Residue Management and Nutrient Stoichiometry Control Greenhouse Gas and Global Warming Potential Responses in Alfisols

Comments

Authors response

Reviewer 1

This study conducted laboratory mesoscale experiments in Alfisol to investigate the response of pesticide residues to greenhouse gas (CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄) emissions from wheat cultivation, the research results of this article can provide us with new ideas for understanding the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and pesticides.

The specific suggestions are as follow:

We are grateful for your reviewing the manuscript and for your valuable suggestions for improving it.

1.   Page 3, Line 137-147: The experiment conducted in this study is carried out under controlled laboratory conditions at a specific location. It is crucial to elucidate the impact of various external conditions and the controlled settings on greenhouse gas emissions. Please clarify under what specific external conditions the results of this study are applicable.

Needful done at lines 147-154

2.   Page 7, Line 304-320: Are there any other studies supporting the findings presented in this manuscript? It is recommended to strengthen the discussion by incorporating relevant literature and comparing the results with those of other researchers, thereby enhancing the scientific validity of the findings.

Yes, there are a few previous studies that reported the responses of GHG emissions to rates of crop residue application, given below, and they are included in the discussion (lines 316-340) and introduction section:

1.        Ma, L.; Kong, F.; Lv, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Meng, Y. Responses of greenhouse gas emissions to different straw management methods with the same amount of carbon input in cotton field. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 213, 105126, doi:10.1016/j.still.2021.105126.

2.        Battaglia, M.L.; Thomason, W.E.; Fike, J.H.; Evanylo, G.K.; Stewart, R.D.; Gross, C.D.; Seleiman, M.; Babur, E.; Sadeghpour, A.; Harrison, M.T. Corn and Wheat Residue Management Effects on Greenhouse Emissions in the Mid-Atlantic USA. Land 2022, 11, 1–17, doi:10.3390/land11060846.

3.        Mirzaei, M.; Gorji Anari, M.; Taghizadeh-Toosi, A.; Zaman, M.; Saronjic, N.; Mohammed, S.; Szabo, S.; Caballero-Calvo, A. Soil Nitrous Oxide Emissions Following Crop Residues Management in Corn-Wheat Rotation Under Conventional and No-Tillage Systems. Air, Soil Water Res. 2022, 15, doi:10.1177/11786221221128789.

4.        Lenka, N.K.; Lal, R. Soil aggregation and greenhouse gas flux after 15 years of wheat straw and fertilizer management in a no-till system. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, doi:10.1016/j.still.2012.08.011.

3.   Page 9, Line 409-430: Based on the experimental results presented in this manuscript, what is the recommended optimal residual input quantity？

Needful done  (lines 424-430)

Therefore, the resulting nutrient stoichiometry (C: N and C: P) from fertilizer application and residue carbon input and the placement of crop residue in the soil would decide the threshold level of crop residue input for non-CO2 (CH₄ and N₂O) GHG emission reduction in Alfisol of central India. Our study indicated the safe and optimum limit for wheat residue return rate could be 10 Mg/ha if the resultant nutrient stoichiometry from fertilizer and residue C input were C: N ≥ 12:1 and C: P ≥ 50:1.

4.   The formatting of the manuscript is highly disorderly, with inconsistent use of numbering, paragraph spacing, and other formatting elements. Please adhere to journal guidelines for formatting and rectify these issues accordingly.

Needful done

Comments

Authors response

Reviewer 2

1. The study investigated the impact of post-harvest swards and plant supplements on greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important issue related to the increase in global climate warming.

2. Different ways of applying the substances tested were used. The novelty of the work lies in the consideration of C:N:P ratios when analysing the results.

3. Significant differences were found in emissions (CO2, N2O and CH4) from soil, with different levels of soil preparation for incubation.

4. Abstract written correctly. The title of the paper is appropriate to the content in the article. Introduction interesting and not too long.

5. Study methods well chosen for the issues analysed. Discussion of results well done.

6. Figures made very carefully. Conclusions formulated correctly.

7 Specific comments:

We are grateful for your reviewing the manuscript and valuable suggestions for improving it.

Method of citing papers in the text not in line with journal requirements.

Needful done

Minor comments in the text of the paper:

Line: 197, 205, 242, 247, 274, 358, 409.

We are sorry, but the line-specific comments file is missing and may be provided to authors for revision.

Fig. 3. What do they mean in the figure description R@5Mg/ha, R@10Mg/ha, R@15Mg/ha. Are these supplement doses?

There is no mention of R@5Mg/ha, R@10Mg/ha, R@15 Mg/ha in any of the figures.

However, the wheat residue is applied at four rates in the study, denoted as R0: no residue; R5: @5 Mg/ha; R10: @10 Mg/ha; R15: @15 Mg/ha.

The same is mentioned in the Abstract and Methodology section of the paper.

References: Missing or spelling errors next to individual items cited:

Line: 481, 482, 498, 500, 502, 506, 520, 524, 535, 549, 553, 555, 556, 602, 625, 646, 653, 672, 674.

We are sorry, but the line-specific comments file is missing and may be provided to authors for revision.