The Spatiotemporal Dynamic Impact Mechanism of Soil Greenhouse Gases under Precipitation Based on Environmental Law

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review#1

Review Comments: sustainability-2304315

Title: Mechanismofspatialandtemporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases in grasslandecosystems under the effect of precipitation - Environmental law as a guideline

The paper entitled, “Mechanism of spatial and temporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases in grassland ecosystems under the effect of precipitation - Environmental law as a guideline” is interesting. However, several points have to be addressed before itsconsideration.

1. Please include a novelty statement in the Abstract.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! The novelty was added in the abstract of the revised paper. As follows:

The innovation of the gas distribution model used in the study lies in its ability to capture global gas flux trends in data sampling and predictive analysis compared to manual periodic monitoring or gas monitoring using a single mobile robot.

2. Reduce the number of keywords.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! “Soil; Moisture; Correlation; New energy” in the keywords of the original paper were deleted. Now, the keywords of the revised paper are “Precipitation; Greenhouse Gases; Kernel DM; Conv-LSTM; Sustainable Development; Legal Protection Path”.

3. Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2 (Related Work) must be merged. TheSectionmust be structured sequentially by stating the novelty, existing work and researchgap in this field. The authors have to critically analyze this section and cite relevantand recent works.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! The introduction and literature review were combined, and a description of the novelty content were added, and references 3, 4, 5, and 31 were replaced with references from the past three years. The modified content is as follows:

Therefore, the novelty of this study lies in investigating the impact mechanism of different precipitation effects and different depths of soil on the spatiotemporal dynamic changes of greenhouse gases, and establishing a model to describe the dynamic changes of soil greenhouse gas fluxes using time series methods and recurrent neural networks. At the same time, the kernel DM model optimizes the modeling of gas distribution. This allows the research object to be expanded in consideration of soil depth factors, and the research method to be optimized in spatiotemporal monitoring of gas distribution.

[3]Nissen S, Cretney R. Retrofitting an emergency approach to the climate crisis: A study of two climate emergency declarations in Aotearoa New Zealand. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2022, 40(1): 340-356.doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211028901

[4]Rosenbach M, Barbieri J S. The Climate Crisis Affects Us All. JAMA dermatology, 2023, 159(1): 23-24.doi: doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.5424

[5]Tschakert P. More-than-human solidarity and multispecies justice in the climate crisis. Environmental Politics, 2022, 31(2): 277-296.doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1853448

[31]Weech S. Changing Climate, Changing Terrain: The Stasis Metaphor and the Climate Crisis. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 2022, 52(1): 94-109.doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620966988

4. Section 3 name should be short.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! The Section 3 name in the original paper was changed to “2. Model Design for Dynamic Analysis of Soil GHG under Precipitation” in the revised paper.

5. Section 3.2 has to be discussed more thoroughly.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! Figure 7, Table 1, and Table 2 in the second section of the result analysis were restated. The restated content is as follows:

From Figure 7 (a), it can be seen that soil depths of 0 to 10 centimeters have the highest root biomass, and the content is much higher than deeper soil layers. This indicates that the grass roots in the study area are mainly located at a position of 0 to 10 centimeters. At this depth, the root biomass of 0-10 cm soil layer under precipitation changes is characterized by increased water treatment (1160 g/m2)>normal precipitation (850 g/m2)>reduced water treatment (650 g/m2), indicating that the root biomass is very sensitive to precipitation changes. From Figure 7 (b), it can be seen that bare land has the highest microbial carbon content. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological carbon content under normal precipitation treatment (52 mg/kg)>under increased water treatment (49 mg/kg)>under reduced water treatment (34.3 mg/kg). The fluctuation range is 3 mg/kg and 14.7 mg/kg. This indicates that increasing precipitation decreases soil microbial carbon, and when soil moisture is high, it significantly inhibits soil microbial diversity, thereby reducing soil microbial biomass. From Figure 7 (c), it can be seen that the soil biological nitrogen content fluctuates significantly under different precipitation treatments. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological nitrogen content of water increasing treatment (13.8 mg/kg)>normal precipitation (9.5 mg/kg)>reduced precipitation (10.3 mg/kg), with the difference range of 0.8 mg/kg and 3.5 mg/kg. Unlike soil microbial carbon, soil microbial nitrogen in the 0-10 cm grassland treated with increased water is higher than that in the reduced water treatment and normal precipitation, indicating that precipitation changes have different impacts on soil microbial groups.

There was a significant correlation between root biomass and soil N2O fluxes under rainfall changes, with a correlation of 0.350, but there was no significant correlation between root biomass and soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes; There was no significant correlation between soil microbial carbon and nitrogen content and soil greenhouse gas flux under rainfall changes. As soluble organic carbon and soluble organic nitrogen are the direct sources of C and N nutrients required by plants, they are unstable in soil and easily decomposed and utilized by soil microorganisms, and directly participate in the soil carbon and nitrogen cycle. Therefore, the reason for the above results may be that precipitation changes interfere with nitrification and denitrification in soil.

From Table2, there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, and LAP and soil N2O fluxes under precipitation changes, while only CBH had a significant correlation with soil CO2 fluxes. From the perspective of different precipitation treatments, there was no significant correlation between soil enzyme activity and soil greenhouse gas flux under increased water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, LAP, and NAG activities and soil N2O flux under reduced water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between LAP activity and soil CO2 flux under normal precipitation.

6. The authors have to draw a flowchart, summarizing the steps in Section 3.1 andSection 3.2.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! An overall method flowchart was added, as shown in Figure 4.

Fig.4 Overall flow chart incorporating gas distribution modeling

As can be seen from Figure 4, the model includes three parts: sampling system, Conv-LSTM, and gas distribution model. The gas distribution modeling Kernel DM serializes the collected gas concentration data in time to calculate the average concentration and average variance corresponding to the grid.

7. Section 4 (Discussions) should be Results and Discussions.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! The title of the fourth section has been revised to "Results and Discussion".

8. Figure 4 and Figure 5 is not clear. Increase its quality.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! The font size of all images in the conclusion section were modified. The image after font adjustment is as follows:

Figure 5. Temperature and humidity change curves of three soil depths under different precipitation

Figure 6. Results of relationship between soil temperature and carbon dioxide gas flux at different soil depths

Figure 7. Results of relationship between soil moisture and carbon dioxide gas flux at different soil depths.

Figure 8. Total results of changes of these three biological factors with soil depth under different precipitation.

9. Are there any correlations of the Data in Figure 5 and 6. What was the basis todraw fitted line?

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! Original Figure 5 (now Figure 6) and Original Figure 6 (now Figure 7) are the results of the relationship between soil temperature and carbon dioxide gas flux, as well as the results of the relationship between soil humidity and carbon dioxide gas flux, which are not necessarily related. The significance of drawing a fitting curve is to continuously understand the variation of gas flux with temperature and humidity.

10. The subscript errors are found in overall manuscript.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! The unit subscripts for gas symbols and gas flux have been modified. The modified content is as follows:

Looking at Figure 6, it can be seen that an increase in soil temperature brings about an increase in soil CO₂ gas fluxes under varying amounts of precipitation and varying depths of the soil. For example, when increasing precipitation was applied to soils from 0 to 10 cm depth and the soil temperature varied between [-10,30] °C, the soil CO₂ gas flux varied in the range [10, 46] mg·m^-2·h^-1. When water reduction was applied to soils at this depth and the temperature varied in the same range, the CO₂ flux varied in the range [21, 45] mg·m^-2·h^-1.

When the soil moisture was in the [5%, 20%] range, the CO2 gas flux after the water increase treatment slowly climbed from 17 mg·m^-2·h^-1 to 36 mg·m^-2·h^-1; when the soil moisture was in the [20%, 35%] range, the gas flux gradually decreased from 36 mg·m^-2·h^-1 to 0 mg·m^-2·h^-1.

11. Table 1 and 2 should be elaborately enhanced.

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! Upon inspection, the data in Table 1 and Table 2 are correct. In addition, the data analysis has been improved. As follows:

There was a significant correlation between root biomass and soil N₂O fluxes under rainfall changes, with a correlation of 0.350, but there was no significant correlation between root biomass and soil CO₂ and CH₄ fluxes; There was no significant correlation between soil microbial carbon and nitrogen content and soil greenhouse gas flux under rainfall changes. As soluble organic carbon and soluble organic nitrogen are the direct sources of C and N nutrients required by plants, they are unstable in soil and easily decomposed and utilized by soil microorganisms, and directly participate in the soil carbon and nitrogen cycle. Therefore, the reason for the above results may be that precipitation changes interfere with nitrification and denitrification in soil.

From Table2, there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, and LAP and soil N₂O fluxes under precipitation changes, while only CBH had a significant correlation with soil CO₂ fluxes. From the perspective of different precipitation treatments, there was no significant correlation between soil enzyme activity and soil greenhouse gas flux under increased water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, LAP, and NAG activities and soil N₂O flux under reduced water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between LAP activity and soil CO₂ flux under normal precipitation.

12. Conclusion should be more accurate by discussing the important findings of the manuscript.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The content of the second section of the result analysis was optimized. As follows:

From Figure 7 (a), it can be seen that soil depths of 0 to 10 centimeters have the highest root biomass, and the content is much higher than deeper soil layers. This indicates that the grass roots in the study area are mainly located at a position of 0 to 10 centimeters. At this depth, the root biomass of 0-10 cm soil layer under precipitation changes is characterized by increased water treatment (1160 g/m2)>normal precipitation (850 g/m2)>reduced water treatment (650 g/m2), indicating that the root biomass is very sensitive to precipitation changes. From Figure 7 (b), it can be seen that bare land has the highest microbial carbon content. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological carbon content under normal precipitation treatment (52 mg/kg)>under increased water treatment (49 mg/kg)>under reduced water treatment (34.3 mg/kg). The fluctuation range is 3 mg/kg and 14.7 mg/kg. This indicates that increasing precipitation decreases soil microbial carbon, and when soil moisture is high, it significantly inhibits soil microbial diversity, thereby reducing soil microbial biomass. From Figure 7 (c), it can be seen that the soil biological nitrogen content fluctuates significantly under different precipitation treatments. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological nitrogen content of water increasing treatment (13.8 mg/kg)>normal precipitation (9.5 mg/kg)>reduced precipitation (10.3 mg/kg), with the difference range of 0.8 mg/kg and 3.5 mg/kg. Unlike soil microbial carbon, soil microbial nitrogen in the 0-10 cm grassland treated with increased water is higher than that in the reduced water treatment and normal precipitation, indicating that precipitation changes have different impacts on soil microbial groups.

There was a significant correlation between root biomass and soil N2O fluxes under rainfall changes, with a correlation of 0.350, but there was no significant correlation between root biomass and soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes; There was no significant correlation between soil microbial carbon and nitrogen content and soil greenhouse gas flux under rainfall changes. As soluble organic carbon and soluble organic nitrogen are the direct sources of C and N nutrients required by plants, they are unstable in soil and easily decomposed and utilized by soil microorganisms, and directly participate in the soil carbon and nitrogen cycle. Therefore, the reason for the above results may be that precipitation changes interfere with nitrification and denitrification in soil.

From Table2, there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, and LAP and soil N2O fluxes under precipitation changes, while only CBH had a significant correlation with soil CO2 fluxes. From the perspective of different precipitation treatments, there was no significant correlation between soil enzyme activity and soil greenhouse gas flux under increased water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, LAP, and NAG activities and soil N2O flux under reduced water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between LAP activity and soil CO2 flux under normal precipitation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Mechanism of spatial and temporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases in grassland ecosystems under the effect of precipitation - Environmental law as a guideline" addresses a topic of current interest in the world at large. The text is well organized in its reasoning and fine written, so it reads well. In addition, the methodology is correct. For these reasons, it is a work that is suitable for publication in a journal such as "Sustainability". However, before being published the authors should make certain changes to their paper, among which I mention the following ones:

1) In the section of the paper that the authors feel is most appropriate, they should introduce a few paragraphs in which they explain what they understand by "Sustainable industrial development" which is one of the key words included in the manuscript.

2) The Introduction should be more extensive in explaining how the problem studied in this manuscript has been addressed in other contexts of the world and, from this, make it clear to the reader what is new in this research. What I am asking for in the Introduction section is something more far-reaching and more general than what is already done in section 2 of the article entitled "Related Work".

3) More international references are needed regarding research on this issue conducted elsewhere outside of China, as well as about the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the present research.

4) A new section should be added to highlight the "Limitations of this study and Recommendations". These recommendations should be made to policy makers in charge of managing and/or implementing sustainable industrial development strategies.

5) The "Conclusion" should go further than it does now in this version of the manuscript in better highlighting the main findings of the research carried out, as well as explaining them in a more reader-friendly language. All this will help to increase the dissemination of the article.

I hope that the above comments, which are basically intended to be constructive, will guide the authors in improving their work, which, given its current short length, still has more than enough space to introduce in detail the changes suggested above.

Author Response

Review#2

The article "Mechanism of spatial and temporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases in grassland ecosystems under the effect of precipitation - Environmental law as aguideline" addresses a topic of current interest in the world at large. The text is well organized in its reasoning and fine written, so it reads well. In addition, the methodology is correct. For these reasons, it is a work that is suitable for publication in a journal such as "Sustainability". However, before being published the authors should make certain changes to their paper, among which I mention the following ones:

1) In the section of the paper that the authors feel is most appropriate, they should introduce a few paragraphs in which they explain what they understand by "Sustainable industrial development" which is one of the key words included in the manuscript.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The article mainly studies the impact of precipitation on soil greenhouse gas fluxes. Therefore, the term "sustainable industrial development is not appropriate" has been replaced by "sustainable development", and relevant content has been added in the introduction section of the revised paper. As follows:

Sustainable development refers to development that meets the needs of contemporary people without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the "ecological crisis" facing mankind, ecological legal systems have been formulated to address and prevent major ecological issues. It is of great significance to establish and improve the ecological legal system to protect ecosystems such as forests and grasslands[1]. In recent years, global warming caused by the global greenhouse effect has been a hot issue in academia and the Internet. However, in the construction process of sustainable development, there are both global warming and changes in precipitation, which are often ignored. Therefore, it is necessary to establish sound environmental laws in the legal system to ensure the sustainable development of ecosystems such as forests and grasslands.

2) The Introduction should be more extensive in explaining how the problem studied in this manuscript has been addressed in other contexts of the world and, from this, make it clear to the reader what is new in this research. What I am asking for in the Introduction section is something more far-reaching and more general than what is already done in section 2 of the article entitled "Related Work".

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The literature review was optimized and summarized. The shortcomings of existing research and the significance of the study were described. As follows:

It can be seen that there are few reports on the response of soil greenhouse gas fluxes to precipitation changes in the profile at present. With the change of precipitation, biological and abiotic factors have also undergone collaborative changes, but the relationship between these biological and abiotic factors and the spatiotemporal variability of soil greenhouse gas emissions is still unclear. Understanding the synergistic changes of biological and abiotic factors and their relationship to the spatiotemporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases under rainfall changes is of great significance for revealing soil greenhouse gas fluxes and their impact mechanisms in grassland ecosystems.

3) More international references are needed regarding research on this issue conducted elsewhere outside of China, as well as about the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the present research.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion!The recent international research literatures on this issue were added. As follows:

[41]Jung H T. The present and future of gas sensors. ACS sensors, 2022, 7(4): 912-913. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.2c00688

[42]Dike V N, Lin Z, Fei K. Evaluation and multimodel projection of seasonal precipitation extremes over central Asia based on CMIP6 simulations. International Journal of Climatology, 2022, 42(14): 7228-7251. doi: 10.1002/joc.7641

[43]Georgescu M, Broadbent A M, Balling Jr R C. Effect of increased greenhouse gas concentration on mean, extreme, and timing of precipitation over Arizona (USA). International Journal of Climatology, 2022, 42(7): 3776-3792. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7444.

4) A new section should be added to highlight the "Limitations of this study and Recommendations". These recommendations should be made to policy makers in charge of managing and/or implementing sustainable industrial development strategies.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The limitations and suggestions of this study in the conclusion section were added. As follows:

Due to the fact that the study area is in a wet year during the test period, the results of water reduction treatment are more significant. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct longer time scale in-situ observation tests to obtain more accurate changes in soil greenhouse gases under precipitation changes. In addition, the impact of the legacy effects of precipitation changes on soil greenhouse gas fluxes and soil biological and abiotic factors is still unclear, which is also an important research direction in the future.

5) The "Conclusion" should go further than it does now in this version of the manuscript in better highlighting the main findings of the research carried out, as well as explaining them in a more reader-friendly language. All this will help to increase the dissemination of the article.

I hope that the above comments, which are basically intended to be constructive, will guide the authors in improving their work, which, given its current short length, still has more than enough space to introduce in detail the changes suggested above.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The results analysis section has been modified to further explore data analysis. As follows:

From Figure 8(a), it can be seen that soil depths of 0 to 10 centimeters have the highest root biomass, and the content is much higher than deeper soil layers. This indicates that the grass roots in the study area are mainly located at a position of 0 to 10 centimeters. At this depth, the root biomass of 0-10 cm soil layer under precipitation changes is characterized by increased water treatment (1160 g/m2)>normal precipitation (850 g/m2)>reduced water treatment (650 g/m2), indicating that the root biomass is very sensitive to precipitation changes. From Figure 8 (b), it can be seen that bare land has the highest microbial carbon content. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological carbon content under normal precipitation treatment (52 mg/kg)>under increased water treatment (49 mg/kg)>under reduced water treatment (34.3 mg/kg). The fluctuation range is 3 mg/kg and 14.7 mg/kg. This indicates that increasing precipitation decreases soil microbial carbon, and when soil moisture is high, it significantly inhibits soil microbial diversity, thereby reducing soil microbial biomass. From Figure 7 (c), it can be seen that the soil biological nitrogen content fluctuates significantly under different precipitation treatments. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological nitrogen content of water increasing treatment (13.8 mg/kg)>normal precipitation (9.5 mg/kg)>reduced precipitation (10.3 mg/kg), with the difference range of 0.8 mg/kg and 3.5 mg/kg. Unlike soil microbial carbon, soil microbial nitrogen in the 0-10 cm grassland treated with increased water is higher than that in the reduced water treatment and normal precipitation, indicating that precipitation changes have different impacts on soil microbial groups.

There was a significant correlation between root biomass and soil N2O fluxes under rainfall changes, with a correlation of 0.350, but there was no significant correlation between root biomass and soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes; There was no significant correlation between soil microbial carbon and nitrogen content and soil greenhouse gas flux under rainfall changes. As soluble organic carbon and soluble organic nitrogen are the direct sources of C and N nutrients required by plants, they are unstable in soil and easily decomposed and utilized by soil microorganisms, and directly participate in the soil carbon and nitrogen cycle. Therefore, the reason for the above results may be that precipitation changes interfere with nitrification and denitrification in soil.

From Table2, there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, and LAP and soil N2O fluxes under precipitation changes, while only CBH had a significant correlation with soil CO2 fluxes. From the perspective of different precipitation treatments, there was no significant correlation between soil enzyme activity and soil greenhouse gas flux under increased water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, LAP, and NAG activities and soil N2O flux under reduced water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between LAP activity and soil CO2 flux under normal precipitation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall interesting research. The title, keywords, methodology and results of the article are well written.

But the literature and discussion section is very weak. I suggest the development of these sections. Studies on the subject should be given more space in the introduction section, and I also recommend that you compare your results with the results available in the literature in the discussion section. Apart from that, I showed other deficiencies on the text

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Overall interesting research. The title, keywords, methodology and results of the article are well written.

But the literature and discussion section is very weak. I suggest the development of these sections. Studies on the subject should be given more space in the introduction section, and I also recommend that you compare your results with the results available in the literature in the discussion section. Apart from that, I showed other deficiencies on the text.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The literature and discussion sections are strengthened, especially in the introduction section, where the author describes the context, significance and novelty of sustainable development. The results are compared with those available in the literature in the discussion section. In addition, for the other shortcomings you pointed out, we have made modifications in the paper. As follows:

Sustainable development refers to development that meets the needs of contemporary people without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the "ecological crisis" facing mankind, ecological legal systems have been formulated to address and prevent major ecological issues. It is of great significance to establish and improve the ecological legal system to protect ecosystems such as forests and grasslands. In recent years, global warming caused by the global greenhouse effect has been a hot issue in academia and the Internet. However, in the construction process of sustainable development, there are both global warming and changes in precipitation, which are often ignored. Therefore, it is necessary to establish sound environmental laws in the legal system to ensure the sustainable development of ecosystems such as forests and grasslands.

Therefore, the novelty of this study lies in investigating the impact mechanism of different precipitation effects and different depths of soil on the spatiotemporal dynamic changes of greenhouse gases, and establishing a model to describe the dynamic changes of soil greenhouse gas fluxes using time series methods and recurrent neural networks. At the same time, the kernel DM model optimizes the modeling of gas distribution. This allows the research object to be expanded in consideration of soil depth factors, and the research method to be optimized in spatiotemporal monitoring of gas distribution.

It can be seen that there are few reports on the response of soil greenhouse gas fluxes to precipitation changes in the profile at present. With the change of precipitation, biological and abiotic factors have also undergone collaborative changes, but the relationship between these biological and abiotic factors and the spatiotemporal variability of soil greenhouse gas emissions is still unclear. Understanding the synergistic changes of biological and abiotic factors and their relationship to the spatiotemporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases under rainfall changes is of great significance for revealing soil greenhouse gas fluxes and their impact mechanisms in grassland ecosystems.

From Figure 8(a), it can be seen that soil depths of 0 to 10 centimeters have the highest root biomass, and the content is much higher than deeper soil layers. This indicates that the grass roots in the study area are mainly located at a position of 0 to 10 centimeters. At this depth, the root biomass of 0-10 cm soil layer under precipitation changes is characterized by increased water treatment (1160 g/m2)>normal precipitation (850 g/m2)>reduced water treatment (650 g/m2), indicating that the root biomass is very sensitive to precipitation changes. From Figure 8 (b), it can be seen that bare land has the highest microbial carbon content. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological carbon content under normal precipitation treatment (52 mg/kg)>under increased water treatment (49 mg/kg)>under reduced water treatment (34.3 mg/kg). The fluctuation range is 3 mg/kg and 14.7 mg/kg. This indicates that increasing precipitation decreases soil microbial carbon, and when soil moisture is high, it significantly inhibits soil microbial diversity, thereby reducing soil microbial biomass. From Figure 7 (c), it can be seen that the soil biological nitrogen content fluctuates significantly under different precipitation treatments. When the soil depth is between 0 and 10 centimeters, the biological nitrogen content of water increasing treatment (13.8 mg/kg)>normal precipitation (9.5 mg/kg)>reduced precipitation (10.3 mg/kg), with the difference range of 0.8 mg/kg and 3.5 mg/kg. Unlike soil microbial carbon, soil microbial nitrogen in the 0-10 cm grassland treated with increased water is higher than that in the reduced water treatment and normal precipitation, indicating that precipitation changes have different impacts on soil microbial groups.

There was a significant correlation between root biomass and soil N2O fluxes under rainfall changes, with a correlation of 0.350, but there was no significant correlation between root biomass and soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes; There was no significant correlation between soil microbial carbon and nitrogen content and soil greenhouse gas flux under rainfall changes. As soluble organic carbon and soluble organic nitrogen are the direct sources of C and N nutrients required by plants, they are unstable in soil and easily decomposed and utilized by soil microorganisms, and directly participate in the soil carbon and nitrogen cycle. Therefore, the reason for the above results may be that precipitation changes interfere with nitrification and denitrification in soil.

From Table2, there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, and LAP and soil N2O fluxes under precipitation changes, while only CBH had a significant correlation with soil CO2 fluxes. From the perspective of different precipitation treatments, there was no significant correlation between soil enzyme activity and soil greenhouse gas flux under increased water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between BG, CBH, LAP, and NAG activities and soil N2O flux under reduced water treatment, while there was a significant correlation between LAP activity and soil CO2 flux under normal precipitation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript no.: sustainability-2304315-peer-review-v1

First author: Wei Zhang

Title of paper: Mechanism of spatial and temporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases in grassland ecosystems under the effect of precipitation - Environmental law as a guideline.

 General comments

I found this study interesting. There is a chain reaction between precipitation patterns and atmospheric greenhouse gases. Increased greenhouse gas emissions due to industrial development can reverse present-day precipitation patterns, and changes in precipitation patterns can in turn affect soil greenhouse gas fluxes. The authors should state more clearly the reason for doing the work for the international scientific community. Therefore, the manuscript requires modifications and explanations before it is suitable for publication (see specific comments).

 Specific comments

Title

please rewrite a shorter title.

 Abstract

The authors need to rewrite a shorter and clear abstract for the international scientific community (nature of the hypothesis and aims, methods, major findings and conclusions).

 Keywords

Replace two or more appropriate key words

 1. Introduction

The Introduction should state more clearly the reason for doing the work with the nature of the hypothesis.

 2. Related work?

Please explain more?

 3. Model Design for the Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Soil Greenhouse Gases in Grassland Ecosystems under the Effect of Precipitation

The writing style of this section is insufficient.

 4. Discussion

I am lost! Please rewrite clearly some places with main results and discuss it using recent references.

 5. Conclusion

Write only the main conclusions

 References

The authors need to cheque the references according to recent Author Guidelines.

 Language corrections will be needed for the text.

Author Response

Review#4

General comments

I found this study interesting. There is a chain reaction between precipitation patterns and atmospheric greenhouse gases. Increased greenhouse gas emissions due toindustrial development can reverse present-day precipitation patterns, and changes in precipitation patterns can in turn affect soil greenhouse gas fluxes. The authors should state more clearly the reason for doing the work for the international scientific community. Therefore, the manuscript requires modifications and explanations before it is suitable for publication (see specific comments).

Specific comments

1. Title

please rewrite a shorter title.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The title changed from 'Study on the mechanism of spatial and temporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases in grassland ecosystems under the effect of precipitation - Environmental law as a guideline' to 'Study on the spatiotemporal dynamic impact mechanism of soil greenhouse gases under precipitation: based on environmental law'.

2. Abstract

The authors need to rewrite a shorter and clear abstract for theinternational scientific community (nature of the hypothesis and aims, methods, major findings and conclusions).

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The abstract was rewritten. As follows:

There is a chain reaction between precipitation patterns and atmospheric greenhouse gases. Understanding the impact mechanism of spatiotemporal dynamics of soil greenhouse gases under precipitation changes can more accurately assess soil greenhouse gas budgets under future precipitation patterns. In view of this, the research uses sensors to collect environmental sample data and gas concentration data, and uses Conv-LSTM to achieve data analysis. The research also introduces the kernel DM model to optimize the gas distribution modeling problem. The innovation of the gas distribution model used in the study lies in its ability to capture global gas flux trends in data sampling and predictive analysis compared to manual periodic monitoring or gas monitoring using a single mobile robot. The results show that when soil moisture changes between 5% and 35%, the soil carbon dioxide gas flux after water addition treatment takes 20% soil moisture as the inflection point, showing a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. This indicates that the mathematical model proposed in the study is effective in collecting and analyzing environmental data.

3. Keywords

Replace two or more appropriate key words

Reply:Thank you for your suggestion! “Soil; Moisture; Correlation; New energy” in the keywords of the original paper were deleted. Now, the keywords of the revised paper were “Precipitation; Greenhouse Gases; Kernel DM; Conv-LSTM; Sustainable Development; Legal Protection Path”.

4. Introduction

The Introduction should state more clearly the reason for doing the work with the nature of the hypothesis.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! A description of the necessity and premise of the study was added in the introduction section of the revised paper. As follows:

Sustainable development refers to development that meets the needs of contemporary people without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the "ecological crisis" facing mankind, ecological legal systems have been formulated to address and prevent major ecological issues. It is of great significance to establish and improve the ecological legal system to protect ecosystems such as forests and grasslands[1]. In recent years, global warming caused by the global greenhouse effect has been a hot issue in academia and the Internet. However, in the construction process of sustainable development, there are both global warming and changes in precipitation, which are often ignored. Therefore, it is necessary to establish sound environmental laws in the legal system to ensure the sustainable development of ecosystems such as forests and grasslands.

It can be seen that there are few reports on the response of soil GHG fluxes to precipitation changes in the profile at present. With the change of precipitation, biological and abiotic factors have also undergone collaborative changes, but the relationship between these biological and abiotic factors and the spatiotemporal variability of soil GHG emissions is still unclear. Understanding the synergistic changes of biological and abiotic factors and their relationship to the spatiotemporal dynamics of soil GHGes under rainfall changes is of great significance for revealing soil GHG fluxes and their impact mechanisms in grassland ecosystems.

5. Related work?

Please explain more?

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! Some more related work were analyzed in the revised paper. As follows:

It can be seen that there are few reports on the response of soil GHG fluxes to precipitation changes in the profile at present. With the change of precipitation, biological and abiotic factors have also undergone collaborative changes, but the relationship between these biological and abiotic factors and the spatiotemporal variability of soil GHG emissions is still unclear. Understanding the synergistic changes of biological and abiotic factors and their relationship to the spatiotemporal dynamics of soil GHGes under rainfall changes is of great significance for revealing soil GHG fluxes and their impact mechanisms in grassland ecosystems.

6. Model Design for the Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of SoilGreenhouse Gases in Grassland Ecosystems under the Effect of Precipitation

The writing style of this section is insufficient.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The language description was optimized and Figure 4 was added as a flowchart to introduce the overall approach. As follows:

As can be seen from Figure 4, the model includes three parts: sampling system, Conv-LSTM, and gas distribution model. The gas distribution modeling Kernel DM serializes the collected gas concentration data in time to calculate the average concentration and average variance corresponding to the grid.

7. Discussion

I am lost! Please rewrite clearly some places with main results and discuss it using recent references.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! Thesecond part of the result analysis was optimized and rewritten. In addition, some recent literature was added as a concluding discussion document. As follows:

There was a significant correlation between root biomass and soil N2O fluxes under rainfall changes, with a correlation of 0.350, but there was no significant correlation between root biomass and soil CO2 and CH4 fluxes; There was no significant correlation between soil microbial carbon and nitrogen content and soil GHG flux under rainfall changes. As soluble organic carbon and soluble organic nitrogen are the direct sources of C and N nutrients required by plants, they are unstable in soil and easily decomposed and utilized by soil microorganisms, and directly participate in the soil carbon and nitrogen cycle. Therefore, the reason for the above results may be that precipitation changes interfere with nitrification and denitrification in soil.

[44]Zhu Y, Yu K, Wu Q. Seasonal precipitation and soil microbial community influence plant growth response to warming and N addition in a desert steppe. Plant and Soil, 2023, 482(1-2): 245-259.doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05684-y

[45]Zhou J, Zhang J, Lambers H. Intensified rainfall in the wet season alters the microbial contribution to soil carbon storage. Plant and Soil, 2022, 476(1-2): 337-351.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05389-2

8. Conclusion

Write only the main conclusions

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! The Conclusion section now only contained the main conclusions of this study. As follows:

The results showed that the doubling of soil thickness reduced the effect of different precipitation on temperature changes. With the doubling of soil depth, the soil moisture under water increasing conditions shows a decreasing trend. After increasing the depth, increasing water treatment significantly increases greenhouse gas flux. In addition, the correlation detection results showed that there was no correlation between soil root biomass and carbon dioxide and methane gas fluxes. There is no correlation between biological enzymes and greenhouse gas flux under increased precipitation conditions. Therefore, this indicates the validity of the model proposed in the study for monitoring environmental data as well as gas distribution. Due to the fact that the study area is in a wet year during the test period, the results of water reduction treatment are more significant. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct longer time scale in-situ observation tests. This is to obtain more accurate changes in soil GHG under precipitation changes. In addition, the impact of the legacy effects of precipitation changes on soil GHG fluxes and soil biological and abiotic factors is still unclear. This is also an important research direction in the future.

9. References

The authors need to cheque the references according to recent Author Guidelines.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion! All of the references have been examined and modified. And now, they are correct.

10. Language corrections will be needed for the text.

Reply: The full-text grammar and word spelling have been checked and they are correct.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2304315R1

Title: Study on the spatiotemporal dynamic impact mechanism of soil greenhouse gases under precipitation: based on environmental law

I found this study interesting. In general, the paper now has improved. I think it is suitable for publication with minor language corrections.