Analysis of the Impact of Agricultural Production Type and Traffic on Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Research on air pollution control is very important. The selection of topics involving agriculture and transportation is also very innovative. I think authors have done a very valuable research. I have some revised suggestions.

1. It is suggested that authors should enhance the significance of the research in the Introduction and the "materials and Methods"  shouldn't be in the introduction.

2.  The manuscript is very deficient in the description and use of the research methodology, and it is suggested that a chapter should be organized in terms of structure and content.

3. The content of "This study suggests that agriculture production in intercropping systems with a traffic flow with a share of 10% goods and 5% heavy goods vehicles can be recommended as suitable practices that contribute to the reconstruction of the optimal balance between NOx emissions from agricultural production and traffic." in the manuscript is puzzling. It is suggested authors should explain this content clearly.

4. The references are a little bit short.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Abstract

No comment.

Introduction

No comment.

Materials and Methods

Lines 145-146 say: “a control plot comprising a monoculture maize system in an arable field”. In this regard, I request that the authors clarify: Was the control plot a monoculture maize or winter wheat? Or was it a combined plot of the two species?

Line 147: What does bio winter wheat – 200 kg ha-1 mean?

Line 162: What is the meaning of EM and EF in the equation?

In Lines 173-174 the authors say: “The open road, three-leg, and four-leg intersections without traffic lights were analyzed,” However, in lines 189-190 the authors point out “two three-leg intersections, one of primary functional level and higher traffic load, and one of secondary functional level that serves to access agricultural areas” I request that the authors clarify how many and which were the intersections in the traffic network

Scheme 2 (Line 199): I suggest that the authors identify each of the intersections included in the scheme.

Results and Discussion

In Table 1 (Line 205) I recommend checking the yields of the winter wheat and the walnut-winter wheat system. Are the values of 6,70 and 6,00 kg ha^-1 correct? Aren't they too low?

In Table 1 What is eko wheat? (variety, cultivar?)

In the same Table, I suggest including letters to indicate statistical differences in N2O emissions between different types of agricultural production.

According to the above, I recommend delete [deleting] Figure 1 and consequently rewriting the paragraph on lines 212-220.

Lines 236-239. It is correct to compare the NO2 emission of 0.57 kg per hectare per year from the research of Xu et al. (2017) with the observed values of N2O emissions (1.01-1.47 kg/ha/year) in the study?

In various sections of the manuscript (for example in Lines 194 and 249), the analysis of ten traffic scenarios of incoming vehicles is mentioned. I consider that it is not clear what these scenarios are, so I suggest that the authors clarify what the ten traffic scenarios analyzed were.

The paragraph on lines 262-265 is repeated, so I recommend that the authors remove it.

In Figures 2-5 I suggest that the authors include the meaning of the X and Y Axes, as well as the units in which they are expressed.

Figure 5. In X axis says: “NOx + Winter whet”. Should say: NOx + Winter wheat

In the manuscript, only sections Introduction and Results and Discussion have numerals, so I recommend that numerals be included in all sections and subsections of the manuscript.

Conclusion

No comment

References

I recommend that authors review and standardize the writing of some references (for example Reference 11).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

The abstract successfully outlines the study's main focus - the impact of agricultural production and traffic on NOx emissions. However, it could be structured more clearly to enhance readability. It's beneficial to start with a brief introduction of the problem, followed by the methodology, main findings, and the conclusion. Consider reorganizing the abstract to follow this flow more distinctly.

While the abstract mentions the use of actual traffic data, microsimulation modeling, and the BioGrace model, it lacks specific details about these methodologies that might be crucial for a reader's understanding. Similarly, the results section could benefit from more precise data points or findings rather than general statements. Including specific, key results can greatly enhance the impact of the abstract.

The conclusion of the abstract suggests a particular agricultural practice combined with a traffic flow structure. However, it's not clear how these recommendations were derived from the study's findings. Expanding on how the data led to these conclusions, or making the connection more explicit, would strengthen the argument. Additionally, mentioning the broader implications of these findings in the context of sustainable development and air pollution control would provide a strong ending to the abstract.

Introduction

The introduction effectively establishes the context of the study by highlighting the adverse effects of agricultural production and transport systems on the environment and human health, citing relevant data from the World Health Organization. This sets a strong foundation for the research's relevance. However, it would be beneficial to more directly state the specific gap in the literature or the unique contribution of your study early in the introduction. This helps readers immediately grasp the novelty and importance of your work.

The introduction covers a broad range of topics, from the impact of air pollution on human health to specifics of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. While comprehensive, the flow can be improved. It might be more effective to start with a broader overview of air pollution issues, then narrow down to the specific aspects your study addresses. Consider reorganizing some paragraphs to create a more logical progression from general information to the specific focus of your paper.

Towards the end of the introduction, you mention the use of microsimulation traffic modeling and the analysis of agricultural production impacts. However, the connection between these methodologies and the specific objectives of your study is not entirely clear. It would be beneficial to succinctly state the main research questions or hypotheses, and how the mentioned methodologies will address these. This would provide a clearer transition into the methodology section and help readers understand the direction of your research.

Method

Detailed and Clear Description of Experimental Setup: The section provides a comprehensive description of the field experiments, including specific details about the locations, soil types, climate conditions, and the experimental plots. This level of detail is excellent as it allows for reproducibility of the study. However, it would be beneficial to also include the rationale behind the selection of these specific locations and types of crops (maize, walnut, winter wheat). Explaining why these particular choices were made can help readers understand their relevance to the study's objectives.

Methodology for Emission Calculations and Traffic Modeling: The use of the BioGrace model and microsimulation traffic modeling (VISSIM) is well detailed, providing insights into how NOx emissions were calculated and how traffic impact was analyzed. However, the section could be improved by including more justification for choosing these specific models. For instance, discussing the advantages or accuracy of the BioGrace model and VISSIM in the context of your study can help in substantiating your methodological choices.

Scenario Analysis and Data Collection Methods: The description of the various scenarios analyzed, especially in traffic modeling, and the data collection methods (like traffic counts and video recording) is thorough. To enhance this section, consider discussing how these scenarios were constructed and why these particular scenarios were chosen. Additionally, a brief explanation of how the data collected through these methods were processed and analyzed would be beneficial. This can include the type of statistical analyses performed or how the data from different scenarios were compared.

Results and Discussion

Please Improve quality of the figures.

The section effectively presents detailed results on NOx emissions from different agricultural systems and the impact of traffic infrastructure. The integration of results with relevant discussion points, such as the significance of intercropping in reducing emissions and the impact of traffic flow on NOx levels, is well-executed. However, it may enhance clarity to separate the section of results and the discussion. This allows readers to clearly distinguish between the findings themselves and their interpretation or broader context.

The paper mentions statistical tests like the LSD test and ANOVA but does not provide detailed information about the statistical significance levels or the specific findings of these tests. Providing more detailed statistical analysis, such as p-values or confidence intervals, would strengthen the validity of your conclusions. Also, discussing the implications of these statistical findings in the context of your research question would provide a deeper understanding of their relevance.

While the study offers specific insights into NOx emissions in different agricultural and traffic scenarios, linking these results to broader environmental and policy implications would make the discussion more impactful. For example, how do these findings inform sustainable agricultural practices or traffic management policies? Additionally, comparing your results with existing studies, and discussing any agreements or discrepancies, would contextualize your findings within the larger body of research.

Conclusion

The conclusion does a good job of summarizing the key findings, such as the impact of different traffic structures on NOx emissions and the role of agricultural practices in these emissions. It's also commendable that the study provides specific recommendations based on these findings. However, the conclusion could be strengthened by more explicitly connecting these findings to broader environmental and policy implications. Discussing how these results can inform sustainable agricultural practices or influence policy decisions would provide a more impactful ending to the paper.

You have appropriately acknowledged the limitations of your research, such as the limited data variations and the focus on peak hour traffic load. These acknowledgments are crucial for setting the context of your findings. Additionally, your suggestions for future research, including the need for longer monitoring periods and more varied data, are well-placed. Expanding on how future studies might build upon your findings or address these limitations would add value to this section.

While the paper provides specific recommendations, such as the combination of intercropping systems with certain traffic flows, these recommendations could be made clearer. It would be beneficial to explain how these specific combinations were derived from your findings and why they are optimal. Additionally, discussing the potential feasibility and practicality of implementing these recommendations in real-world settings would make them more tangible.

Better write one comprehensive paragraph of conclusion.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting work on analysis of the agricultural production type and traffic on the nitrogen oxides emissions. The manuscript was well organized and I suggested it to be accepted after major revision.

1. The abstract should be further refined to highlight the novelty of the work and the clarity of the conclusion.

2. The authors should explain the reason that winter wheat and walnuts were chosen as representative crops.

3. The authors chose to measure the traffic conditions between 15:00 and 16:00 on weekdays. Are the results representative? Should the authors consider the traffic conditions during peak hours and normal hours?

4. In lines 206-207, the N₂O emission of walnuts planted alone was less than that of intercropping system, so why choose intercropping?

5. How did the authors arrive at the conclusion in lines 224-225? No relevant explanation was seen in the manuscript.

6. Please check specific details, such as the duplicate content in lines 258-264 and the clarity of the Scheme 1.

7. What was the meaning of the horizontal coordinate in Figure 4? If it represented different vehicles, it was not appropriate to use the line chart to represent it. Please carefully consider it.

8. Figure 5 explored the significance difference change of three different agricultural crop under the presence of traffic factors, and the corresponding significance difference analysis of different traffic scenarios under the influence of agricultural production should be supplemented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

please see attachment.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors corrected most of the requested corrections, and the following are pending:

Line 231: What is the meaning of EM and EF in the equation?

Scheme 2 (Line 262): I suggest that the authors give names to each of the intersections included in the scheme

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comment regarding additional corrections.

Here are the answers.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer:

The authors corrected most of the requested corrections, and the following are pending:

Line 231: What is the meaning of EM and EF in the equation?

Authors:

The meaning of the EM and EF are given in section 2.2 Case study – subsection Methodology for analyzing the impact of agricultural production (below equation)

Reviewer:

Scheme 2 (Line 262): I suggest that the authors give names to each of the intersections included in the scheme

Authors:

Names are given to each of the intersections (in text in section 2.2 Case study – subsection Methodology for analyzing the impact of transport infrastructure and Scheme 2).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your time, comments and suggestions. 

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have answered my questions and responded to my comments, and the manuscript has been improved. I proposed to publish the manuscript in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you very much for your time, comments and suggestions. 

Kind regards,

Authors