static chambers. The level of nitrous oxide emissions was higher with non-placed compared to the placed slurry, mainly due to higher emissions during the first four weeks. That might be due to higher rates of nitrification rate and in turn stimulation of the denitrification process.

1. Please thoroughly read the manuscript for grammatical errors.

2.  80% of references should be from the last 3 years.

3. Please add Table 4 as a supplementary file. Show significant points in figures as different letters.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revision

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please find the attachment Response to reviewer 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our manuscript. Please find the attachment, Response to reviewer 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability-2626452 provides some valuable information to the researchers and readers. The subject of the manuscript is consistent with the scope of the Journal. I suggested that the manuscript need to be major revised before it is accepted by this journal.

1.Manuscript needs through language editing.

2.The logic and neat of introduction need to be further improved.

3.In keywords, except for proper nouns, the first letter of other words should not be capitalized, and the separation between words should be used with ‘;’.

4.Line 73: ‘3’ should be subscript. Please check the full text.

5.Line 107: ‘2’ should be superscript. Please check the full text.

6.The number of decimal places should be consistent.Please check the full text.

7.All cited references should be marked in the text.Please check the full text.

8.Conclusions are not just about summarising the key result of the study,it shoud highlights the insights and the applicability of your results for further work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Manuscript needs through language editing.

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our manuscript. Please find the attachment, Response to reviewer 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my concerns have been well addressed. I have some suggestions.

1. L39 “prevent” could be replaced with "mitigate"

2. the previous question 2 (2. the application or significance of this study could be provided?): The authors should provide the application or significance of the study. Not the p value ( the statistical significance of the result)

 

Author Response

Thanks for the suggestions. Please find the attachment in response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no comments.

Author Response

Please find the attachment in response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx