Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is nice and well written. I would just suggest adding a comparison with the cereals, for example, corn, wheat, or rice for a better comparison of greenhouse gases. Also, a comparison with other greenhouse gases from literature would improve the paper.

Author Response

We are glad that you find our ms interesting and thank you for your comments.

In the revision of the discussion we have included a statement where we respond to your comment regarding the comparison with corn and wheat (L704-L708). In the original version, we already address other greenhouse gases; unfortunately, the lack of relevant data allows us to go into more detail. 

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This is a very interesting manuscript, and it is timely and well written. However, there are few minor things should be considered.

Line 14, line 63: please remove associated

Line 62: The objective NOT this objective

Line 85 remove the second “pesticides”

Lines 125-126: the figure 1 description is repeated twice

Line 183: please delete to after into

Line 289: due NOT duet

Lines 395-396: please rephrase this sentence

Lines 399-400: redundant

Uniform the references following the journal rules

-remove the dot in the name of the journal (e.g. 11, 62, 64, 78)

-add abbreviation name of the journal (e.g. 1, 58, 67)

-66: something miss

 

Author Response

We are pleased that you find our work interesting and thank you for your careful reading and editorial comments. We have addressed all of your comments and have also carefully revised the entire manuscript, correcting linguistic errors and harmonizing the formatting of references.