Evaluation of the Effect of Different Soil Surface Treatments in the Vineyard Inter-Row on the CO₂ Emissions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Lines 65-67: It is stated that “Elevated temperatures accelerate organic matter decomposition and microbial respiration,” but it would be helpful to specify whether this applies uniformly to all soil types or whether there are critical thresholds above which reactions are inhibited. 

- Lines 86-87: The statement from Lipiec et al. that rows with cover-crop emit more GHG is interesting but potentially controversial. It would be helpful to clarify which gases it refers to and under what environmental or management conditions this trend has been observed.

- Although it is stated that vineyard management systems include specific inter-row management practices, the authors do not address at all the role of cover crops, which are one of the most relevant and widespread techniques in contemporary viticulture.

- The introduction, while abounding with generic references on GHG and soils, , severely neglects viticulture-specific literature. It did not delve into the distinctive elements of soil management in vineyards:
Reductions in tillage 
Controlled cover crops
Effect on soil structure.
Consequent effect on vineyard growth;
This represents a serious shortcoming.

Rows 88 - 89: The final sentence “This study aims to evaluate the impact of different vineyard inter-row soil treatments on CO₂ emissions” appears completely disengaged from the main thrust of the introduction. Neither a sound theoretical basis nor references to existing research on inter-row treatments in viticulture were provided.

- Lines 111-127: The authors state that one of the interfiles is managed with “natural vegetation” (line 118) and that one of the variants involves “mulching of plant cover” (line 125), but no detailed information is provided on the floristic composition, biomass, phenology or agronomic management of the plant cover.

- Treatments are defined schematically and superficially, with descriptions lacking basic technical details. For example:

What type of “mulching” was used? What biomass? In what quantity?

Did composting (C+C150) involve plant material? Manure? Urban compost?

Is the “natural vegetation” spontaneous? Was it sown? When was it mulched?

- Line 121: Five treatments for three replications, so only 15 experimental plots in total, but it is not specified whether the replications are randomly distributed, whether they are in blocks, whether there is edge or drainage effect.

- The “Materials and Methods” section, while formally complete in structure, suffers from serious substantive shortcomings:

No useful background information on the actual agronomic role of cover crops (type, management, biomass);

Vague definitions of treatments;

Unclarified experimental design and sampling design;

- Lines 143 -168:  Regarding the experimental protocol (INNOVA 1512)

What was the frequency of measurements?

What time of day were they taken ?

How long was the system left in equilibrium?

Were the chambers closed or dynamic?

-Lines 169 - 171: It is unclear whether they were closed or ventilated chambers. 

- The time that air stays in the chamber or the actual sampling time is not specified. I recommend that the authors clearly describe these aspects. 

- A serious methodological shortcoming is the total failure to provide correlations or controls between CO₂ emissions and agronomic factors. Soil temperature is not reported during measurements. Soil moisture at the time of the survey (critical for soil respiration) is not assessed

There is no description of the software used or whether data quality checks were performed. 

The authors merely state that they used a single-factor ANOVA with replication, followed by a post-hoc test (Tukey HSD), but offer no critical or in-depth description of the experimental design or data structure.

What type of dependent variable was analyzed (average, cumulative, daily, interval emissions)?  

It is missing the reference to: 
In the scientific context, it is unacceptable to propose a statistical analysis without clarifying:

 - What the null hypothesis tested was H₀;

 -  What the alternative hypothesis was  H₁;

- Since the paper claims to have taken measurements over two years (2023 and 2024), it could be useful to perform a bifactorial analysis. 

The text (line 204) states that the “maximum capillary water capacity has exceeded the critical level,” but no critical reference value is provided, nor is it explained how this capacity was calculated or estimated.

- Data from 2023 and 2024 show consistent reductions in bulk density and increases in total porosity, but the text does not discuss:

    The causes of these changes, in agronomic management, climate?

    The interaction between year and treatment;

    The functional impact of these changes on water dynamics soil aeration.

The text employs subjective assessments (e.g., "good," "very high," "low") to describe agronomic or pedological parameters without providing:

1. Bibliographic references justifying the chosen critical thresholds, raising doubts about their validity and reproducibility.

2. Proper contextualization regarding:

   Crop-specific requirements, which may vary significantly depending on species, phenological stage, or climatic conditions;

   Soil characteristics (e.g., texture, pH, CEC), which influence nutrient availability and the very definition of optimal ranges.

This lack of precision may undermine the reliability of the conclusions, making it difficult to apply recommendations in different agricultural or environmental settings.

Lines 220: In 2023 M-treatment reduces emissions (consistent with literature), but in 2024 M-treatment shows higher emissions along with C+C150. This reversal is neither discussed nor justified.  Which could this effect be attributable to?

lines 269 - 275: The absence of p-values, confidence intervals, or error bars in Figures 4–5 undermines the reliability of the conclusions. Additionally, the CO₂ emission ranges are reported without clarity on whether they represent means, extremes, or variability. Such omissions make it impossible to assess data robustness. 

-Lines 238 -258:  Were soil moisture/temperature measured in conjunction with CO₂ fluxes? If yes, why are correlations not analyzed?

- Lines 272 - 275: One of the results you reported concerns the 'emission range values. As reported by Rutkowska et al. the values fall within a very wide emission range. whereas the values observed in this study are significantly lower and narrower. the authors do not explain why their results are only at the lower end of this range. I suggest providing a more detailed discussion of the point. 

- The conclusions are overly generic and fail to translate findings into practical insights for viticulture. While the study demonstrates tillage and organic inputs affect CO₂ emissions (Lines 244-258), it misses critical opportunities to link these results with vineyard performance indicators (yield, vine growth) or soil health parameters (SOC dynamics, compaction). The discussion lacks actionable recommendations for growers and ignores modern precision agriculture approaches. For example, consider the study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113844 clearly shows how SOC changes impact soil structure and vine vigor through remote sensing, a methodology that could have strengthened this study's relevance. The authors must revise their conclusions to: 1) explicitly connect emission patterns with practical vineyard management outcomes, 2) address how their findings relate to soil-plant feedback systems, and 3) propose concrete mitigation strategies balancing emissions reduction with productivity. Without these essential elements, the study's impact remains severely limited. 

 

Dear Editor and Authors,

Following a thorough evaluation of the above-referenced manuscript, I recommend Major Revision before reconsideration for publication. While the study addresses an important topic in sustainable viticulture, several substantive issues must be addressed to meet the Agronomy journal’s standards. This revision is essential to elevate the manuscript’s impact from a observational study to a actionable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, observations, and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have carefully considered and accepted all of the remarks provided, and we believe that these improvements have significantly contributed to enhancing the scientific quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your time and constructive feedback.

Sincerely, for the author's team Patrik Burg

- Lines 65-67: It is stated that “Elevated temperatures accelerate organic matter decomposition and microbial respiration,” but it would be helpful to specify whether this applies uniformly to all soil types or whether there are critical thresholds above which reactions are inhibited. 

Answer: Thank you for the insightful question. Indeed, the effect of increased temperature on organic matter decomposition and microbial activity is not universal across all soil types. The rate of these processes depends on a range of factors, including soil type, structure, organic matter content, moisture, and oxygen availability. There are also threshold values beyond which microbial activity may be inhibited—for example, due to reduced water availability or thermal stress on microorganisms. We have expanded and supplemented the text of the contribution.

- Lines 86-87: The statement from Lipiec et al. that rows with cover-crop emit more GHG is interesting but potentially controversial. It would be helpful to clarify which gases it refers to and under what environmental or management conditions this trend has been observed.

Answer: Thank you for your observation. You are right that the conclusions presented in the study by Liebhard et al. and Lipiec et al. may prompt discussion, especially since cover vegetation is often associated with positive environmental benefits. In that study, the higher greenhouse gas emissions were mainly related to nitrous oxide (N₂O), which may be linked to increased microbial activity and greater nitrogen accumulation in the soil profile of grass-covered inter-rows.

- Although it is stated that vineyard management systems include specific inter-row management practices, the authors do not address at all the role of cover crops, which are one of the most relevant and widespread techniques in contemporary viticulture.

Answer: Thank you for highlighting this important aspect of vineyard management. We agree that cover crops represent a key component of current inter-row systems in viticulture, particularly in terms of sustainable farming, soil protection, and their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In the submitted text, we primarily focused on the general differences between grass-covered and cultivated inter-rows. The role of cover crops has been added in the form of a brief comment supported by appropriate literature references.

In future work, it would certainly be beneficial to analyze in more detail the influence of specific cover crop species, their controlled management (e.g., mowing, mulching), and their interactions with soil and climatic conditions, which significantly affect the emissions of N₂O, CO₂, and CH₄. Cover crops can act both as a source and a sink of carbon and nitrogen, depending on local conditions and management practices.

 

- The introduction, while abounding with generic references on GHG and soils, , severely neglects viticulture-specific literature. It did not delve into the distinctive elements of soil management in vineyards:
Reductions in tillage 
Controlled cover crops
Effect on soil structure.
Consequent effect on vineyard growth;
This represents a serious shortcoming.

Answer: Thank you for your constructive comment. We agree that the original version of the introduction focused primarily on general soil-related GHG dynamics and insufficiently addressed viticulture-specific soil management practices. In response, we have revised and expanded the introduction to include relevant literature concerning vineyard soil tillage reduction, cover crop management, and their impacts on soil structure and vine performance. These additions help to contextualize the research more specifically within viticulture and align better with current practices in European vineyards.

The revised section of the introduction now includes the following new text

Vineyard soil management has undergone a notable shift in recent decades, particularly in response to climate change mitigation and soil degradation concerns. Traditional deep tillage is increasingly being replaced by reduced or no-till practices to improve soil structure, reduce erosion, and enhance carbon sequestration Lazcano et al. and Ferreira et al..

Cover crops—both spontaneous and sown—play a central role in vineyard inter-row management. These crops contribute to improved soil aggregation, enhanced infiltration, and suppression of erosion, while also providing competition for water and nutrients Celette and Gary and García-Díaz et al..  The selection of cover crop species (e.g., legumes vs. grasses), their management (e.g., mowing, incorporation), and regional climatic conditions all influence the resulting soil biochemical processes and GHG fluxes Steenwerth and Guerra.

Importantly, inter-row management can indirectly affect vine growth and grape yield. Studies have shown that reduced tillage and permanent vegetation cover may limit vegetative vigor due to competition for water in drier climates, yet can lead to more balanced vine growth and improved grape quality under temperate conditions Buesa et al., and Monteiro and Lopes. These interactions are particularly relevant when assessing sustainability in viticulture.

This expanded framing better reflects the current state of knowledge in vineyard-specific soil management and aligns the objectives of our study with recognized challenges and solutions in viticultural practice.

Rows 88 - 89: The final sentence “This study aims to evaluate the impact of different vineyard inter-row soil treatments on CO₂ emissions” appears completely disengaged from the main thrust of the introduction. Neither a sound theoretical basis nor references to existing research on inter-row treatments in viticulture were provided.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The original wording of the study objective (“This study aims to evaluate the impact of different vineyard inter-row soil treatments on CO₂ emissions.”), while factually correct, is somewhat general. Therefore, we have included a newly defined objective in the revised text.

- Lines 111-127: The authors state that one of the interfiles is managed with “natural vegetation” (line 118) and that one of the variants involves “mulching of plant cover” (line 125), but no detailed information is provided on the floristic composition, biomass, phenology or agronomic management of the plant cover.

- Treatments are defined schematically and superficially, with descriptions lacking basic technical details. For example: What type of “mulching” was used? What biomass? In what quantity?

Is the “natural vegetation” spontaneous? Was it sown? When was it mulched?

Answer: Thank you for the valuable comment. We agree that more detailed information on the vegetation cover could contribute to a better understanding of the results.

In the original text, we stated that one of the inter-rows was maintained with “natural vegetation,” and that in one of the experimental treatments (M), the vegetation cover was mulched. We now provide the following additional details:

From a phytocoenological perspective, the natural vegetation cover consisted predominantly of common species of both perennial and annual grasses and dicotyledonous weeds, with the main representation of the following species: Lolium perenne L., Poa pratensis L., Festuca rubra L., Trifolium repens L., Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg., and Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. The average amount of aboveground fresh biomass at the time of mulching was approximately 0.8 t·ha⁻¹, equivalent to 0.8 kg·m⁻². Phenologically, the vegetation was in the phase of full growth at the time of intervention (end of May), with a predominance of flowering and vegetative stages. Mulching was carried out using a standard tractor-mounted mulcher. The cut plant material was left on the soil surface without subsequent removal or harvesting.

Did composting (C+C150) involve plant material? Manure? Urban compost?

Answer: The compost used in treatment Var.3 (C+C150) was mature, plant-based, and produced through aerobic fermentation of green waste (primarily grass clippings, grape pomace and wood chips from pruning). The compost was free of contaminants and complied with national standards for agricultural use. It was applied at a rate of 30 t·ha⁻¹ (fresh weight) and incorporated into the soil to a depth of 150 mm using a disc harrow. The compost was applied in spring (April), prior to the onset of the main growing season.

 

Basic characteristics of the compost were as follows:

 

• Dry matter content: ~40%
• Organic matter: ~65% (of dry matter)
• Total nitrogen: 1.2% (of dry matter)
• C/N ratio: approximately 15:1
• pH (H₂O): 7.3

- Line 121: Five treatments for three replications, so only 15 experimental plots in total, but it is not specified whether the replications are randomly distributed, whether they are in blocks, whether there is edge or drainage effect.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge the lack of detail regarding the experimental design layout.

The fifteen experimental plots (5 treatments × 3 replicates) were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) to account for potential spatial variability within the vineyard. Each block included one replicate of each treatment, and the blocks were distributed along the central part of the vineyard to minimize environmental gradients (e.g., soil heterogeneity, microclimate variation).

To reduce edge effects, experimental plots were positioned at least one full inter-row away from vineyard margins and adjacent roadways. Additionally, the two selected vine rows used for measurement were flanked by buffer rows that were not included in the experiment.

No significant drainage patterns or artificial water flows were present in the study area. The site has a relatively uniform slope and soil texture, and drainage was not expected to cause plot-specific bias.

This information has been added to the Materials and Methods section to clarify the spatial arrangement and management of experimental variability.

- The “Materials and Methods” section, while formally complete in structure, suffers from serious substantive shortcomings: No useful background information on the actual agronomic role of cover crops (type, management, biomass);

Answer: Thank you for your factual comment. We have expanded and supplemented the text of the contribution.

- Lines 143 -168:  Regarding the experimental protocol (INNOVA 1512)

What was the frequency of measurements?

What time of day were they taken ?

How long was the system left in equilibrium?

Were the chambers closed or dynamic?

- The time that air stays in the chamber or the actual sampling time is not specified. I recommend that the authors clearly describe these aspects. 

Answer: Thank you for the insightful questions. To improve clarity, we are providing the following additional information regarding the measurement protocol:

 

Measurement frequency:

Gas concentrations were recorded approximately every minute for each analyzed gas, with the entire sampling cycle covering all sampling points taking about 15 minutes.

 

Time of day:

Measurements were conducted during daylight hours, typically from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, in order to capture the period of highest microbial activity and greenhouse gas emissions.

 

System stabilization prior to measurement:

Before each measurement, the sampling system was allowed to equilibrate for approximately 1 minute (for flushing and stabilizing the chamber concentration), as indicated in the text, to ensure the removal of residual gases from the previous sample and achieve a stable signal.

 

Chamber type:

The measurement chambers used were closed (static chambers), which allow for accurate monitoring of gas concentration changes within a defined volume during the measurement period. This approach is suitable for determining surface emission rates under both laboratory and field conditions.

 

- A serious methodological shortcoming is the total failure to provide correlations or controls between CO₂ emissions and agronomic factors. Soil temperature is not reported during measurements. Soil moisture at the time of the survey (critical for soil respiration) is not assessed

There is no description of the software used or whether data quality checks were performed. 

The authors merely state that they used a single-factor ANOVA with replication, followed by a post-hoc test (Tukey HSD), but offer no critical or in-depth description of the experimental design or data structure.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the manuscript to clarify the structure of the data, the type of dependent variable analyzed, and the methodology used.

Specifically, soil CO₂ emissions were measured both as instantaneous emission rates (g C-CO₂·m⁻²·h⁻¹) and cumulative emissions over the growing season (g C-CO₂·m⁻²). Instantaneous measurements were taken at five time points (t1–t5) during each growing season (2023 and 2024), across five treatment variants (C70, C150, C+C150, M, Co). Cumulative emissions were calculated according to the method proposed by Wilson and Al-Kaisi, integrating the emission rate over time intervals between measurements.

Prior to analysis, the data were tested for normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homogeneity of variances (Levene’s test). A one-way ANOVA with replication was conducted separately for each time point, followed by Tukey's HSD test to identify significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). These clarifications have been added to the revised manuscript to improve transparency and reproducibility.

In the scientific context, it is unacceptable to propose a statistical analysis without clarifying:

 - What the null hypothesis tested was H₀;

 -  What the alternative hypothesis was  H₁;

Answer: The null and alternative hypotheses were formulated and added to the text following the study objective.

- Since the paper claims to have taken measurements over two years (2023 and 2024), it could be useful to perform a bifactorial analysis. 

Answer: The primary objective of the study was to compare the effects of different soil treatment variants on CO₂ emissions, rather than to assess inter-annual differences. Therefore, a one-factor model was chosen, with treatment as the main explanatory factor.

The text (line 204) states that the “maximum capillary water capacity has exceeded the critical level,” but no critical reference value is provided, nor is it explained how this capacity was calculated or estimated.

Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. The text will be revised to include a reference to the methodology for calculating the maximum capillary water capacity and the addition of the critical reference value used for interpretation.

The maximum capillary water capacity was determined gravimetrically using cylindrical samples (Kopecký cylinders). The samples were saturated with water and then allowed to drain freely at laboratory temperature for 24 hours, simulating field saturation. The critical level indicating compaction and the risk of impaired infiltration was established according to standard literature, e.g., Hůla et al. where a value above 40% volumetric water content is considered a risk threshold for loamy soils.

 

- Data from 2023 and 2024 show consistent reductions in bulk density and increases in total porosity, but the text does not discuss:

    The causes of these changes, in agronomic management, climate?

    The interaction between year and treatment;

    The functional impact of these changes on water dynamics soil aeration.

The text employs subjective assessments (e.g., "good," "very high," "low") to describe agronomic or pedological parameters without providing:

1. Bibliographic references justifying the chosen critical thresholds, raising doubts about their validity and reproducibility.
2. Proper contextualization regarding:

Crop-specific requirements, which may vary significantly depending on species, phenological stage, or climatic conditions;

Soil characteristics (e.g., texture, pH, CEC), which influence nutrient availability and the very definition of optimal ranges.

This lack of precision may undermine the reliability of the conclusions, making it difficult to apply recommendations in different agricultural or environmental settings.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have supplemented and expanded the discussion of the results presented in Table 2 with all the provided remarks. The analysis of the interaction between year and treatment method was not conducted in this study due to technical and statistical reasons; however, future research should take these aspects into account to better understand the temporal dynamics of soil parameters.

Lines 220: In 2023 M-treatment reduces emissions (consistent with literature), but in 2024 M-treatment shows higher emissions along with C+C150. This reversal is neither discussed nor justified.  Which could this effect be attributable to?

Answer: Thank you for this important observation. You are correct that the M treatment (mulching of the grassed inter-row) showed reduced CO₂ emissions in 2023, consistent with findings reported in the literature. However, in 2024, the M treatment exhibited higher emissions, comparable to the C+C150 treatment.

This deviation is likely attributable to the distinct weather conditions in the 2024 growing season, particularly the above-average precipitation in May, June, and September, which may have increased soil moisture and enhanced microbial activity in the mulched areas. Increased decomposition of grass mulch and organic matter under moist conditions could have temporarily intensified microbial respiration and CO₂ release. This is supported by Rogovska et al., who reported increased CO₂ emissions following enhanced microbial activity in moist conditions after organic matter application.

We have now included this explanation in the revised manuscript to address the observed inconsistency and to acknowledge the potential role of weather variability and organic matter dynamics in influencing year-to-year emission trends.

 

lines 269 - 275: The absence of p-values, confidence intervals, or error bars in Figures 4–5 undermines the reliability of the conclusions. Additionally, the CO₂ emission ranges are reported without clarity on whether they represent means, extremes, or variability. Such omissions make it impossible to assess data robustness. 

Answer: Thank you for this observation. We acknowledge that Figures 4 and 5 currently do not display p-values, confidence intervals, or error bars. However, we would like to clarify that the cumulative CO₂ emission values shown in these figures are based on the means of three replicates per treatment, calculated over a 120-day measurement period. These figures are intended to illustrate general trends in cumulative emissions across treatments and years, rather than to present statistically analyzed point-by-point comparisons.

The statistical evaluation of treatment effects, including analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, was performed and is presented in the manuscript text and Table 4, which covers the instantaneous emission rates. The ranges reported (e.g., 11–24 g C-CO₂·m⁻² or 9.64–21.03 Mg C-CO₂·ha⁻¹·y⁻¹) represent mean cumulative values across replicates, not extremes or individual outliers. We have now clarified this in the revised manuscript to avoid misunderstanding.

-Lines 238 -258:  Were soil moisture/temperature measured in conjunction with CO₂ fluxes? If yes, why are correlations not analyzed?

Answer: Thank you for your insightful question. Soil temperature and moisture were indeed monitored in conjunction with CO₂ flux measurements during the study. However, these variables were collected primarily to support the interpretation of emission patterns, rather than to serve as core analytical parameters. We have added the measured values ​​of these quantities to Figures 2 and 3.

The focus of this study was on the effect of different soil management strategies on CO₂ emissions, and not on quantifying the individual contribution of environmental covariates such as temperature or moisture, which are known to be highly dynamic and influenced by external weather variability.

Additionally, given the relatively small number of time points (five measurements per year), a meaningful statistical correlation analysis between soil moisture/temperature and CO₂ flux would likely be limited in power and reliability. Therefore, we chose not to include such analyses in the results section but considered the observed moisture and temperature conditions in our qualitative interpretation of seasonal emission dynamics.

We acknowledge the relevance of these variables and will consider including a more detailed exploration in future studies with higher temporal resolution.

- Lines 272 - 275: One of the results you reported concerns the 'emission range values. As reported by Rutkowska et al. the values fall within a very wide emission range. whereas the values observed in this study are significantly lower and narrower. the authors do not explain why their results are only at the lower end of this range. I suggest providing a more detailed discussion of the point. 

Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You are correct in noting that the cumulative CO₂ emission values observed in our study (9.64–21.03 Mg C-CO₂·ha⁻¹·y⁻¹) represent the lower end of the wide range reported by Rutkowska et al., which spans from 1.8 to 47.2 Mg C-CO₂·ha⁻¹·y⁻¹. This discrepancy can be attributed primarily to differences in:

• Climatic conditions: Our study was conducted in a temperate Central European region with moderate rainfall and temperature, which limits extreme microbial and decomposition activity compared to more arid climates.
• Soil type and carbon content: The soils in our study had relatively low oxidisable carbon content (Cox), as noted in Table 3, which reduces the substrate available for microbial respiration.
• Management intensity and crop type: Our experiment was set in a vineyard system with perennial cover and low disturbance, whereas the broader range in Rutkowska et al. includes annual crops, varying tillage systems, and high organic matter inputs such as manure or residues.

We have now added this explanation to the revised manuscript to clarify why our emission values fall within a narrower, lower range.

- The conclusions are overly generic and fail to translate findings into practical insights for viticulture. While the study demonstrates tillage and organic inputs affect CO₂ emissions (Lines 244-258), it misses critical opportunities to link these results with vineyard performance indicators (yield, vine growth) or soil health parameters (SOC dynamics, compaction). The discussion lacks actionable recommendations for growers and ignores modern precision agriculture approaches. For example, consider the study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113844 clearly shows how SOC changes impact soil structure and vine vigor through remote sensing, a methodology that could have strengthened this study's relevance. The authors must revise their conclusions to: 1) explicitly connect emission patterns with practical vineyard management outcomes, 2) address how their findings relate to soil-plant feedback systems, and 3) propose concrete mitigation strategies balancing emissions reduction with productivity. Without these essential elements, the study's impact remains severely limited. 

Answer: We thank the reviewer for their valuable comment regarding the conclusion’s practical applicability and integration with broader vineyard management indicators. Based on the suggestion, we have revised the conclusion section to more clearly address the links between CO₂ emission patterns and vineyard performance, soil health parameters, and management recommendations.

Specifically, we have:

• Clarified the practical implications of each soil treatment variant, particularly regarding mulching and shallow cultivation, for emission mitigation and vineyard sustainability.
• Acknowledged the variability of emission dynamics across years and highlighted the role of meteorological conditions in modulating the impact of soil management.
• Integrated a discussion of soil-plant feedback mechanisms, including the timing of compost application and its influence on microbial activity and CO₂ flux.
• Emphasised the need for coupling emission data with indicators of soil organic carbon, compaction, and vine performance (e.g., yield, vegetative growth), and suggested this as a key direction for future research.
• Added a recommendation for incorporating precision agriculture approaches, such as remote sensing, for real-time monitoring of soil structure and vine vigor.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides important data for evaluating the carbon footprint associated with wine production. When planning vineyard practices, it is essential to consider CO₂ emissions, particularly in the context of strategies aimed at reducing the environmental impact of agriculture and adapting to climate change. As with other agricultural activities, wine production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions begin at the early stages of vine cultivation, where energy is used for operating agricultural machinery, running irrigation systems, and applying fertilizers and chemical plant protection products.

This study assessed CO₂ emissions from soil in vineyard inter-rows under Central European conditions over a two-year period (2023–2024). Five variants of soil surface management were tested: tillage to a depth of 70 mm, tillage to a depth of 150 mm, compost application (50 t·ha⁻¹) with incorporation to 150 mm, mulching of plant cover with the mulch left on the soil surface, and a control variant without fertilization or tillage, managed with herbicide application.

The study's methodology is clearly defined and consistently applied. The results are consistent with the collected data.

 

Comments to the Authors:

1. In the Introduction, the text is typically presented as a continuous narrative rather than broken into subsections; nevertheless, it is essential to state the study’s objective and the research hypothesis explicitly.
2. The references cited in the study are appropriate and relevant; however the citation (Nelson and Sommer 1982) is not included in the References section (line 143). Please ensure that this source is either properly listed in the References or removed from the text if it is not being used.
3. In the methodology section, when describing the equipment used, it is important to include the manufacturer's details (name and, if relevant, location or country) (line 145).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, observations, and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have carefully considered and accepted all of the remarks provided, and we believe that these improvements have significantly contributed to enhancing the scientific quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your time and constructive feedback.

Sincerely, for the author's team Patrik Burg

In the Introduction, the text is typically presented as a continuous narrative rather than broken into subsections; nevertheless, it is essential to state the study’s objective and the research hypothesis explicitly.

Answer: Thank you very much for the stimulating comment, which is similar to the first reviewer's. We have inserted the newly defined goal into the text together with the scientific hypotheses.

The references cited in the study are appropriate and relevant; however the citation (Nelson and Sommer 1982) is not included in the References section (line 143). Please ensure that this source is either properly listed in the References or removed from the text if it is not being used.

Answer: Thank you very much for the notice, we have added the source to the literature review.

In the methodology section, when describing the equipment used, it is important to include the manufacturer's details (name and, if relevant, location or country) (line 145).

Thank you very much for the notice, we have added the missing information about manufacturer's details (name and, if relevant, location or country) to the methodological part of the text.