Do Soil Microbes Drive the Trade-Off Between C Sequestration and Non-CO₂ GHG Emissions in EU Agricultural Soils? A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It shows a good effort to prepare this review article for the scientific group and general readers. In methods, authors followed the PRISMA protocol and defined the clear objectives for this review article. They used Scope for the data search. It is perfectly fine with that but most of Society journals are not included in this database. It may be the reason for the limited articles (16) during this preparation.

Recently, a lot of publications on biochar applications with environmental remediation and crop production including N2O emission with microbial community changes.

• My suggestion is adding biochar or carbon-rich soil amendment related to research on GHG emission and microbial activity. Other sections of this manuscript look good for the readers.
• L310: in section 3.2. Network analysis and word cloud, please mention some details on the word co-occurrence of semantic network map analysis, and the thematic map analysis. Have you used any software for that analysis?
• L142: Specify the PICO in the beginning.
• Figure 2: is it possible to update the complete 2023? It seems you stopped a middle of analysis. Authors are publishing this in 2025.

Author Response

Comment 1: It shows a good effort to prepare this review article for the scientific group and general readers. In methods, authors followed the PRISMA protocol and defined the clear objectives for this review article. They used Scope for the data search.  It is perfectly fine with that but most of Society journals are not included in this database. It may be the reason for the limited articles (16) during this preparation.

Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for this valuable comment. This manuscript originates from a study conducted within the European Project SOMMIT (https://projects.au.dk/ejpsoil/soil-research/ommit), specifically under the sub-task WP2-T3-ST2 Biotic drivers. The objective was to perform a literature survey on the relationship between soil microbiome, carbon sequestration, and non-CO₂ GHG emissions across diverse soil types and pedoclimatic conditions in Europe.

In systematic reviews, careful framing the research question is a critical first step; therefore, we employed the PICO method for this purpose. In a preliminary phase, we tested multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science, JSTOR). However, the complexity of the research question and the number of required keywords - especially considering three outcome terms - made searches difficult to manage, mainly due to limitations in keywords handling and indexing structures. We ultimately selected Scopus as the primary database because it offers robust advanced and flexible search functionalities, enabling comprehensive coverage within a consistent framework. Other databases presented limitations in their indexing structures and keyword handling.

Scopus is widely recognized and frequently used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses across disciplines, ensuring both reproducibility and relevance. While we acknowledge that relying on a single database may exclude some sources indexed elsewhere, this choice was made to balance comprehensiveness with methodological rigor and practical feasibility.

 

Comment 2: Recently, a lot of publications on biochar applications with environmental remediation and crop production including N2O emission with microbial community changes. My suggestion is adding biochar or carbon-rich soil amendment related to research on GHG emission and microbial activity. Other sections of this manuscript look good for the readers.

Response 2: We agree with this comment and have added a concise paragraph in the Discussion describing a targeted analysis on biochar, microbial activity, ang GHG emissions. The analysis was conducted with the support of Elicit AI tool to rapidly screen recent publications focusing on biochar and its effects on microbial activity in relation to GHG emissions, as you suggested. This part appears in the Discussion section (lines 632 to 650 of the revised, cleaned version of the manuscript). The Reference list now includes 10 additional studies that informed the analysis. Furtheremore, a Report produced by the Elicit AI tool has been provided as Supplementary Material 4 to make all retrieved information accessible to readers. We thank the Reviewer for this valuable suggestion, which strengthened the manuscript by broadening its relevance and depth.

 

Comment 3: L310: in section 3.2. Network analysis and word cloud, please mention some details on the word co-occurrence of semantic network map analysis, and the thematic map analysis. Have you used any software for that analysis?

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. The methodological details are described in the Sub-Section “2.2. Abstract bibliometric analysis” in the Materials and Methods section, including additional details on the word co-occurrence analysis and thematic map analysis. In this subsection, we specify that the analyses were performed using the Bibliometrix package in the RStudio environment, employing keyword co-occurrence techniques and the Walktrap algorithm for network analysis, as well as thematic mapping to identify and visualize clusters of related concepts. This information clarifies the methodological approach used for the analyses presented in Section 3.2.

 

Comment 4: L142: Specify the PICO in the beginning.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The PICO framework is already introduced at the beginning of the section, followed immediately by the explicit formulation of the PICO question (lines 147-152 of the revised, cleaned version of the manuscript). We chose this structure to first clarify the methodological framework and then present the research question in a focused and coherent manner. In our view, this approach improves readability and ensures that the PICO elements are clearly contextualized for the reader.

 

Comment 5: Figure 2: is it possible to update the complete 2023? It seems you stopped a middle of analysis. Authors are publishing this in 2025.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this comment. As clearly stated in the manuscript, the literature search for this systematic review covered the period from 2005 to March 2023, in accordance with the timeline of SOMMIT project (SOMMIT Project Deliverable D#WP2.1, January 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14054560) as clearly stated (see line 162 of the revised, cleaned version of the manuscript “The search was conducted in March 2023.”). We fully acknowledge that extending the analysis to include the complete year 2023 or subsequent years would be logical given the publication year of this article. However, including additional studies beyond the predefined search period would require re-running the entire screening, bibliometric, and analytical workflow, thereby substantially altering the overall structure and analyses conducted so far. In Fig. 2, the apparently lower number of documents for 2023 reflects the fact that data collection was completed in March 2023, rather than at the end of the calendar year, as is the case for previous years.

 

We appreciate the Reviewer’s interest and the time dedicated to the evaluation of our manuscript. We wish to thank the Reviewer for the positive appraisal and relevant suggestions, which contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled „Do soil microbes trade-off C sequestration and non-CO2 GHG emissions in EU agricultural soils? A systematic review“ by Arianna Latini, Luciana Di Gregorio, Elena Valkama, Manuela Costanzo, Peter Maenhout, Marjetka Suhadolc, Francesco Vitali, Stefano Mocali, Alessandra Lagomarsino, Annamaria Bevivino summarizes current knowledge on the microbial mechanisms behind soil C sequestration and GHG reduction, focusing on key processes influenced by land management. The manuscript is topical, well-written, and of significant interest to the journal's readership. 

The abstract should be shortened for clarity and word limit. I suggest that authors remove the following parts of the abstract: „Through the evaluation and analysis of these studies, we identified and discussed several knowledge gaps, providing insights for guiding future research.“ (Lines 31-33) and „However, the lack of methodological standardization across studies hinders meaningful comparison of outcomes—a key challenge identified in this review. The analysis reveals that studies examining the simultaneous effects of agricultural management practices and OM inputs on soil microorganisms, non-CO2 GHG emissions, and SOC, are scarce. Standardized studies across Europe’s diverse pedoclimatic regions would be valuable for assessing the benefits of OM inputs in agricultural soils. This would enable the identification of region-specific solutions that enhance soil health, prevent degradation, and support sustainable and productive farming systems.“ (Lines 37-44).

In the Materials and Methods section, the authors present systematic review procedure in excessive detail, including two tables (Table 1 and Table 2), which would be better placed in the Supplementary Materials.

Line 45: soil microorganism – soil microorganisms

Tables 1-4: Prepare the Tables in accordance with the journal's guidelines.

Line 573: NosZ – nosZ

It would be very useful if the authors could include a schematic diagram for the Section 3.3.

Please ensure that the References are cited in accordance with the journal's guidelines.

Reference 79. „Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.“ should be deleted.

Please ensure that all abbreviations (e.g., AOB, LOC, nifH, nirK, nirS, qCO₂) are present in the main text and vice versa.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript entitled “Do soil microbes trade-off C sequestration and non-CO2 GHG emissions in EU agricultural soils? A systematic review” by Arianna Latini, Luciana Di Gregorio, Elena Valkama, Manuela Costanzo, Peter Maenhout, Marjetka Suhadolc, Francesco Vitali, Stefano Mocali, Alessandra Lagomarsino, Annamaria Bevivino summarizes current knowledge on the microbial mechanisms behind soil C sequestration and GHG reduction, focusing on key processes influenced by land management. The manuscript is topical, well-written, and of significant interest to the journal's readership.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the Reviewer for the positive evaluation.We appreciate this feedback and are pleased that the topic and presentation are considered timely and relevant to the journal’s readership. In preparing this work, our aim was not only to address the scientific objectives of the review but also to provide clear, useful, and up-to-date insights for readers.

 

Comment 2: The abstract should be shortened for clarity and word limit. I suggest that authors remove the following parts of the abstract: “Through the evaluation and analysis of these studies, we identified and discussed several knowledge gaps, providing insights for guiding future research.” (Lines 31-33) and “However, the lack of methodological standardization across studies hinders meaningful comparison of outcomes—a key challenge identified in this review. The analysis reveals that studies examining the simultaneous effects of agricultural management practices and OM inputs on soil microorganisms, non-CO2 GHG emissions, and SOC, are scarce. Standardized studies across Europe’s diverse pedoclimatic regions would be valuable for assessing the benefits of OM inputs in agricultural soils. This would enable the identification of region-specific solutions that enhance soil health, prevent degradation, and support sustainable and productive farming systems.” (Lines 37-44).

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We removed the first of the two sentences you suggested (i.e. “Through the evaluation and analysis of these studies, we identified and discussed several knowledge gaps, providing insights for guiding future research.”, lines 31-33 of the previous manuscript version).

 

Comment 3: In the Materials and Methods section, the authors present systematic review procedure in excessive detail, including two tables (Table 1 and Table 2), which would be better placed in the Supplementary Materials.

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. We have streamlined Sub-section 2.1 of the Materials and Methods by removing sentences that could be considered overly detailed. However, we chose to retain Tables 1 and 2 in the main manuscript, as they summarize key elements of the systematic review protocol and are essential for transparency and reproducibility. To address concerns about length and readability, we improved the formatting of Table 1, which now occupies less space in the manuscript.

 

Comment 4: Line 45: soil microorganism – soil microorganisms

Response 4: Corrected. We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out!

 

Comment 5: Tables 1-4: Prepare the Tables in accordance with the journal's guidelines.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for the guidance. All tables have been properly formatted according to MDPI guidelines and have been further improved for clarity and consistency.

 

Comment 6: Line 573: NosZ – nosZ

Response 6: Corrected. We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out!

 

Comment 7: It would be very useful if the authors could include a schematic diagram for the Section 3.3.

Response 7: We than the Reviewer for this helpful suggestion. To facilitate the reading of the section 3.3, five sub-paragraphs were proposed, each focusing on specific experimental agricultural practice and fertilization strategies, as following:

3.3.1 – Agricultural organic wastes

3.3.2 – Biochar, digestate and slurry

3.3.3 – Conservation system and crop rotation

3.3.4 – Cover crops and litter

3.3.5 – Plant diversity.

We dedicated the paragraph “3.3. Results classified by agricultural experimental practices” to guide the readers through the results (particularly from line 382 to 388 of the revised, cleaned version of the manuscript).

 

Comment 8: Please ensure that the References are cited in accordance with the journal's guidelines. Reference 79. “Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.” should be deleted.

Response 8: The references have been correctly reported following MDPI guidelines, small inaccuracies have been improved, and the “old” reference 79 has been eliminated. Please, consider that nine additional references (from 74 to 82) have been added in relation to an additional contribution that we added to support an expanded discussion section, reflecting a constructive suggestion from Reviewer 1.

 

Comment 9: Please ensure that all abbreviations (e.g., AOB, LOC, nifH, nirK, nirS, qCO2) are present in the main text and vice versa.

Response 9: We have ensured consistency between the main text and the list of abbreviations. Specifically, AOB, LOC, nirK, nirS and qCO2 have been included in both the main text and Table 3, while nifH has been removed from the list of Abbreviations as it is no longer used in the text.

 

We appreciate your interest and the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We wish to thank you for your excellent evaluation and relevant suggestions for improving our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript's focus on the trade-offs between soil microbes and the interplay of carbon sequestration and non-CO₂ greenhouse gas emissions in EU agricultural soils aligns with current research priorities in climate change and sustainable agricultural development. However, the paper has several notable shortcomings, which the authors may find helpful to address:

1.While the title emphasizes "trade-off," the review does not systematically analyze the mechanistic trade-offs mediated by soil microbes between carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. It remains largely a descriptive synthesis and lacks a quantitative framework, thus failing to adequately address the core scientific question.

2.The sample size of included studies is relatively small. Furthermore, the selected studies are predominantly from a limited number of countries, such as Germany and Italy, resulting in insufficient geographical and pedoclimatic representation across European agricultural soils.

3.The description of microbial indicators is fragmented and lacks a unified analytical framework for comparison and synthesis.

4.The interpretation of inconsistent results across studies is insufficient. The analysis does not delve deeply into the influence of confounding factors such as soil type, climate, and other management practices on the observed outcomes.

Overall, the manuscript in its current state is rather preliminary and rough. Based on the issues outlined above, I cannot recommend its publication in its present form.

Author Response

The manuscript's focus on the trade-offs between soil microbes and the interplay of carbon sequestration and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in EU agricultural soils aligns with current research priorities in climate change and sustainable agricultural development. However, the paper has several notable shortcomings, which the authors may find helpful to address:

 

Comment 1: While the title emphasizes "trade-off," the review does not systematically analyze the mechanistic trade-offs mediated by soil microbes between carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. It remains largely a descriptive synthesis and lacks a quantitative framework, thus failing to adequately address the core scientific question.

Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for this insightful comment. Our work was conducted within the H2020 ΣOMMIT project (Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter to Mitigate Trade-offs between C sequestration and nitrous oxide, methane and nitrate losses), which aimed to evaluate trade-offs and synergies between soil carbon sequestration and N₂O, CH₄, and nitrate losses as affected by soil management options that increase soil C storage (https://projects.au.dk/ejpsoil/soil-research/ommit). In particular, this systematic review builds on the SOMMIT Project Deliverable D#WP2.1 (January 2024; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14054560). Our aim was to analyze the mechanisms underlying these trade-offs. However, based on the literature available up to March 2023, the data did not allow a robust quantitative analysis of the trade-offs. Consequently, our systematic review provides a descriptive synthesis of the mechanistic relationships. We believe our results remain valuable to the scientific community and provide a foundation for future research aimed at generating quantitative data suitable for modeling and simulating the effects of different organic matter inputs and agricultural practices on C sequestration and GHG emissions.

 

Comment 2: The sample size of included studies is relatively small. Furthermore, the selected studies are predominantly from a limited number of countries, such as Germany and Italy, resulting in insufficient geographical and pedoclimatic representation across European agricultural soils.

Response 2: We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern regarding the relatively small sample size and the limited geographical and pedoclimatic representation of the included studies. This limitation mainly reflects the availability of peer-reviewed studies up to March 2023 that i) meet our strict inclusion criteria (i.e., comparable experimental design, soil parameters, and management practices, in addition to the eligibility criteria reported in Table 2) and ii) provide sufficiently detailed data for quantitative synthesis. We emphasize that the 16 manuscripts used in our systematic review cover all searched keywords and each contains information/data related to the three outcomes (C sequestration, non-CO2 GHG emissions and soil microorganisms). We agree that broader geographical coverage would strengthen the generalizability of the findings.

To address this point, we added a dedicated “5. Limitations” section at the end of the Discussion, where we explicitly outline these constraints and suggest directions for future research. We emphasize that our results should be interpreted in the context of the available evidence and highlight the need for future studies from underrepresented European regions to improve spatial coverage and validate observed trends across a wider range of pedoclimatic conditions.

 

Comment 3: The description of microbial indicators is fragmented and lacks a unified analytical framework for comparison and synthesis.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We acknowledge that the original description of microbial indicators in the current literature is fragmented and that the data available from the selected studies did not allow us to develop a unified analytical framework for comparison and synthesis. In this regard, the data extracted from the selected manuscripts were insufficient to cluster microbial indicators into functional categories (e.g., biomass, diversity, enzymatic activity, and functional gene abundance).

Identifying microbial indicators is challenging due to the diversity of measurement methods, variability across soils and management practices, and the lack of standardized frameworks for comparison. This challenge is also reflected in the literature, where studies report microbial indicators in a fragmented and inconsistent manner, making direct comparison and synthesis difficult. Large-scale European initiatives illustrate the effort required to address this complexity. For example, the European project Minotaur, conducted within the frame of the European Joint Programme on Soil (EJP-Soil, H2020, Grant Agreement 862695), aimed to provide policy-relevant indicators for monitoring soil biodiversity and soil health, highlighting the complexity of developing unified frameworks (Mocali et al. Soil biological indicators for monitoring soil health. Policy Brief, January 2025 https://share.google/TMDlrQeoqwQvT6l1F).

 

Comment 4: The interpretation of inconsistent results across studies is insufficient. The analysis does not delve deeply into the influence of confounding factors such as soil type, climate, and other management practices on the observed outcomes.

Response 4: We acknowledge that interpreting results across studies may be limited by potential confounding factors such as soil type, climate, and other management practices. For this reason, the first sentence of the Conclusions emphasizes that our study provides an overview rather than a definitive causal analysis. Notwithstanding, despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights, identifies common trends, and highlights gaps to guide targeted, follow-up experiments.

 

Comment 5: Overall, the manuscript in its current state is rather preliminary and rough. Based on the issues outlined above, I cannot recommend its publication in its present form.

Response 5: We appreciate the Reviewer’s candid assessment of the manuscript. We acknowledge that the earlier version was preliminary and required substantial refinement. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve its analytical depth, structure, and overall clarity. Key revisions include:

• the addition of a section (5. Limitations) at the end of the Discussion reporting the limitations of the study and providing tips for minimizing them in future studies;
• an additional analysis focusing on biochar to report additional results published more recently by using a dedicated AI tool, as suggested by Reviewer 1;
• evidence from more recent literature on main requirements for soil microbial communities promoting C sequestration while limiting non-CO2 GHG emissions.

We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the rigor and maturity of the manuscript, and we respectfully submit the revised version for reconsideration. We would also note that the manuscript has been reviewed by four independent experts, three of whom provided highly positive evaluations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very well-structured and logical review. It addresses a relevant topic: agricultural practices that increase soil carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The review was conducted using the PRISMA system, ensuring maximum impartiality. However, I have a number of questions and comments for the authors:
1. Why was this review limited to studies in the EU? Wouldn't it be more logical to select multiple regions?
2. How valid is it to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular technology based on 16 articles, given that not all 16 articles are devoted to the use of, for example, biochar or cover crops?
2. Table 4 is of very poor quality; it is difficult to read. Earthworms are not part of the soil microbiome. 3. The authors selected studies that included data on the soil microbiome, but there are no conclusions based on metagenomic sequencing data: what kind of soil microbial community should exist to ensure that carbon storage processes prevail over CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?
3. The authors' final conclusions are unclear. Specific proposals for systematizing field studies and/or preferred methods for managing the soil microbial community for soil carbon sequestration would be appreciated.

Author Response

A very well-structured and logical review. It addresses a relevant topic: agricultural practices that increase soil carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The review was conducted using the PRISMA system, ensuring maximum impartiality. However, I have a number of questions and comments for the authors:

 

Comment 1: Why was this review limited to studies in the EU? Wouldn't it be more logical to select multiple regions?

Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. The focus of this study is on agricultural soils in Europe, as stated in the manuscript title. This choice reflects that the manuscript stems from a study conducted within the European Project SOMMIT (https://projects.au.dk/ejpsoil/soil-research/ommit), under the European Joint Programme on Soil (EJP-Soil, https://ejpsoil.eu). The objective of the specific task related to this study was to perform a literature survey on the relationship between soil microbiome, carbon sequestration, and non-CO₂ GHG emissions across diverse soil types and pedoclimatic conditions in Europe. Of course, as you suggested, it would have been very interesting to conduct this study at the global level to broaden pedoclimatic coverage. We agree that extending this study to a global scale would broaden pedoclimatic coverage, and we plan to consider this in future work.

 

Comment 2: How valid is it to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular technology based on 16 articles, given that not all 16 articles are devoted to the use of, for example, biochar or cover crops?

Response 2: We thank the Reviewer for this insightful comment. While our review includes 16 articles, not all of which focusing exclusively on biochar or cover crops, our objective was to provide a broad overview of the existing literature on the topic, synthesizing general trends and insights, identifying knowledge gaps, and outlining directions for future research. We acknowledge that the study was not normalized for organic matter inputs, which may affect the comparability of the results.

To address this point and other issues, we added a dedicated “5. Limitations” section at the end of the Discussion, where we clearly describe the study’s main limitations, including the limited number of selected manuscripts, and propose possible ways to overcome them in future work. We explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the revised manuscript and emphasize that the results should be interpreted in the light of the available evidence. Despite these limitations, we believe that this systematic review provides robust and valuable insights, even though it does not allow for definitive quantitative conclusions regarding the effectiveness of specific organic matter inputs or agricultural management practices.

 

Comment 3: Table 4 is of very poor quality; it is difficult to read. Earthworms are not part of the soil microbiome.

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for these suggestions. To enhance readability, we have improved the quality of Table 4, as well as all the other tables in the manuscript, as you suggested. Concerning earthworms, we agree that they are not part of the soil microbiome, but we preferred to include the related information, adding this mention at the bottom of Table 4 ^*“Even if they are not part of the soil microbiome, the observation on biodiversity increase in soil earthworms has been reported since they are known to profoundly shape the soil microbiome.”

 

Comment 4: The authors selected studies that included data on the soil microbiome, but there are no conclusions based on metagenomic sequencing data: what kind of soil microbial community should exist to ensure that carbon storage processes prevail over CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?

Response 4: We thank the Reviewer for this insightful comment. Unfortunately, based on the manuscripts included in our analysis, we were unable to extract robust information the specific role of soil microbiome in regulating the trade-off between C sequestration and non-CO₂ GHG emissions. Therefore, we complemented our review by drawing on evidence from more recent literature specifically addressing this topic. In particular, we added the following short paragraph in the Discussion: “Based on the analysed manuscripts, only limited information could be extracted regarding the specific role of soil microbiome in modulating the trade-off between C sequestration and non-CO₂ GHG emissions. Nevertheless, evidence from more recent literature suggests that soil microbial communities promoting C sequestration while limiting GHG emissions are characterized by i) a high abundance of CO₂-fixing and C-accumulating taxa; ii) a predominance of methane-oxidizing bacteria prevailing over methanogenic archaea; iii) denitrifier communities enriched in nosZ, enabling the complete reduction of N₂O and N₂ [66]; iv) high phylogenetic and functional diversity across C and N metabolic pathways; and v) functional gene profiles favouring oxidation and assimilation over production of CH₄ and N₂O (e.g., higher pmoA relative to nirS/nirK gene abundances) [67-69].” (lines 603-613 in the revised, cleaned version of the manuscript). Of course, we have incorporated the references and updated the numbering of the reference list accordingly.

 

Comment 5: The authors' final conclusions are unclear. Specific proposals for systematizing field studies and/or preferred methods for managing the soil microbial community for soil carbon sequestration would be appreciated.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. The EU Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ (Mission Soil), under the EU Horizon Europe Program, has the goal to create 100 Living Labs (LLs) and Lighthouses by 2030 to promote sustainable land and soil management in urban and rural areas (https://mission-soil-platform.ec.europa.eu/about/mission-soil). These LLs play a pivotal role in demonstrating the potential of EU-funded soil microbiome research to enhance diversity and support in situ measurements of GHG fluxes and carbon sequestration. We further propose systematizing field studies and developing a set of preferred methods for managing soil microbial communities, including standardized sampling protocols, harmonized metadata, longitudinal monitoring, and targeted management practices (e.g., cover crops, residue management, tillage, and microbial inoculants) to maximize soil carbon sequestration. These insights and recommendations have been embedded in the Conclusions (in particular, in the paragraph in lines 723-738 of the revised, cleaned version of the manuscript).

 

We appreciate the Reviewer’s interest and the time dedicated to the evaluation of our manuscript. We wish to thank the Reviewer for the positive appraisal and relevant suggestions, which contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form