Italian Ryegrass, Perennial Ryegrass, and Meadow Fescue as Undersown Cover Crops in Spring Wheat and Barley: Results from a Mixed Methods Study in Norway
, Siri Josefine Mo 2, Rebekka Kaald Andresen 1, Hans Andre Tandberg 1, Thomas Cottis 1, Harald Solberg 2, Kari Bysveen 2, Puspa Raj Dulal 3, Hesam Mousavi 1 and Svein Øivind Solberg 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This was a very confusing manuscript to read. Mixed methods were used. The main results/conclusions were more biomass from Italian ryegrass (field trial experiment) and a median increase in soil carbon of 264 kg ha-1 year-1 (meta-analysis of climate relevant papers). I struggled to draw any conclusions from the farmer interviews as it seemed like a rambling of anecdotal stories about perceived benefits. As early as the abstract, those stories and perceived benefits seem to be implied as being applicable to the field trial results even though evidence of it is not provided. I suggest the authors think more clearly about their contribution and focus on making it clear to the reader. For example, the literature review and the meta-analysis should play off of one another much better. What is the purpose of your meta-analysis that distinguishes it from several papers in your list of references that used a meta-analysis approach? A clear comparison would help explain why you think your meta-analysis is a reasonable contribution.
Some line by line comments (there are many more but these should give you an idea of how to start making improvements to the manuscript).
Line 44: missing punctuation (period).
Line 57: missing space (whilewinter).
Line 67: "cover crops, also termed cover crops or ..."?
Line 69: Obviously, cover crops do not "prevent" nitrogen leaching. They only help prevent it or reduce it.
Line 75-79: Several missing words makes this very difficult to read. "Undersowing" is never clearly explained in the manuscript. Methods of establishing cover crops could be covered up front with a clear explanation so the reader is not left guessing what you are talking about at various points in the rest of the manuscript.
Line 83-84: This sentence does not make sense. I do not see the purpose of putting the second half of the sentence in parentheses.
Line 87-91: Conversation transitions back to undersowing after some brief comments intercropping. What is the real difference? It seems to be timing. Maybe you should focus on that and then describe the different methods used to accomplish each one. For example, planting the cover crop in an existing primary crop could be done using the same methodology but if it is early in the growing season it is called "undersowing" while if it is done late in the growing season it is called "intercropping". Some clear distinguishing between the two up front would help improve your paper rather than providing bits an pieces about the terminology throughout it.
Line 92-97: The main objective of your study is to increase diversity in monoculture grains. Why? The three sub-goals seem disconnected, almost like three different endeavors thrown into one paper. The meta-analysis is not mentioned along with the last sub-goal. When I first read the last sentence, I thought you were talking about measuring carbon in your field trials and that is not the case at all.
Line 109: Table 2 footnote, what is "tested to sow"?
Line 113-116: I presume these are seeding rates? Not explained very clearly.
Line 123: What was "fully mature"?
Figure 1: I do not see where Figure 1 is mentioned in the text. What is the purpose of it?
Line 130-135: What were the questions? Transition from field trial methods to interview methods should be clearly delineated.
Line 136: Transition to discussion of meta-analysis methods should be clearly delineated. At first, I thought this was just a description of how you did your literature review.
Line 151: "was best" What did you measure to determine what was best?
Line 155: "was a tendency" Was a tendency for what?
Table 3: I am not sure what the "Main crops" section is about since you have a "Control" line of data below and they do not agree with each other. What grain yield is being measured in the Cover crop section of the table?
Line 175-177: Where is the higher total of nitrogen bound up in the biomass evident? I do not see anything reported in Table 3 that leads to this conclusion.
Line 188: "farmers says"?
Line 228: "he that"?
Line 243: "wrong decision" What is the basis for calling it a wrong decision? Were the problems with weeds unique to the location or particular year? Was there any control to compare to that the conclusion of this being a wrong decision could be justified by or is this just an anecdotal story from one farmer that came to that conclusion?
Line 246: What is "overcrop"?
Line 258: "cower" I assume this should be "cover". Used as pasture, how was it used? What level was it grazed to in terms of residual? That makes a big difference in the context of this discussion.
In general, I found the farmer interviews to be useless. Perceptions of a few farmers without real evidence to back it up. This could be summarized in 2-3 paragraphs in a context that is relevant to the rest of your paper. However, two full pages of incoherent interview comments is not of much value.
Table 4: This should be clearly distinguished as a summary of your meta-analysis. "Canada" is spelled incorrectly in Chahal trial B. Trial is spelled as trail in both Chahal lines.
Line 309-310: This one sentence summarizes the Boselli article contribution to your meta-analysis. More details on the carbon sequestration part of that study are warranted but much of what you have included in this paragraph is not all that relevant to your paper.
Line 326-330: Sounds like a mystery. Is this a wide-spread problem or just weak paper?
Line 332: two periods.
Line 340 & 345: "and" does not seem to be need before year-1.
Line 346: 0.6% over what?
Line 364-365: increase by how much?
Line 377: "was" should be "were".
Line 388-389: "and year-1 as an average" should just be "year-1"
Line 390-392: This final sentence is very amateur. Did they report significance testing? If so, stick with that.
Line 421-427: This final paragraph is a better use of time than the discussion of the papers in the meta-analysis. I would cut back considerably on the details of each paper.
Line 435-436: "According to our experiments, perennial ryegrass is the safest option." Funny, I did not draw that conclusion from Table 3 and your comments in section 3.1. Those comments seemed to favor Italian ryegrass.
Line 451: cover crops increase the magnitude of carbon. The word "carbon" is missing.
Line 452-458: This and much of what follows seems a little late in appearance in your paper. Was the purpose of your meta-analysis to compare to these other works? If so, why not include the other works in a literature review up front that can then be compared to your meta-analysis when you write up those results in section 3.3? Or, you could include these "other studies" as a pre-amble to your meta-analysis of geographically relevant studies in section 3.3 to make that section more of a clear comparison.
Line 494: It appears Valkama is another meta-analysis and not an experiment as you call it.
Line 496-497: What was the reduction compared to in Gerhards paper? Was there a control treatment? If so, what was it?
Line 511: whea?
Author Response
Sorry for confusing the readers in the first draft, and we are thankful for your suggestions to improve the paper. We have elaborated the different parts so that they fit better together. The literature review and the field trials should now work together. We have also tried to link the results from the interviews to the field trial. We explain this in the introduction, see track changes, and we shortened the interviews result section considerable. In addition, the literature synthesis section is more condensed and targeted as it stands now. We explain why we made it and hope it is a contribution as we targeted it to a temperate climate like found in Northern Europe. We have also elaborated the interview results and drawn conclusions from them. See attached file for detailed feedback on your comments. In addition we have highlighted all changes in the new version of the manuscript. Two other reviewers made comments that we have taken into consideration in the review process.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors reported Under-sown cover crops in spring wheat and barley in Norway have environmental benefits without causing yield reductions. The work is not suitable for publication in its present form.
1. The authors need to improve a few errors and units.
2. Did the authors evaluated nutrients and carbon sequencing?
3. The authors should state the more detailed discussion. (e.g., the advantage of cover crop, etc.)
4. Did the authors consider the nutrients, pH, moisture..etc.?
5. The authors need to add the figures for understanding of reader for the interviews and meta-data.
Author Response
We thank you for the comments you made on our manuscript. Please see attachment for detailed feedback. We also had two other reviewers that pointed at issues that we needed to change.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript authored by Poudel et al. and entitled “Under-sown cover crops in spring wheat and barley in Norway have environmental benefits without causing yield reductions” reports findings of mixed methodological approach encompassing trial and mata-analysis. The MS may be of interest to wide readers of the SUSTAINABILITY, however a few deficiencies have been pointed out below for author’s consideration in order to impart scientific soundness and content clarity for readers convenience.
TITLE: The present one gives the impression of report title instead of a scientific article intended for publication in a prestigious scientific journal, so it must be amended.
ABSTRACT
= “The agricultural landscape in Norway has changed from mixed farming to monocultures. In the grain producing districts, cover crops could provide benefits on a system level through diversification, improved nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration. However, few farmers apply the technique, partly as they believe the cover crops will compete with the main crop and cause yield losses” may be merged or alternatively replaced with a single phrase indicating problem statement that has been addressed by the current study.
=Authors need to elaborate “under-sown cover crop” for reader’s convenience.
= “The interviews gathered experience from 13 farmers” the sample size is too small which might lead to misguided results. Additionally, mode of interview has not been clarified in abstract.
= Literature review synthesis information is also lacking.
=Response variables are missing so readers can’t judge parameters on which employed treatment effect was checked.
= “All cover crops reduced the risk for nitrate leaching, and other benefits are better soil coverage, fewer weeds, and more diversity” is this statement based on recorded findings? If yes then it is better to add concrete values (either in percentage or added advantage shown as integral values).
= “On the negative side, species like meadow fescue and perennial ryegrass may come up again in the following years and cause a weed problem” Why did you think so? Research based finding or personal perception or farmer’s view?
=So what is the recommendation for farmers?
INTRODUCTION
= “Agricultural productivism” may be replaced with better technical term like farming system, cropping systems etc.
= It is perhaps better to replace Table 1 as it is unnecessary and does not show much relevancy to core idea of the research. However, this info may be added using a single phrase.
= “Different cover crop species and agronomic practices exist” unclear?
= “Undersowing cover crops is a form of mixed cropping with the cultivation 87 of two crops in the same field during the same time” lack citation and may be shifted upward before stating peer-findings on benefits rendered by cover crops.
=Authors have not established study rationale by highlighting research gaps.
=It is highly desirable adding global studies to avoid the impression of localized study.
=Research hypothesis is missing.
METHODOLOGY
=It is strongly recommended to add GIS map to depict study area location.
= Coordinates of the study site missing.
=Critical information are lacking pertaining to soil sample collection, protocols and equipment used for measuring soil characteristics.
=”The interviews were conducted with open-ended questions, and the responses were transcribed and analysed” need clarity how those were analyzed?
= “The process resulted in 11 articles finally included 142 in the qualitative synthesis;of these, 9 were included in the final meta-analysis” What was the criteria to accept or reject articles?
=Methodology section is seriously weak as authors have not even added statistical methodology used to test the recorded findings?
RESULTS
=Results have been described as general statements without any analysis in percentage difference to compare the treatment means.
=No data shown for farmers views? It gives impression of a report instead of a scientific writing?
= Where is mata-analysis? Authors have merely synthesized peer-findings on C-sequestration?
= Authors have misunderstood the concept and applicability of mata-analysis and have presented peer-findings on the subject matter with respect to different countries which is neither shown in objectives of the study not making any sense in an original research article.
DISCUSSION
=Recorded findings have not been appropriately interpreted.
Author Response
We like to thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please see attached document for a detailed feedback. We included a more solid introduction to previous research and research gaps, plus hypothesis. The result sections and the discussion should now be improved. As you is aware of, we also had two other reviewers that commented and made suggestions. All changes in the new version are highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 18: The word "under-sown" is hyphenated. Seems out of place with the rest of the text.
Line 25: Insert a comma and space between "trials300"
Line 28: Recommend saying "our synthesis of the literature showed" for clarity.
Line 32: Extra space between and "and" and "for".
Line 33: Again, "under-sowing" hyphenated but not in the text that follows.
Line 41: Missing word. "Inputs in the form ..."
Lines 52-53: You state all have spring and winter types. There is a winter type of maize grown in the region?
Line 73: "the soil as earthworms" Do you mean the "the soil such as earthworms"?
Line 78: Similar to above, it seems "as" should be "such as"
Line 82: what is the purpose of "e.g."? It seems unneeded.
Lines 82-86: You seem to be repeating the beginning of the paragraph in the first sentence by describing two ways to apply cover crops and then follow with a sentence starting with "Species used this way ..." Which way? These two sentences need some attention to make what you are saying clear.
Line 93-98: I get the point of what you are saying and it is an important to describe the importance of your contribution. However, this poorly worded. It sounds unprofessional, in my opinion. "We liked to test ..." "... we think our results are interesting ..." I suggest to stick to the facts. Your field trials were conducted in an important region of grain production in Norway and little research of a similar nature has been conducted that far north.
Line 99: Recommend replacing the word "climate" with "positive". The point being you are focused on measuring carbon sequestration rather than impacts on climate.
Line 102: Missing word "in". "... an increase in the soil carbon ..."
Lines 100-131: Content is fine but it needs editing for better readability. Suggest moving the second reference up to follow the first reference with a preamble that it represents another benefit of cover crops (reduce N leaching). Then make the case for your work with a focus on northern Europe.
Lines 157-160: What did you do in 2019? I think cover crops were undersown in spring sown barley, oats and wheat crops (three different primary crops). Is this true? If so, I think that point needs to be made clear. I was a little confused by seeing oats here as I was under the impression the cover crops were only undersown into barley and wheat crops. Furthermore, this sentence seems to describe the 2019 experiment only in terms of the primary crops.
Line 164: "to sow" should be "sowing".
Line 171: What is "mas"?
Figure 2: I am confused by the statement in section 2.1 that there were seven treatments and Table 1 describing them clearly and this figure. You should insert a statement early in section 2.1 about the existence of the 3- and 4-week delayed planting plots that were dropped from the analysis and make a clear reference to Table 1 as the treatments in the analysis. I read and re-read these few pages and don't find a clear reference to Table 1.
Line 234: You have an extra "compared to" in this sentence that needs deleted (the first one).
Line 238: "to" should be "two".
Line 270: "in" is missing. It should read "...bound up in the above ..."
Line 343: Number agreement. "...two eight year experiments ..."
Line 416: "...with normal seeding rates." I recommend providing a range for what is meant by normal.
Lines 477-478: It seems clear that this study found reduced yields with undersown Italian ryegrass. Your discussion lines 514-515 seems to say otherwise.
Line 513: "cover crop was not yielded satisfactorily"? Do you mean "cover crop did not yield satisfactorily"?
Lines 514-515: Seems to directly contradict Lines 477-478 and figure 3.
Lines 520-521: This is not backed up by results in Table 2 or the insignificant effect on grain yield stated in several spots.
Line 523: "some" days? Can you be more specific? This sounds very vague.
Line 534: "now" should be "no".
Lines 560-561: "it is taking long before this occurs" What is meant by this? You need to make the meaning of this sentence much more clear.
Line 569: "Therefore" seems out of place. The preceding statement does not lead to the argument it was not a cover crop trial.
Line 603: "at the same get"? Should this be, "at the same time get"?
Line 624: "was low to draw conclusion" should be "was too low to draw conclusions".
Line 625: "saw" should be "sow".
Lines 633-636: These concluding sentences need strengthened to more clearly state your contribution.
Author Response
First, we would like to thank you for a detailed list of suggestions. We have carefully edited our manuscript and believe that the quality has improved and that our arguments and discussion of the findings now are coherent, balanced and compelling. We also believe that the changes have made in the conclusions now shows that it is thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature. All changes are in the manuscript are marked with the “Track changes” function in MS Word.
Attached and below is a detailed feedback on each of the issues raised:
Line 18: The word "under-sown" is hyphenated. Seems out of place with the rest of the text.
We have now removed this hyphenation sign.
Line 25: Insert a comma and space between "trials300"
DONE
Line 28: Recommend saying "our synthesis of the literature showed" for clarity.
Thank you for this suggestion that we now have included
Line 32: Extra space between and "and" and "for".
DONE, we removed the extra space
Line 33: Again, "under-sowing" hyphenated but not in the text that follows.
Again, we removed this hyphenation sign.
Line 41: Missing word. "Inputs in the form ..."
We changed the sentence to “Fertilizers and pesticides have increased the productivity”.
Lines 52-53: You state all have spring and winter types. There is a winter type of maize grown in the region?
We changed the sentence to: “All the crops mentioned above are annual plants seeded and harvested within one year and some of the species have both spring and winter types”.
Line 73: "the soil as earthworms" Do you mean the "the soil such as earthworms"?
Thank you! We added the word “such” in this sentence.
Line 78: Similar to above, it seems "as" should be "such as"
Again, we added the word “such” in this sentence as well.
Line 82: what is the purpose of "e.g."? It seems unneeded.
We removed “e.g.”
Lines 82-86: You seem to be repeating the beginning of the paragraph in the first sentence by describing two ways to apply cover crops and then follow with a sentence starting with "Species used this way ..." Which way? These two sentences need some attention to make what you are saying clear.
We deleted the first sentence in this paragraph (as it was repeating what we already had said). We changed the second sentence to “Species used for autumn sowing in this way are typically fast-growing annuals such as oil radish (Raphanus sativus L. var. oleiformis Pers.), white mustard (Sinapis alba L.), phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.), but also a range of other species [18]”.
Line 93-98: I get the point of what you are saying and it is an important to describe the importance of your contribution. However, this poorly worded. It sounds unprofessional, in my opinion. "We liked to test ..." "... we think our results are interesting ..." I suggest to stick to the facts. Your field trials were conducted in an important region of grain production in Norway and little research of a similar nature has been conducted that far north.
Thank you for this suggestion. Yes, we struggled with these sentences, and we agree that they are not the best. We replaced this paragraph with saying what you suggested. It now says: “Our field trials were conducted in Innlandet county in East Norway. This is an im-portant region of grain production in Norway and little research of a similar nature has been conducted so far north”.
Line 99: Recommend replacing the word "climate" with "positive". The point being you are focused on measuring carbon sequestration rather than impacts on climate.
DONE
Line 102: Missing word "in". "... an increase in the soil carbon ..."
DONE
Lines 100-131: Content is fine but it needs editing for better readability. Suggest moving the second reference up to follow the first reference with a preamble that it represents another benefit of cover crops (reduce N leaching). Then make the case for your work with a focus on northern Europe.
We did like you suggested. We moved the sentence with the second reference up to follow up on the sentence with the first reference. We then made the case for our work with describing our focus.
Lines 157-160: What did you do in 2019? I think cover crops were undersown in spring sown barley, oats and wheat crops (three different primary crops). Is this true? If so, I think that point needs to be made clear. I was a little confused by seeing oats here as I was under the impression the cover crops were only undersown into barley and wheat crops. Furthermore, this sentence seems to describe the 2019 experiment only in terms of the primary crops.
You are right. Oats is not part of our study here and should have been removed in our manuscript. We initially tried oats in 2019 but removed it from the further analysis and did not follow up on it in the 2020 trial, so it shall be removed from the text. We have now removed oats from this sentence, and we checked the rest of the manuscript for the same error, but it was only in this sentence that it was mentioned.
Line 164: "to sow" should be "sowing".
DONE
Line 171: What is "mas"?
Sorry, it was just an error. We have now removed this strange word.
Figure 2: I am confused by the statement in section 2.1 that there were seven treatments and Table 1 describing them clearly and this figure. You should insert a statement early in section 2.1 about the existence of the 3- and 4-week delayed planting plots that were dropped from the analysis and make a clear reference to Table 1 as the treatments in the analysis. I read and re-read these few pages and don't find a clear reference to Table 1.
Sorry again for making this confusion. We now made this clear in the first part of section 2.1 and write: “We initially included four sowing times from at the same time as the grain and sowing at two, three and four few weeks after the grain. The two latter sowing times resulted in very poor establishment (Figure 1) and was not included in the further analysis and not repeated in the 2020 trial. We therefore include only two sowing times in our further presentations (Table 1).”
Line 234: You have an extra "compared to" in this sentence that needs deleted (the first one).
DONE
Line 238: "to" should be "two".
DONE
Line 270: "in" is missing. It should read "...bound up in the above ..."
DONE
Line 343: Number agreement. "...two eight year experiments ..."
We changed to “two experiments (A and B) carried out over eight years”.
Line 416: "...with normal seeding rates." I recommend providing a range for what is meant by normal.
We specified by adding “(1.5-2.0 kg ryegrass ha-1 or equivalent)”.
Lines 477-478: It seems clear that this study found reduced yields with undersown Italian ryegrass. Your discussion lines 514-515 seems to say otherwise.
We made this sentence in the discussion clearer by stating “Similar results were detected by Känkänen and Eriksson [19], who found no significant difference in the yield of spring barley undersown with meadow fescue, but that Italian ryegrass resulted in a 7-17% yield reduction”.
Line 513: "cover crop was not yielded satisfactorily"? Do you mean "cover crop did not yield satisfactorily"?
Yes, and we have now changed accordingly. Thank you.
Lines 514-515: Seems to directly contradict Lines 477-478 and figure 3.
As commented above, the previous line 514-515 has been changed. We now state that there is a yield reduction with the use of Italian ryegrass (as sown in the provided lines and Figure 3). Thank you again for this comment. You are totally right, and we are sorry for the mistake.
Lines 520-521: This is not backed up by results in Table 2 or the insignificant effect on grain yield stated in several spots.
We changed “1-5% yield reduction” to “no clear yield reduction” for perennial ryegrass, as this was the result from our experiments (Table 2) and also reported in other trials that we have referred to in our synthesis. Thank you for this comment.
Line 523: "some" days? Can you be more specific? This sounds very vague.
We changed “some days” to “one week”.
Line 534: "now" should be "no".
DONE
Lines 560-561: "it is taking long before this occurs" What is meant by this? You need to make the meaning of this sentence much more clear.
We changed the sentences before line 560-561 to:“Moreover, there is a symmetry between increased carbon captured in the cover crops biomass and increased decomposition of this biomass. The latter will increase the CO2 release and over time lower the net sequestration”. We deleted the sentence: “That said, in the conventional grain monoculture systems, it is taking long before this occurs, even with the cover crops.”
Line 569: "Therefore" seems out of place. The preceding statement does not lead to the argument it was not a cover crop trial.
You are right, this became messy. We changed the paragraph and now say: “Although these are not cover crops, the result is interesting as there are certain similarities between grasslands and cover crops in terms of covering the soil and having an active nutrient uptake over the whole growing season”.
Line 603: "at the same get"? Should this be, "at the same time get"?
DONE
Line 624: "was low to draw conclusion" should be "was too low to draw conclusions".
DONE
Line 625: "saw" should be "sow".
DONE
Lines 633-636: These concluding sentences need strengthened to more clearly state your contribution.
We replaced the last sentences with a clear concluding statement: “Overall, our study has contributed with new knowledge on how to grow cover crops in Norway without competing with the main crop. Both Italian ryegrass and perennial ryegrass can be used but for Italian ryegrass we recommend delaying the sowing with one or two weeks after the grain sowing. Meadow fescue is not recommended to use as the establishment is poor and the plant may turn up again as a weed in following seasons.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript significantly. All comments were considered, in my opinion, the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The authors have improved the manuscript significantly. All comments were considered, in my opinion, the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
Thank you for this good feedback. We appreciated your valuable suggestions in the first round. For your information, we have still made different changes due to comments raised by another reviewer. The main points in the changes is an additional literature work that is included in the new version. This to include data from the literature to supplement our field trials. We explain how we made the additional literature synthesis under section 2.3 (in the beginning and the end of this section). A substantial text is added under a new heading, now section 3.4, with detailed results from the literature synthesis on cultivation issues. We follow up on this in the discussion section with a substantial addition and a new figure (Figure 3) where our result from the field trials are compared to the studies in the synthesis. In the end, one of the conclusions is modified due to this additional synthesis. Ten new references have been added due to this literature work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have significantly improved their contribution in accordance with previous suggestions, however few concerns still remain for redressal.
1- Abstract is too long and must be transformed for imprating the essence of briefness along with comprehensiveness.
2- Research hypothesis need to be shifted before objectives of the study.
3- The most pronounced concern still exist pertaining to focussing/deriving country wise conclusion based on a single study. I shall strongly suggest to transform this section into synthesis review by critically analyzing peer-findings instead of relying on single study.
4- is it carbon sequencing or sequestration? It needs careful attention.
5- Table 1 is still showing up in revised version and must be deleted.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Authors have significantly improved their contribution in accordance with previous suggestions, however few concerns still remain for readressal.
1
Abstract is too long and must be transformed for imprating the essence of briefness along with comprehensiveness.
We have shortened and transformed the abstract as suggested. We removed sentences not essential and condensed the information. Despite this, we think the new version of the abstract captures what we liked to say. All changes are highlighted in the new version.
2
Research hypothesis need to be shifted before objectives of the study.
We have done as you suggested. Now the hypotheses are presented before the objectives, see last part of the introduction section. All shifts or changes are highlighted.
3
The most pronounced concern still exist pertaining to focussing/deriving country wise conclusion based on a single study. I shall strongly suggest to transform this section into synthesis review by critically analyzing peer-findings instead of relying on single study.
Thank you for this comment. We clearly see your point, and we have worked hard to include data from the literature to supplement our field trials. We explain how we made the additional literature synthesis under section 2.3 (in the beginning and the end of this section). A substantial text is added under a new heading, now section 3.4, with detailed results from the literature synthesis on cultivation issues. We follow up on this in the discussion section with a substantial addition and a new figure (Figure 3) where our result from the field trials are compared to the studies in the synthesis. In the end, one of the conclusions is modified due to this additional synthesis. Ten new references have been added due to this literature work.
Again, we appreciated your comments. It improved the paper, although it gave us additional work. All changes are highlighted in the new version
4
Is it carbon sequencing or sequestration? It needs careful attention.
Thanks for this: we changed to sequestration three places, line 335, line 345 (subheading) and line 346. We are sorry for the mistake we made in the first version but clearly see the different meaning between sequencing and sequestration. We have definitely not worked with carbon sequencing in our study here.
5
Table 1 is still showing up in revised version and must be deleted.
DONE. It should have been removed in the last version, but for some reason it must have showed up again.
Other issues:
We saw some minor errors in our reference list that we have corrected in this new version of our manuscript. We also found some punctuation- and language errors that we also corrected. All changes are highlighted in the new version that we have submitted.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 99: the word "in" is still missing in this sentence. I believe it should read "...contribute to an increase in the soil organic carbon ..."
Line 413: the word "defines" should be "defined"
Line 560: an extra comma and space need deleted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have carefully incorporated suggestions and clarified highlighted points.
Author Response
Thank you for all the suggestions you made in the two previous rounds. We are happy that you are happy with the manuscript now.
