Understanding the Relations between Soil Biochemical Properties and N₂O Emissions in a Long-Term Integrated Crop–Livestock System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work submitted by Moreira de Carvalho et al. deals with a promising topic related to the influence of soil biochemical attributes on accumulated N2O emission in a long-term experiment with different management systems; that is suitable for Plants. The results presented may be considered as a potentially information for the scientist that work in the related field. I recommend authors to improve the readability and clarity of their work and to select what is new for the specialized public. In my view, several changes  could be applied prior to possible publication, as recommended below:

 

Abstract:

The abstract's objectives are very poorly presented and the findings do not justify the article's title. I think the title should change or the results should be presented in such a way that the main results and tangible ones are highlighted. The statement “reducing GHG emissions” is so general in principle. How? All of them (I suppose only N2O emissions)? On what basis? What is the big conclusion - take home message of this study.  

 

Introduction:

In the introduction section the authors need to point out how this study is different from the other limited literature (in brief). What is the contribution of this study? This difference will provide the motive for the study. The introduction lacks a deep discussion of the literature on the subject and methods so the authors should add more literature/up-to-date. Also, clarify and focus on the research problem What kind of local and global knowledge the authors want to improve? This questions aren´t clear in the introduction.

 

Results

L. 93. Please expand abbreviations when first seen in the text

The readers may wonder what are the new contributions the present research can provide? What are the future implications? Please also offer a deeper relevant analysis to answer these questions.

 

Materials and methods

L.378. The experiment was carried out in an experimental area of Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, Federal District (15º39’ S, 47º44’ W; 1200 m asl) (Figure 4). Figure 4 presents precipitation not a map showing the experimental area.

L.382.  Please provide suitable ref to allow reproducibility.

When fertilisers were applied? Was irrigation applied?  

L.440. Soil sampling. Why seasonal variation was not taken into account?

L.521. Nitrous oxides sampling. Why seasonal variation was not taken into account?

Were any calibration checks made (known samples) before measuring unknown samples using the closed static chambers?

 

Conclusion

The conclusions section is very short and weak given the novelty of the data. The vast majority of data/results scattered in the text are not reiterated in the conclusions. For this paper to be of value to a broader audience, an expended conclusions section is required. These expanded conclusions need to focus upon the quality significance of the work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see report

Author Response

January 08, 2024

                                                                                               Embrapa Cerrados

                                                                                               BR-020, km 18, Planaltina

73310-970, DF, Brazil

 

Mr. Gary Cao

Assistant Editor

Plants (MDPI)

Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada

 

Dear Gary Cao,

 

We thank the reviewers and editor for their relevant and complete contributions and their thoughtful and valuable comments to improve our submitted manuscript.

We made an effort to respond to all requests from the two reviewers and the editor.

 

We reformulated the title, abstract and conclusions, as requested by the reviewers.

 

We corrected every point of the manuscript in Office/Word modification mode. We have included here the reviewers’ comments and how we have addressed each point, in italics, the reviewers' comments, and our response in red.

 

• -Editor –

 

We excluded the following references to meet the request for less than 15% self-citations, totaling 11.5% self-citations.

 

Campanha, M.M.; de Oliveira, A.D.; Marriel, I. E.; Neto, M.M.G.; Malaquias, J.V.; Landau, E.C.; de Carvalho, A.M. Effect of soil tillage and N fertilization on N2O mitigation in maize in the Brazilian Cerrado. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 692, 1165–1174.

 

Silva, A. N.; de Figueiredo, C. C.; de Carvalho, A. M.; Soares, D. S.; Santos, D. C. R.; da Silva, V. G. Effects of cover crops on the physical protection of organic matter and soil aggregation. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2016, 10, 1623-1629.

 

Veras, M. S.; Ramos, M. L. G.; Oliveira, D. N. S.; Figueiredo, C. C., de Carvalho, A. M., Pulrolnik, K.; de Souza, K. W. (2016). Cover Crops and Nitrogen Fertilization Effects on Nitrogen Soil Fractions under Corn Cultivation in a No-Tillage System. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo. 2016, 40.

 

 

 

 

 

• -Reviewer 1 –

 

Abstract:

The abstract's objectives are very poorly presented and the findings do not justify the article's title. I think the title should change or the results should be presented in such a way that the main results and tangible ones are highlighted. The statement “reducing GHG emissions” is so general in principle. How? All of them (I suppose only N2O emissions)? On what basis? What is the big conclusion - take home message of this study.  

The title and abstract were reformulated according to the reviewer.

Introduction:

In the introduction section the authors need to point out how this study is different from the other limited literature (in brief). What is the contribution of this study? This difference will provide the motive for the study. The introduction lacks a deep discussion of the literature on the subject and methods so the authors should add more literature/up-to-date. Also, clarify and focus on the research problem What kind of local and global knowledge the authors want to improve? This questions aren´t clear in the introduction.

We highlight the importance of the work, including the hypothesis and also new references to emphasize this importance, which are listed below:

 

Results

93. 93. Please expand abbreviations when first seen in the text

The data of soil total carbon (TC), particulate fraction of carbon (PC), and mineral-associated organic carbon (MAC) in treatments are listed in Table 1.

The readers may wonder what are the new contributions the present research can provide? What are the future implications? Please also offer a deeper relevant analysis to answer these questions.

We improved the article by reinforcing the reviewer's questions in the introduction, discussion, and conclusions and adding new bibliographic references that reinforce these questions, which follow the questions below:

1. da Silva, F. A. M.; de Oliveira, A. D.; de Carvalho, A. M.; Marchão, R. L.; Luiz, A. J. B.; Ribeiro, F. P.; Müller, A. G. Effects of agricultural management and of climate change on N2O emissions in an area of the Brazilian Cerrado: Measurements and simulations using the STICS soil-crop model. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2024, 363, 108842, 2024.
2. Ministry of the Environment, 2022. Guidelines for a National Strategy for Climate Neutrality. http://www.mma.gov.br. (Accessed 4 January 2024).
3. Pereira, G. S.; Angnes, G.; Franchini, J. C.; Damian, J. M.; Cerri, C. E. P.; Rocha, C. H.; da Silva, R. V.; dos Santos, E. L.; Tavares Filho, J. Soil nitrous oxide emissions after the introduction of integrated cropping systems in subtropical conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2022, 107684.
4. de Carvalho, A. M.; dos Santos, D. C. R.; Ramos, M. L. G.; Marchão, R. L.; Vilela, L.; de Sousa, T. R., Malaquias, J. V.; Gonçalves, A. D. M. A.; Coser, T. T.; de Oliveira, A. D. Nitrous oxide emissions from a long-term integrated crop–livestock system with two levels of P and K fertilization. Land. 2022, 11, 1535.
5. Turner, S.; Meyer-Stüve, S.; Schippers, A.; Guggenberger, G.; Schaarschmidt, F.; Wild, B.; Richter, A.; Dohrmann, R.; Mikutta, R. Microbial utilization of mineral-associated nitrogen in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 104, 185-196.
6. Jilling, A.; Kane, D.; Williams, A.; Yannarell, A. C.; Davis, A.; Jordan, N. R.; Koide, R. T.; Mortesen, D. A.; Smith, R. G.; Snapp, S. S.; Spokas, K. A.; Stuart Grandy, A. Rapid and distinct response of particulate and mineral-associated organic nitrogen to conservation tillage and cover crops. Geoderma. 2020, 359, 114001.
7. Villarino, S. H.; Talab, E.; Contisciani, L.; Videla, C.; Di Geronimo, P.; Mastrángelo, M. E.; Georgiou, K.; Jackson, R. J.; Piñeiro, G. (2023). A large nitrogen supply from the stable mineral-associated soil organic matter fraction. Fertil. Soils. 2023, 59, 833-841.
8. Jilling, A.; Keiluweit, M.; Gutknecht, J. L. M.; Stuart Grandy, A. Priming mechanisms providing plants and microbes access to mineral-associated organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 158, 108265.
9. Baptistella, J. L. C.; de Andrade, S. A. L.; Favarin, J. L.; Mazzafera, P. Urochloa in Tropical Agroecosystems. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 119.
10. Xu, S., Geng, W., Sayer, E. J.; Zhou, G.; Zhou, P.; Liu, C. Soil microbial biomass and community responses to experimental precipitation change: A meta-analysis. Soil Ecol. Lett. 2020, 2, 93–103
11. Lepcha, N. T.; Devi, N. B. Effect of land use, season, and soil depth on soil microbial biomass carbon of Eastern Himalayas. Process. 2020, 9, 65.
12. Mbuthia, L. W.; Acosta-Martínez, V.; DeBruyn, J.; Schaeffer, S.; Tyler, D.; Odoi, E.; Mpheschea, M.; Walker, F.; Eash, N. Long term tillage, cover crops, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: Implications for soil quality. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 89, 24-34.
13. dos Santos, H.G.; Jacomine, P. K. T.; dos Anjos, L. H. C.; de Oliveira, V. A.; Lumbreras, J. F.; Coelho, M. R.; de Almeida, J. A.; de Araujo Filho, J. C.; de Oliveira, J. B.; Cunha, T. J. F. Brazilian Soil Classification System; Embrapa: Brasília, DF, Brasil, 2018. Available online: http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/181678/1/SiBCS-2018-ISBN-9788570358219-english.epub (accessed on 20 December 2023).
14. Swift, R. Organic matter characterization. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 1011–1069.
15. Yeomans, J.C.; Bremner, J.M. A rapid and precise method for routine determination of organic carbon in soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 1988, 19, 1467-1476.

 

Materials and methods

L.378. The experiment was carried out in an experimental area of Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, Federal District (15º39’ S, 47º44’ W; 1200 m asl) (Figure 4). Figure 4 presents precipitation not a map showing the experimental area.

The experiment was carried out in a rainfed experimental area of Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, Federal District (15º39’ S, 47º44’ W; 1200 m asl). The climate was classified as Aw (tropical savannah), with a dry (winter) and rainy period (summer, October to April), according to Köppen-Geiger’s classification [60]. The precipitation and temperature from 2015 to 2017 are shown in Figure 4.

L.382.  Please provide suitable ref to allow reproducibility.

dos Santos, H.G.; Jacomine, P. K. T.; dos Anjos, L. H. C.; de Oliveira, V. A.; Lumbreras, J. F.; Coelho, M. R.; de Almeida, J. A.; de Araujo Filho, J. C.; de Oliveira, J. B.; Cunha, T. J. F. Brazilian Soil Classification System; Embrapa: Brasília, DF, Brasil, 2018. Available online: http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/181678/1/SiBCS-2018-ISBN-9788570358219-english.epub (accessed on 20 December 2023).

When fertilisers were applied?

It is described below in Table 6

Was irrigation applied?  

The experiment was carried out in a rainfed experimental area of Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, Federal District (15º39’ S, 47º44’ W; 1200 m asl).

L.440. Soil sampling. Why seasonal variation was not taken into account?

Because our objective was to evaluate biochemical attributes under optimal conditions of biological activity (rainy season).

L.521. Nitrous oxides sampling. Why seasonal variation was not taken into account?

It is described in the manuscript: The N₂O fluxes were evaluated during soybean growth in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 growing seasons. In the total evaluated period, 78 samplings were carried out in 603 days (Carvalho et al., 2022).

The data of N₂O were collected seasonally during 603 days (Carvalho et al., 2022); however, to relate to the biological attributes of the soil collected during soybean flowering, the cumulative N₂O emissions was calculated based on nitrous oxides sampling carried out during the soybean growth cycle, in the first season (2015/2016) and second season (2016/2017).

Were any calibration checks made (known samples) before measuring unknown samples using the closed static chambers?

Several calibration measurements were carried out in the same experimental area (Sato et al., 2019; Carvalho et al., 2022) and in other experiments (Figueiredo et al., 2018) at the experimental area of Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, Federal District (15º39’ S, 47º44’ W; 1200 m asl).

Conclusion

The conclusions section is very short and weak given the novelty of the data. The vast majority of data/results scattered in the text are not reiterated in the conclusions. For this paper to be of value to a broader audience, an expended conclusions section is required. These expanded conclusions need to focus upon the quality significance of the work.

We reformulated as requested by the reviewer.

 

 

 

 

We appreciate it and would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

On behalf of all authors.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Dr. Arminda Moreira de Carvalho

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Soil biochemical properties and N2O emissions from integrated crop-livestock systems under phosphorus/potassium fertilization is an important topic.  Utilizing plots that have been under conventional and ICL for 26 years is not something easily done. Looking into this large array of C and N pools in both of these systems highlights the more stable pools of soil C and N and those in higher rates of flux such as AN and MBC / MBN. While the paper is overall well written there are some areas that can be and need to be improved.  In particular the discussion and conclusions are lacking and fail to fully discuss and summarize the statistically significant findings, and why the differences that are there occur.  Making these improvements will greatly strengthen the impact of this paper. 

Detailed comments are in the attached file but some broad notes:

The abstract could be improved by adding data showing numerical or statistical differences and summarizing the findings better, it stresses the materials and methods too much at the expense of the data.

The materials and methods section could be improved, the forage portion of the rotation mentioned in the results and discussions is not in the methods at all, is there a forage crop between all row crop rotations? in both CC and ICL? it is repeatedly noted no germination of this intercrop affected 2017 data.

In the results section there is a lot of repetition between text and tables, it is unnecessary to give values in the text that are in the tables. 

The discussion section falls short, there is missed opportunity to discuss why the differences seen between treatments exist.  There is a lot of repetition of the results section but this section should explain what the results tell us.

The conclusions section also falls short glossing over the main findings instead of summarizing the data of where/which fractions ICL shows potential for C storage in addition to N loss reductions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revisions to smooth some confusing statements and clear up meaning in some places.

Author Response

January 08, 2024

                                                                                               Embrapa Cerrados

                                                                                               BR-020, km 18, Planaltina

73310-970, DF, Brazil

 

Mr. Gary Cao

Assistant Editor

Plants (MDPI)

Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada

 

Dear Gary Cao,

 

We thank the reviewers and editor for their relevant and complete contributions and their thoughtful and valuable comments to improve our submitted manuscript.

We made an effort to respond to all requests from the two reviewers and the editor.

 

We reformulated the title, abstract and conclusions, as requested by the reviewers.

 

We corrected every point of the manuscript in Office/Word modification mode. We have included here the reviewers’ comments and how we have addressed each point, in italics, the reviewers' comments, and our response in red.

 

• -Editor –

 

We excluded the following references to meet the request for less than 15% self-citations, totaling 11.5% self-citations.

 

Campanha, M.M.; de Oliveira, A.D.; Marriel, I. E.; Neto, M.M.G.; Malaquias, J.V.; Landau, E.C.; de Carvalho, A.M. Effect of soil tillage and N fertilization on N2O mitigation in maize in the Brazilian Cerrado. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 692, 1165–1174.

 

Silva, A. N.; de Figueiredo, C. C.; de Carvalho, A. M.; Soares, D. S.; Santos, D. C. R.; da Silva, V. G. Effects of cover crops on the physical protection of organic matter and soil aggregation. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2016, 10, 1623-1629.

 

Veras, M. S.; Ramos, M. L. G.; Oliveira, D. N. S.; Figueiredo, C. C., de Carvalho, A. M., Pulrolnik, K.; de Souza, K. W. (2016). Cover Crops and Nitrogen Fertilization Effects on Nitrogen Soil Fractions under Corn Cultivation in a No-Tillage System. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo. 2016, 40.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• -Reviewer 2 –

 

We reviewed and corrected point by point, responding to 100% of reviewer 2, highlighted in the form of changes in the manuscript submitted with the corrections.

 

Page 1:

Number 1: The abstract was modified according to the reviewer, with more statistical data and conclusion.

Number 2:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: :  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: :  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 6: :  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 7: :  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 8: :  Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 2:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2:  Two references have been added to provide support as requested.

• Pereira, G. S.; Angnes, G.; Franchini, J. C.; Damian, J. M.; Cerri, C. E. P.; Rocha, C. H.; da Silva, R. V.; dos Santos, E. L.; Tavares Filho, J. Soil nitrous oxide emissions after the introduction of integrated cropping systems in subtropical conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2022, 107684.
• Sato, J. H.; de Figueiredo, C. C.; Marchão, R. L.; de Oliveira, A. D.; Vilela, L.; Delvico, F. M.; Alves, B. J. ; de Carvalho, A. M. Understanding the relations between soil organic matter fractions and N2O emissions in a long-term integrated crop-livestock system. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2019, 70, 1183-1196.

 

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 7: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 8: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 9:  Modified according to the reviewer. The information of the sentence (“After soybean harvest in March 2016, Urochloa brizantha cv BRS Piatã was planted. Due to the scarce rainfall (184 mm in 186 days; Figure 4), the seeds did not germinate, which may have affected the soil microbiological properties in the second year of evaluation (February 2017) was added during the article in Results and Discussion topics.

Number 10: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 11: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 12:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 13: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 14:  Modified according to the reviewer

Number 15:  Modified according to the reviewer

 

Page 3:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 7: Modified according to the reviewer. Unit of measurement correction (g kg^-1 to mg kg^-1).

Number 8: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 9:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 10: Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 4 :

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 7: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 8: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 9:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 10: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 11: Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 5:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 7: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 8: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 9:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 10: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 11: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 12: Modified according to the reviewer. The results description was improved.

Number 13: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 14: Modified according to the reviewer. The numbers were deleted from the text.

Number 15:  Modified according to the reviewer. The numbers were deleted from the text.

Number 16: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 17: Modified according to the reviewer. The numbers were deleted from the text.

 

Page 8:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer. The column was deleted because the C measurement described in Table 6 was performed using a different method of C determination (Walkley Black method).

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 9:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer. The differences and relations between MAN and AN were well discussed.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer. The occurrence of a period of drought was also pointed to discuss this topic.

Number 7: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 8: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 9:  Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 10:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer. The statement was deleted from the text.

Number 6: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 7: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 8: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 9:  Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 10: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 11: Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 11:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 2: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer.

 

Page 12:

Number 1: Modified according to the reviewer. The information about blocks and plots per treatment was added.

Number 2: The annual sequence of crops is described in Table 6 (all the forage crops cultivated in the system in the last 26 years).

Number 3: Modified according to the reviewer. Sg do not exist. The correct is Pg (Pennisetum glaucum).

Number 4: Modified according to the reviewer.

Number 5: Modified according to the reviewer. The statement was deleted from the text.

 

Page 14:

Number 1: Reference added.

1. Swift, R. Organic matter characterization. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 1011–1069.
2. Yeomans, J.C.; Bremner, J.M. A rapid and precise method for routine determination of organic carbon in soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 1988, 19, 1467-1476.

 

Page 15:

Number 1: The interaction year x year was not considered. The reason is described in line 660.

Number 2: The topic Conclusion was reformulated according to the reviewer suggestion.

 

 

We appreciate it and would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

On behalf of all authors.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Dr. Arminda Moreira de Carvalho

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors replied sufficiently to my comments. In my opinion, the article can be accepted for publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

only  minor

Author Response

For the first reviewer: 
Thank you for revising the paper and contributing to its quality.
The first reviewer accepted the paper and suggested minor corrections in English. 
The paper was reviewed by a certified English reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a significant amount of revisions on the paper and have added clarity to the introduction and materials and methods sections in particular. 

There are inconsistencies throughout the paper in the use of abbreviations as noted in the attached file but mostly related to using hyphens vs not i.e. CC-F1 vs CCF1

In places where longer sections were added to the text there are some confusing statements as indicated in the attached file.

Additionally the Abstract and Conclusions while they have been improved still require review and some further revision as there are some statements that are confusing as written/the intent of the statement is not clear. In particular the statement the ICL increases C which decreases N₂O emissions without citing why/how that is supported in the data.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions to some of the newly added sections to add clarity.

Author Response

January 11, 2024

                                                                                               Embrapa Cerrados

                                                                                               BR-020, km 18, Planaltina

73310-970, DF, Brazil

 

Mr. Gary Cao

Assistant Editor

Plants (MDPI)

Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada

 

Dear Editor Gary Cao,

 

We thank the reviewers and editor for their relevant and comprehensive contributions and their thoughtful and valuable comments to improve our manuscript.

We made an effort to respond to all requests of reviewer 2 and arranged to have the manuscript revised for English language use.

 

• We corrected every point of the manuscript in Office/Word modification mode -

 Reviewer 2:

 

 The topics suggested by reviewer 2 in Abstract and Conclusion were corrected.

 

We sought to contextualize all information as requested, but decided to maintain the quote of Silva et al. 2024 to emphasize the regional importance of N₂O emissions.

 

We really appreciated the feedback and would be happy to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

 

This paper was reviewed by a certified English reviewer.

 

On behalf of all authors,

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Dr. Arminda Moreira de Carvalho