On-Farm Evaluation of Direct Seeding of Cover Crop Effects on Soil C and N Reserves and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Cauliflower Production System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary 

Dear Authors:

Following the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, I am pleased to submit the review report of the paper:

On-farm assessment of no-till and cover crop effects on soil C and N stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in a cauliflower production system

I have read it carefully in its entirety, thanking the authors for their effort and dedication in its elaboration and consider the journal Horticulture for its review and possible publication.

The Manuscript's objective was: This work aims to perform an on-farm evaluation of the effects of notillage and cover crop use on soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical attributes, plant yield, and GGE emissions in an NTVS cauliflower production, compared to SP in a sub-tropical ecosystem.

Methodologically, the authors conducted the study on a farm located in Angelina, in southeastern Brazil, the plantations, Cauliflower yield was evaluated by manually harvesting six plants per plot (8 m2) in January. Cauliflower leaves were removed, inflorescence fresh mass (FM) was quantified, and yield was expressed in Mg ha-1. Air samples for GGE evaluation were collected using the closed static chamber method (Mosier et al., 2004). In each pseudo-replication of the two management systems, a 0.5 x 0.4 m rectangular metal base was previously fixed and inserted into the soil to a depth of 0.05 cm. Before cauliflower transplanting, the experimental area was sampled to quantify to- 222 tal soil C and N stocks, soil density, volumetric moisture, and mean geometric diameter 223 of aggregates. Soil samples were collected in the 0-5, 5-10, and 10-30 cm layers in each of 224 the treatment plots/plots, following the methodology recommended by EMBRAPA (2011) 225 and Veiga (2011). The variation in the mean daily fluxes of N-N2O, C-CH4, and C-CO2 emitted by the 264 soil was expressed as the standard error of the mean. The data on the cumulative emission 265 of N-N2O, C-CH4, and C-CO2 emitted by the soil, TOC and total nitrogen (TN) contents, 266 as well as their stocks in the soil, Ds, MGD, UV, soil temperature, and cauliflower yield 267 were subjected to analysis of variance, using the statistical program Sisvar®, version 5.8 268 (Ferreira, 2019). When effects were significant, means were compared by the t-test (LSD) 269 at 5% error probability (Dodge, 2008).

The results indicated that:  The NTVS with cover crop mixtures had a higher yield than the CTS without cover crops (25.1 and 18.4 Mg ha-1, respectively). The NTVS system showed increased carbon mass density (MGD) and ultraviolet (UV) density and lower carbon density (SD). Soil temperature in the NTVS, in the 0 to 5 cm layer, was lower than in the CTS. Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks were higher in the NTVS, but higher N₂O emissions partially offset this benefit compared to the CTS

The authors conclude that:  El NTVS, en general, emitió más CO₂ y N₂O que el CTS. El suelo absorbió CH₂ en ambos sistemas de gestión. El NTVS cuenta con suficientes reservas de carbono equivalente (0-30 cm) para compensar las emisiones de GEI y es una alternativa viable en cuanto al rendimiento vegetal y la calidad del suelo, pero requiere atención en su impacto ambiental sobre las emisiones de GEI.

 

Specific comments

1.-Title:  The title is clear, but the word evaluation and effect in my opinion is not appropriate to use both a in the title. I suggest two alternatives:

1.-On-farm evaluation of direct seeding of cover crops on soil C and N reserves and greenhouse gas emissions in a cauliflower production system.

Or

2.-Effect of direct seeding of cover crops on soil C and N stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in an on-farm cauliflower production system.

Clear and consistent.

The object of study: over crops on soil C and N reserves and greenhouse gas emissions

The subject of study: on-farm cauliflower production system.

Method:  Effect or evaluation

2.-The Abstract

The abstract deals in most of the paragraphs with text related to the results leaving a very biased structure towards this part of the manuscript, remembering that:

Is the most read section of an article, so it is important that it is orderly, trying to separate the sections.

The introductory paragraph (two lines) however, I suggest that they indicate:

Therefore, the objective of the research was ............................

Methodologically......................................

the results indicated......................

It is concluded ...........................................

Although it is not a rule, a summary in this way integrates all parts of the manuscript.

 

3.-Keywords:

nitrous oxide; carbon sequestration; Brassica oleracea var. botrytis; no-tillage vegetable system; methane; cover crop mix.

Keywords are important for the editorials for indexing purposes, a proposed idea is that the words included in the title are not repeated in the keywords, it would be interesting to place a keyword that is related to SDG addressed.

Note 4.-Introduction

The authors addressed in the introduction some interesting concepts; however, they could improve the structure of the introduction:

1.- It is recommended to start with the field of knowledge addressed. Ok

2.- It should be clear what the problem to be solved is.

3.- The justification of the research should be addressed separately.

4.- The literature review of previous studies or the state of the art of the variables investigated in the international context.

5.-Knowledge gaps.

6.-General objectives. Ok

 I suggest the authors answer the following questions and analyze the introduction section:

1. Is it focused on the problem clearly from macro to micro? Partially
2. Is it enjoyable and fruitful to read, does it condense the letters and is it prolific in ideas? yes
3. Does it clearly state the reasons for conducting the study? yes
4. Does it state the premises on which the study is based? yes
5. Does it clearly define the objectives of the study? Partially, yes, Details are explained in note 3.
6. Does it state the hypotheses that the study intends to demonstrate? yes

 

Note 5. The objective

 

I It is very important for readers to establish in a manuscript some of these elements in the final paragraph of the introduction:

1.- Research question

2.- Objective

3.- A hypothesis in the introduction.

Correct in the manuscript.

Reviewing the consistency between the title and objectives in the text, the following is found:

Title:

On-farm assessment of no-till and cover crop effects on soil C and N stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in a cauliflower production system

In Abstract:

“We evaluated 16 how no-till and cover-crops affect soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical attributes, yield, and GGE in cauliflower production in NTVS in comparison to CTS. Soil bulk density (SD), mean geometric aggregate diameter (MGD), moisture (Uv), and C and N contents and stocks at the 0-5, 5-10, and 10-30 cm depths were evaluated”

Introduction.

This work aims to perform an on-farm evaluation of the effects of no- tillage and cover crop use on soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical attributes, plant yield, and GGE emissions in an NTVS cauliflower production, compared to SP in a sub- tropical ecosystem.

The study variables are:

1.-Soil C and N stocks

2.-chemical and physical attributes

3.-plant yield,

4.-GGE emissions in an NTVS cauliflower production.

As you can see the objectives are similar, but they are different in their wording, so I suggest that the objective be unified in the manuscript in all sections.

The most appropriate objective is in accordance with the title of the manuscript, for example:

Effects of no-tillage and cover crop use on soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical attributes, plant yield and GGE emissions in a field production of cauliflower NTVS compared to SP in a subtropical ecosystem in southeastern Brazil.

Note 6. The hypothesis

“NTVS increases soil C and N stocks by depositing cover crop residues on the soil with no tillage, increasing cauliflower yield and emitting less GGE compared to SPC.

Note 7.-Methodology

Recommendations for the methodology

Did you provide all the necessary information about the variables studied and the products used (doses, origin, etc.)? yes

 Did you include all the methods used in the study? Yes.

 Did you describe them in detail?   Can be improved

Did you correctly cite the methods?  Can be improved

Are the statistical procedures rigorous?  Yes.

Is the use of data description and statistical treatment consistent. Can be improved

These are reflection questions that support your work.

 

The structure of the methodology presented is made up of the following elements:

Materials and methods

2.1. Site Characterization 

2.2. Measured Variables

Cauliflower Yield

Air Sampling, GGE Analysis, and Calculations

Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute

Statistical Analysis

The proposal for the materials and methods section could be as follows

Materials and methods

Study site

Description of the cultivated area.

Type of research and Experimental design (can be supported with a figure).

                Cauliflower Yield and Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute

.               GGE Fluxes and Emission in Soil

(Treatments, replicates, factors)

 Data collection and data sampling

                The climate data

The study variables

 (how and when data were collected)

Measured Variables

Cauliflower Yield

Air Sampling, GGE Analysis, and Calculations

Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute

Statistical Analysis (should be more accurate with the information it provides)

For each variable:

                Cauliflower Yield and Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute.

.               GGE Fluxes and Emission in Soil

Software used

Example: Sunny Design Version 5.22.5 (Niestetal, DEU: SMA Solar Technology AG Corp, Rocklin, CA, USA).

Figure 2. Climate data recorded throughout the cauliflower cycle .

Must be presented in the results section.

8.-Results

The results section consists of the following parts:

3.1. Cauliflower Yield and Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute

3.2. GGE Fluxes and Emission in Soil

3.2.1. N2O

3.2.2. CH4 Emissions

3.2.3. CO2 Emissions

4. Carbon Equivalent Required to Neutralize N2O, CH4 and CO2 Emissions

These are adequate and presented in order.

 

Is the parallelism between the presentation of results in text and the presentation of data in tables and figures perfect?  Yes

Does the order of presentation of the different types of results follow a logical order? Yes

Have you highlighted the star results? Yes.

Is it clear in all comparisons which values are compared and which test is used for comparison? yes

Is the use of descriptive parameters and tests consistent with the sample sizes and type of data distribution?

could justify it, to ensure the representativeness of the findings. May be improved

Do you provide the p value in the text or illustrations when the test is significant? Not applicable.

Can you present the data in a more concise way? May be improved

 

9.-Discussion

The discussion can be enhanced with articles related to the crop under study and in global and local context.

Recommendations for discussion of the results:

Begin by presenting the answer to the main question stated in the introduction? yes

Does it deduce applications or implications of your answer?  yes

 Does it highlight the novelty of the work by explaining what the conclusions reached add to existing knowledge? Not

Do you claim priority if appropriate? Not

Do you explain why the answer follows from the results, why it is reasonable, and how it fits within existing knowledge?  Not.

Do you use scientific hypotheses rigorously? Can be improved

Do you not reiterate the results? Not.

Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner? Yes.

Review the following documents to improve the discussion of the results and plan the problem.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2024.108649

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171979

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153288

 

10.-Conclusions

The section should be structured according to the study variables, which will help the authors to clearly conclude the contributions of the work in the field of knowledge.

Recommendation for conclusions:

Is the original contribution?  Yes , please explain

Degree of linkage to the objectives.  Can be improved

Degree of integration of the theoretical and application framework.  Can be improved

Discussion raised regarding the results obtained.  Yes

Derivation of normative or explanatory processes on reality. Yes 

Clarification of the limits of the study and proposals for new studies. not.

 

These are questions for reflection and support.

Remember the objective of the research and answer it.

The conclusions must be corrected according to the objective of the work and be written in order.

Highlight the contribution and originality of the work.

The hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.

Author Response

Brief summary
Dear Authors:
Following the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, I am pleased to submit the
review report of the paper:
On-farm assessment of no-till and cover crop effects on soil C and N stocks and
greenhouse gas emissions in a cauliflower production system
I have read it carefully in its entirety, thanking the authors for their effort and dedication in
its elaboration and consider the journal Horticulture for its review and possible publication.
The Manuscript's objective was: This work aims to perform an on-farm evaluation of the
effects of notillage and cover crop use on soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical
attributes, plant yield, and GGE emissions in an NTVS cauliflower production, compared
to SP in a sub-tropical ecosystem.
Methodologically, the authors conducted the study on a farm located in Angelina, in
southeastern Brazil, the plantations, Cauliflower yield was evaluated by manually
harvesting six plants per plot (8 m2) in January. Cauliflower leaves were removed,
inflorescence fresh mass (FM) was quantified, and yield was expressed in Mg ha-1. Air
samples for GGE evaluation were collected using the closed static chamber method
(Mosier et al., 2004). In each pseudo-replication of the two management systems, a 0.5 x
0.4 m rectangular metal base was previously fixed and inserted into the soil to a depth of
0.05 cm. Before cauliflower transplanting, the experimental area was sampled to quantify
to- 222 tal soil C and N stocks, soil density, volumetric moisture, and mean geometric
diameter 223 of aggregates. Soil samples were collected in the 0-5, 5-10, and 10-30 cm
layers in each of 224 the treatment plots/plots, following the methodology recommended
by EMBRAPA (2011) 225 and Veiga (2011). The variation in the mean daily fluxes of NN2O,
C- CH4, and C-CO2 emitted by the 264 soil was expressed as the standard error of
the mean. The data on the cumulative emission 265 of N-N2O, C-CH4, and C-CO2 emitted
by the soil, TOC and total nitrogen (TN) contents, 266 as well as their stocks in the soil,
Ds, MGD, UV, soil temperature, and cauliflower yield 267 were subjected to analysis of
variance, using the statistical program Sisvar®, version 5.8 268 (Ferreira, 2019). When
effects were significant, means were compared by the t- test (LSD) 269 at 5% error
probability (Dodge, 2008).
The results indicated that: The NTVS with cover crop mixtures had a higher yield than the
CTS without cover crops (25.1 and 18.4 Mg ha-1, respectively). The NTVS system showed
increased carbon mass density (MGD) and ultraviolet (UV) density and lower carbon density
(SD). Soil temperature in the NTVS, in the 0 to 5 cm
layer, was lower than in the CTS. Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks were higher in the
NTVS, but higher N₂O emissions partially offset this benefit compared to the CTS
The authors conclude that: El NTVS, en general, emitió más CO₂ y N₂O que el CTS. El
suelo absorbió CH₂ en ambos sistemas de gestión. El NTVS cuenta con suficientes
reservas de carbono equivalente (0-30 cm) para compensar las emisiones de GEI y es una
alternativa viable en cuanto al rendimiento vegetal y la calidad del suelo, pero requiere
atención en su impacto ambiental sobre las emisiones de GEI.
Authors: We are grateful for the reviewer's comments and suggestions. We would like to
inform you that all suggested modifications were made. We would also like to point out
that some requests/suggestions were also similar to those of the other two reviewers.
Specific comments
1.-Title: The title is clear, but the word evaluation and effect in my opinion is not
appropriate to use both a in the title. I suggest two alternatives:
1.-On-farm evaluation of direct seeding of cover crops on soil C and N reserves and
greenhouse gas emissions in a cauliflower production system.
Or
2.-Effect of direct seeding of cover crops on soil C and N stocks and greenhouse gas
emissions in an on-farm cauliflower production system.
Clear and consistent.
The object of study: over crops on soil C and N reserves and greenhouse gas emissions
The subject of study: on-farm cauliflower production system.
Method: Effect or evaluation
Authors: We changed the title to: On-farm evaluation of direct seeding of cover crops on
soil C and N reserves and greenhouse gas emissions in a cauliflower production system
2.-The Abstract
The abstract deals in most of the paragraphs with text related to the results leaving a very
biased structure towards this part of the manuscript, remembering that:
Is the most read section of an article, so it is important that it is orderly, trying to separate the
sections.
The introductory paragraph (two lines) however, I suggest that they indicate: Therefore, the
objective of the research was ............................
Methodologically......................................
the results indicated......................
It is concluded ...........................................
Although it is not a rule, a summary in this way integrates all parts of the manuscript.
Authors: We appreciate the suggestion, but we understand that these parts are already
implicit in the abstract, not being necessary to include them. We would like to highlight that
the other two reviewers did not suggest changes to the format of the abstract. However, we
emphasize that we changed the objective as the reviewer suggested, standardizing it in the
abstract and in the introduction.
3.-Keywords:
nitrous oxide; carbon sequestration; Brassica oleracea var. botrytis; no-tillage vegetable
system; methane; cover crop mix.
Keywords are important for the editorials for indexing purposes, a proposed idea is that the
words included in the title are not repeated in the keywords, it would be interesting to place
a keyword that is related to SDG addressed.
Authors: After changing the title, as suggested by the reviewer, only one keyword was
repeated. Therefore, we changed only the word referring to cover crops.
Note 4.-Introduction
The authors addressed in the introduction some interesting concepts; however, they could
improve the structure of the introduction:
1.- It is recommended to start with the field of knowledge addressed. Ok
2.- It should be clear what the problem to be solved is.
3.- The justification of the research should be addressed separately.
4.- The literature review of previous studies or the state of the art of the variables
investigated in the international context.
5.-Knowledge gaps.
6.-General objectives. Ok
I suggest the authors answer the following questions and analyze the introduction section:
1. Is it focused on the problem clearly from macro to micro? Partially
2. Is it enjoyable and fruitful to read, does it condense the letters and is it
prolific in ideas? yes
3. Does it clearly state the reasons for conducting the study? yes
4. Does it state the premises on which the study is based? yes
5. Does it clearly define the objectives of the study? Partially, yes, Details are
explained in note 3.
6. Does it state the hypotheses that the study intends to demonstrate? yes
Authors: The introduction was modified according to suggestions. We have included the
indicated works to better characterize the problem in question. We emphasize that other
modifications were made according to the suggestions of the other two reviewers.
Note 5. The objective
I It is very important for readers to establish in a manuscript some of these elements in the
final paragraph of the introduction:
1.- Research question
2.- Objective
3.- A hypothesis in the introduction. Correct in
the manuscript.
Reviewing the consistency between the title and objectives in the text, the following is
found:
Title:
On-farm assessment of no-till and cover crop effects on soil C and N stocks and greenhouse
gas emissions in a cauliflower production system
In Abstract:
“We evaluated 16 how no-till and cover-crops affect soil C and N stocks, chemical and
physical attributes, yield, and GGE in cauliflower production in NTVS in comparison to
CTS. Soil bulk density (SD), mean geometric aggregate diameter (MGD), moisture (Uv),
and C and N contents and stocks at the 0-5, 5-10, and 10-30 cm depths were evaluated”
Authors: The title and objective were standardized in the abstract and introduction.
It was done according to the suggestion of the three opinions received by the three
reviewers.
Introduction.
This work aims to perform an on-farm evaluation of the effects of no- tillage and cover crop
use on soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical attributes, plant yield, and GGE emissions
in an NTVS cauliflower production, compared to SP in a sub- tropical ecosystem.
The study variables are:
1.-Soil C and N stocks
2.-chemical and physical attributes
3.-plant yield,
4.-GGE emissions in an NTVS cauliflower production.
As you can see the objectives are similar, but they are different in their wording, so I
suggest that the objective be unified in the manuscript in all sections.
The most appropriate objective is in accordance with the title of the manuscript, for example:
Effects of no-tillage and cover crop use on soil C and N stocks, chemical and physical
attributes, plant yield and GGE emissions in a field production of cauliflower NTVS
compared to SP in a subtropical ecosystem in southeastern Brazil.
Authors: We received three opinions on the article, two reviewers suggested highlighting
the physical and chemical parameters evaluated in the objective. Thus, we standardized
the objective of the summary with the Introduction as follows: Thus, the objective of this
study was to conduct an on-farm evaluation of the effects of no-tillage and cover crop use
on soil C and N contents and stocks, soil bulk density (SD), mean geometric diameter
(MGD) of aggregates, soil temperature, volumetric soil moisture, plant yield, and GHG
emissions in cauliflower production under NTVS compared to CTS in a subtropical
ecosystem in southeastern Brazil.
Note 6. The hypothesis
“NTVS increases soil C and N stocks by depositing cover crop residues on the soil with no
tillage, increasing cauliflower yield and emitting less GGE compared to SPC.
Authors: Ok
Note 7.-Methodology
Recommendations for the methodology
Did you provide all the necessary information about the variables studied and the products
used (doses, origin, etc.)? yes
Did you include all the methods used in the study? Yes. Did
you describe them in detail? Can be improved Did
you correctly cite the methods? Can be improved Are the
statistical procedures rigorous? Yes.
Is the use of data description and statistical treatment consistent. Can be improved These are
reflection questions that support your work.
The structure of the methodology presented is made up of the following elements:
Materials and methods
2.1. Site Characterization
2.2. Measured Variables
Cauliflower Yield
Air Sampling, GGE Analysis, and Calculations
Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute Statistical
Analysis
The proposal for the materials and methods section could be as follows
Materials and methods
Study site
Description of the cultivated area.
Type of research and Experimental design (can be supported with a figure).
Cauliflower Yield and Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute
. GGE Fluxes and Emission in Soil
(Treatments, replicates, factors)
Data collection and data sampling The
climate data
The study variables
(how and when data were collected) Measured
Variables
Cauliflower Yield
Air Sampling, GGE Analysis, and Calculations Soil
Chemical and Physical Attribute
Statistical Analysis (should be more accurate with the information it provides)
For each variable:
Cauliflower Yield and Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute.
. GGE Fluxes and Emission in Soil
Software used
Example: Sunny Design Version 5.22.5 (Niestetal, DEU: SMA Solar Technology AG Corp,
Rocklin, CA, USA).
Figure 2. Climate data recorded throughout the cauliflower cycle .
Autores: a estrutura do Material e métodos foi alterada conforme as sugestoes dos revisoes 1 and 2.
Must be presented in the results section. 8.-
Results
The results section consists of the following parts:
3.1. Cauliflower Yield and Soil Chemical and Physical Attribute
3.2. GGE Fluxes and Emission in Soil
3.2.1. N2O
3.2.2. CH4 Emissions
3.2.3. CO2 Emissions
4. Carbon Equivalent Required to Neutralize N2O, CH4 and CO2 Emissions These are
adequate and presented in order.
Is the parallelism between the presentation of results in text and the presentation of data in
tables and figures perfect? Yes
Does the order of presentation of the different types of results follow a logical order? Yes
Have you highlighted the star results? Yes.
Is it clear in all comparisons which values are compared and which test is used for
comparison? yes
Is the use of descriptive parameters and tests consistent with the sample sizes and type of
data distribution?
could justify it, to ensure the representativeness of the findings. May be improved
Do you provide the p value in the text or illustrations when the test is significant? Not
applicable.
Can you present the data in a more concise way? May be improved
9.-Discussion
The discussion can be enhanced with articles related to the crop under study and in global
and local context.
Recommendations for discussion of the results:
Begin by presenting the answer to the main question stated in the introduction? yes
Does it deduce applications or implications of your answer? yes
Does it highlight the novelty of the work by explaining what the conclusions reached add
to existing knowledge? Not
Do you claim priority if appropriate? Not
Do you explain why the answer follows from the results, why it is reasonable, and how it
fits within existing knowledge? Not.
Do you use scientific hypotheses rigorously? Can be improved Do you
not reiterate the results? Not.
Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner? Yes.
Review the following documents to improve the discussion of the results and plan the
problem.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2024.108649
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171979
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153288
Authors: We did not separate the “Results and Discussion” item, since reviewers 1 and 2
requested several changes to the text, as can be seen, but we kept the Results and
Discussion items together. However, we emphasize that we included the works cited by
reviewer 3
10.-Conclusions
The section should be structured according to the study variables, which will help the authors
to clearly conclude the contributions of the work in the field of knowledge.
Recommendation for conclusions:
Is the original contribution? Yes , please explain Degree of
linkage to the objectives. Can be improved
Degree of integration of the theoretical and application framework. Can be improved
Discussion raised regarding the results obtained. Yes Derivation of
normative or explanatory processes on reality. Yes
Clarification of the limits of the study and proposals for new studies. not.
These are questions for reflection and support. Remember the
objective of the research and answer it.
The conclusions must be corrected according to the objective of the work and be written in
order.
Highlight the contribution and originality of the work. The
hypothesis is either accepted or rejected.
Authors: The conclusions were redone according to the
reviewer's suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The study assesses the effect of cover crop and tillage treatment on greenhouse gas emissions, soil properties and environmental parameters in a cauliflower production system in Brazil. The manuscript presents a large variety of data and an interdisciplinary approach to assess carbon and nitrogen stocks. The objective of the study is actual and deserve consideration but the experimental design, statistical and analytical approaches is lacking the necessary quality to grant publication. The greatest concern regards the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon and nitrogen stocks. The presence of pseudo-replicates between the tillage treatments resolve on having only one mean from the CT and one mean from the NT treatments. The lack of true replicates does not allow to extrapolate reliable conclusions about the data. The claim authors provide on how carbon and nitrogen stocks offset greenhouse gas emissions is not supported by the appropriate approach. Carbon and nitrogen stocks should be calculated as the difference between end of the season and beginning of the season to assess if the carbon and nitrogen content increased over the course of one growing season. For these reasons, I recommend at this moment the rejection of the manuscript, with the possibility of the authors to resubmit the manuscript after improvements in the statistical design and analysis of the data. Below are specific comments to help authors improve the manuscript.  

 

 

Introduction

L-39: define “that” at the beginning of the sentence

L-38: authors should include a brief description of general issue related to conventional tillage in cauliflower from previous studies

L-42: spell SPC at first mention

L-41-44: I would suggest to move up this sentence right before L-39

L-54: authors should include a brief section about cauliflower production in Brazil followed by a brief section about greenhouse gases from cauliflower in Brazil if available from previous studies

L-55: replace “management practices” with “cover crop adoption”

L-58: avoid the use of “their”. Please define the objective

L-60” instead of “will determine” I would use “can determine”

L-64: what authors refer to when saying “such situations”?

L-67:the objectives of the study should be clearly stated before the hypotheses

L72: define which chemical and physical attributes

Spell the name of the greenhouse gases at first mention

Material and Methods

L-82: list the textural class

L-91-94: authors should describe the seeding rate of the cover crop, the method of seeding, depth, between row spacing, in-row spacing and percentage by mass of each species of cover crop used in the mix

L-112: figure 3 is cited before figure 2

L-155; at what depth was the plowing?

L-124: cite from which weather station the data were collected in the caption

L-132: I would replace “evaluation” with “sampling”

L-151: Table 1. Is not clear to me what the number 0,1,3,7,10,14,21, and 28 mean. Can you provide some clarification in the caption or the text?

L-165: for which two gases the 9-11 am window represents the average?

L-174: could not find where the soil temperature measurement is described

L-177: was the GC equipped with a methanizer to allow the FID to measure CO₂?

L-196-198: is unclear how fluxes were used to calculate emissions. Did author use a linear interpolation? Please provide more details

Equation 2, 3, and 4 are not necessary as are simple conversion with conversion factors suggested by the IPCC

L-220: define PAG

Equation 6: carbon stock is defined as Cs but in the results no variable is labeled Cs

L-263-269: how ANOVA was conducted if only two overall means were used? Was time considered as fixed factor? What distribution was used for the stats, what about homogeneity, and outliers?

Results and Discussion

L-274-275: how higher yield from NTVS was related to plant biomass? Provide more details

Table 2: hoe CV was calculated?

Table 2-3: I suggest to combine the two tables

L-303-305: I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

L-307: was the C sequestration per year?

L-318: COT?

Table 4: seems that the results suggest that CTS was more compacted than NTVS. If this correct, can author provide an explanation?

L-349: authors should provide if possible, reference from studies with similar results

L-359-360:  I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

L-367: what statistical approach was used to compare temperature between tillage treatments? I would recommend a repeated measure design.

It seems that all the graph have a smooth line connecting the data points. Is there a specific reason for that choice?

Figure 6: standard errors in the graphs are different. In figure 6 are only positive, while in other graphs are positive and negative. A constant approach should be used

L-409-414: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

Figure 8: how the end of fertilization cycles were determined? Please provide details in the text

L-452: add a reference

L-453-455: I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

L-479: can authors provide more details why greater methanotrophic activity was observed in NTVS that had greater moisture content?

L-492: add a reference

L-496-499: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

L-500: the second fertilization cycle does not have different letters

L-525: highest of the season?

L-550-552: this sentence seems in contradiction with the fact that NTVS had lower temperature

L-564: it seems that the third cycle, along with the first, had significant difference

L-577-580: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

References

Reference 9 is missing the journal title

IPCC 2021 is not present in the reference list

Reference 59 seems to have a different year than the in-text citation

Tedesco et al., 1995 is not present in the reference list

Walschick et al., 2016 is not present in the reference list

Wang et al., 2022 is not present in the reference list

 

General Comments

The study assesses the effect of cover crop and tillage treatment on greenhouse gas emissions, soil properties and environmental parameters in a cauliflower production system in Brazil. The manuscript presents a large variety of data and an interdisciplinary approach to assess carbon and nitrogen stocks. The objective of the study is actual and deserve consideration but the experimental design, statistical and analytical approaches is lacking the necessary quality to grant publication. The greatest concern regards the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon and nitrogen stocks. The presence of pseudo-replicates between the tillage treatments resolve on having only one mean from the CT and one mean from the NT treatments. The lack of true replicates does not allow to extrapolate reliable conclusions about the data. The claim authors provide on how carbon and nitrogen stocks offset greenhouse gas emissions is not supported by the appropriate approach. Carbon and nitrogen stocks should be calculated as the difference between end of the season and beginning of the season to assess if the carbon and nitrogen content increased over the course of one growing season. For these reasons, I recommend at this moment the rejection of the manuscript, with the possibility of the authors to resubmit the manuscript after improvements in the statistical design and analysis of the data. Below are specific comments to help authors improve the manuscript.  

 

 

Introduction

L-39: define “that” at the beginning of the sentence

L-38: authors should include a brief description of general issue related to conventional tillage in cauliflower from previous studies

L-42: spell SPC at first mention

L-41-44: I would suggest to move up this sentence right before L-39

L-54: authors should include a brief section about cauliflower production in Brazil followed by a brief section about greenhouse gases from cauliflower in Brazil if available from previous studies

L-55: replace “management practices” with “cover crop adoption”

L-58: avoid the use of “their”. Please define the objective

L-60” instead of “will determine” I would use “can determine”

L-64: what authors refer to when saying “such situations”?

L-67:the objectives of the study should be clearly stated before the hypotheses

L72: define which chemical and physical attributes

Spell the name of the greenhouse gases at first mention

Material and Methods

L-82: list the textural class

L-91-94: authors should describe the seeding rate of the cover crop, the method of seeding, depth, between row spacing, in-row spacing and percentage by mass of each species of cover crop used in the mix

L-112: figure 3 is cited before figure 2

L-155; at what depth was the plowing?

L-124: cite from which weather station the data were collected in the caption

L-132: I would replace “evaluation” with “sampling”

L-151: Table 1. Is not clear to me what the number 0,1,3,7,10,14,21, and 28 mean. Can you provide some clarification in the caption or the text?

L-165: for which two gases the 9-11 am window represents the average?

L-174: could not find where the soil temperature measurement is described

L-177: was the GC equipped with a methanizer to allow the FID to measure CO₂?

L-196-198: is unclear how fluxes were used to calculate emissions. Did author use a linear interpolation? Please provide more details

Equation 2, 3, and 4 are not necessary as are simple conversion with conversion factors suggested by the IPCC

L-220: define PAG

Equation 6: carbon stock is defined as Cs but in the results no variable is labeled Cs

L-263-269: how ANOVA was conducted if only two overall means were used? Was time considered as fixed factor? What distribution was used for the stats, what about homogeneity, and outliers?

Results and Discussion

L-274-275: how higher yield from NTVS was related to plant biomass? Provide more details

Table 2: hoe CV was calculated?

Table 2-3: I suggest to combine the two tables

L-303-305: I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

L-307: was the C sequestration per year?

L-318: COT?

Table 4: seems that the results suggest that CTS was more compacted than NTVS. If this correct, can author provide an explanation?

L-349: authors should provide if possible, reference from studies with similar results

L-359-360:  I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

L-367: what statistical approach was used to compare temperature between tillage treatments? I would recommend a repeated measure design.

It seems that all the graph have a smooth line connecting the data points. Is there a specific reason for that choice?

Figure 6: standard errors in the graphs are different. In figure 6 are only positive, while in other graphs are positive and negative. A constant approach should be used

L-409-414: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

Figure 8: how the end of fertilization cycles were determined? Please provide details in the text

L-452: add a reference

L-453-455: I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

L-479: can authors provide more details why greater methanotrophic activity was observed in NTVS that had greater moisture content?

L-492: add a reference

L-496-499: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

L-500: the second fertilization cycle does not have different letters

L-525: highest of the season?

L-550-552: this sentence seems in contradiction with the fact that NTVS had lower temperature

L-564: it seems that the third cycle, along with the first, had significant difference

L-577-580: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

References

Reference 9 is missing the journal title

IPCC 2021 is not present in the reference list

Reference 59 seems to have a different year than the in-text citation

Tedesco et al., 1995 is not present in the reference list

Walschick et al., 2016 is not present in the reference list

Wang et al., 2022 is not present in the reference list

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

a general cycle of editing would improve the overall sense of the manuscript

Author Response

Revisor 1

General Comments

The study assesses the effect of cover crop and tillage treatment on greenhouse gas emissions, soil properties and environmental parameters in a cauliflower production system in Brazil. The manuscript presents a large variety of data and an interdisciplinary approach to assess carbon and nitrogen stocks. The objective of the study is actual and deserve consideration but the experimental design, statistical and analytical approaches is lacking the necessary quality to grant publication. The greatest concern regards the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon and nitrogen stocks. The presence of pseudo-replicates between the tillage treatments resolve on having only one mean from the CT and one mean from the NT treatments. The lack of true replicates does not allow to extrapolate reliable conclusions about the data. The claim authors provide on how carbon and nitrogen stocks offset greenhouse gas emissions is not supported by the appropriate approach. Carbon and nitrogen stocks should be calculated as the difference between end of the season and beginning of the season to assess if the carbon and nitrogen content increased over the course of one growing season. For these reasons, I recommend at this moment the rejection of the manuscript, with the possibility of the authors to resubmit the manuscript after improvements in the statistical design and analysis of the data. Below are specific comments to help authors improve the manuscript.  

Authors: Regarding the comment “The presence of pseudo-replicates between the tillage treatments resolves into having only one mean from the CT and one mean from the NT treatments”. The lack of true replications does not allow to extrapolate reliable conclusions about the data. We explain how we collected the data: each mean of each variable measured in relation to the soil (C and N stocks, aggregation, density, porosity, moisture, etc.) was obtained from the mean of five pseudo-replicates. Each treatment (CTS or NTVS) was divided into five plots/plots (8 m²), that is, with five pseudo-repetitions for both management systems (Figure 1). Each pseudo-replicate was formed by three simple samples, collected at each depth (0-5, 5-10 and 10-30 cm) in each 8 m² plot. In total, 15 replicates were collected per treatment and per depth, with a composite sample being taken after every three pseudo-replicates per plot.

Authors: In relation to the comment “Carbon and nitrogen stocks should be calculated as the difference between end of the season and beginning of the season to assess if the carbon and nitrogen content increased over the course of one growing season”. Unfortunately, we only collected soil samples before implementing the static chamber experiment to assess greenhouse gases. We do not have data on C and N stocks after the end of the cauliflower cycle.

Introduction

L-39: define “that” at the beginning of the sentence

Author: Ok. Modified.

L-38: authors should include a brief description of general issue related to conventional tillage in cauliflower from previous studies

Author: Ok. Modified

L-42: spell SPC at first mention

Author: Ok. Modified to CTS throughout the text

L-41-44: I would suggest to move up this sentence right before L-39

Author: Ok. Modified

L-54: authors should include a brief section about cauliflower production in Brazil followed by a brief section about greenhouse gases from cauliflower in Brazil if available from previous studies

Authors: We included this part in the second line of the Introduction: Brazil, despite not being ranked as one of the world's largest producers of cauliflower, has a considerable production, especially in the southeast and south regions. National production of cauliflower is 140,067 tons, produced in more than 19,646 agricultural establishments. The largest producing states are: São Paulo (36,368 tons), Rio de Janeiro (36,219 tons), Paraná (17,182 tons), Santa Catarina (12,569 tons) and Minas Gerais (12,418 tons)

L-55: replace “management practices” with “cover crop adoption”

Author: Ok. Modified

L-58: avoid the use of “their”. Please define the objective

Author: Ok. Modified

L-60” instead of “will determine” I would use “can determine”

Author: Ok. Modified

L-64: what authors refer to when saying “such situations”?

Author: Ok. Modified

L-67:the objectives of the study should be clearly stated before the hypotheses

Author: Ok. Modified

L72: define which chemical and physical atributes

Author: Ok. Modified

Spell the name of the greenhouse gases at first mention

Author: Ok. Modified

Material and Methods

L-82: list the textural class

Author: Ok. Modified

L-91-94: authors should describe the seeding rate of the cover crop, the method of seeding, depth, between row spacing, in-row spacing and percentage by mass of each species of cover crop used in the mix

Authors: Winter species are sown on the soil surface, with 100 kg ha^-1 of oats, 15 kg ha^-1 of hazelnut and 15 kg ha^-1 of vetch. Barley grows naturally, depending on the seed bank present in the area. In the summer, the first thing to be sown is the velvet bean, with three seeds per row (15 kg ha^-1), with a spacing of 1.0 x 1.0 m between rows and a depth of 3 cm. Twenty days after planting the velvet bean, 40 kg ha^-1 of millet is sown. Brachiaria grows naturally, together with millet, depending on the seed bank in the area and the condition

L-112: figure 3 is cited before figure 2

Author: Ok. Modified

L-155; at what depth was the plowing?

Author: Ok. Added.

L-124: cite from which weather station the data were collected in the caption

Author: It was wrong. It has been corrected.

L-132: I would replace “evaluation” with “sampling”

Author: Ok. Modified

L-151: Table 1. Is not clear to me what the number 0,1,3,7,10,14,21, and 28 mean. Can you provide some clarification in the caption or the text?

Author: Ok. Modified. The number 0, 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28 mean the period/time between the GHG sampling dates, before and after fertilization and DAT. This was done to monitor emissions at spe-cific intervals after DAT, depending on the crop cycle

L-165: for which two gases the 9-11 am window represents the average?

Author: Ok. Modified. During that period, 19 GHG sampling were performed between 9 am and 11 am, as this time is standard for representing the average fluxes of CO₂ and N₂O, which tend to show lower variability throughout the day, unlike CH₄, which can be more influenced by diurnal fluctuations [11].

 

L-174: could not find where the soil temperature measurement is described

Author: Ok. Modified. The soil temperature was measured in the first five centimeters depth using a digital thermometer placed in the soil next to the static chamber.

L-177: was the GC equipped with a methanizer to allow the FID to measure CO₂?

Author: Ok. Modified............... measured using an FID equipped with a methanizer, which converts CO₂ into CH₄ for detection.

L-196-198: is unclear how fluxes were used to calculate emissions. Did author use a linear interpolation? Please provide more details

Author: Ok. Modified. A linear interpolation approach was used to estimate daily fluxes between sampling dates, ensuring a more accurate representation of emissions over time.

Equation 2, 3, and 4 are not necessary as are simple conversion with conversion factors suggested by the IPCC

Author: Ok. It has been deleted from the text.

L-220: define PAG

Author: It was corrected, as it was in Portuguese. The correct spelling is GWP, not PAG

Equation 6: carbon stock is defined as Cs but in the results no variable is labeled Cs

Author: It was corrected to TOC and TN

L-263-269: how ANOVA was conducted if only two overall means were used? Was time considered as fixed factor? What distribution was used for the stats, what about homogeneity, and outliers?

Author: The variation in the mean daily fluxes of N-N₂O, C-CH₄, and C-CO₂ emitted by the soil was expressed as the standard error of the mean (n=5). The data on the cumulative emission of N-N₂O, C-CH₄, and C-CO₂ emitted by the soil, TOC and total nitrogen (TN) contents, as well as their stocks in the soil, Ds, MGD, UV, soil temperature, and cauliflower yieldwere analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, where time was considered as a fixed factor. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and homogeneity of variances was checked with Levene’s test. Outliers were identified and examined using Cook’s distance to ensure the robustness of the analysis. The statistical program Sisvar®, version 5.8 [32], was used for the analyses. When effects were significant, means (n=5) were compared using the t-test (LSD) at a 5% error probability [33].

Results and Discussion

L-274-275: how higher yield from NTVS was related to plant biomass? Provide more details

Author: Ok. Modified

Table 2: hoe CV was calculated?

Author: The CV was calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean (n=5) of each dataset, expressed as a percentage. This metric was used to assess the relative variability of soil attributes across treatments

Table 2-3: I suggest to combine the two tables

Author: Ok. Let's merge tables 2 and 3.

L-303-305: I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

Author: Ok. Modified

L-307: was the C sequestration per year?

Author: It has been corrected in the text.

L-318: COT?

Author: It was corrected to TOC

Table 4: seems that the results suggest that CTS was more compacted than NTVS. If this correct, can author provide an explanation?

Author: Ok. Modified

L-349: authors should prOk. Aovide if possible, reference from studies with similar results

Author: Ok. Added

L-359-360:  I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

Author: Ok. It has been deleted.

L-367: what statistical approach was used to compare temperature between tillage treatments? I would recommend a repeated measure design.

Author: In each gas collection period (Table 1), soil temperature was also assessed, with five replicates per treatment. The values in Figure 5 represent the average of 5 replicates.

It seems that all the graph have a smooth line connecting the data points. Is there a specific reason for that choice?

Author: We do not understand what the reviewer is requesting, as well as whether it refers to Figure 5 or 6.

Figure 6: standard errors in the graphs are different. In figure 6 are only positive, while in other graphs are positive and negative. A constant approach should be used

Author: The negative value of the standard error occurred only for methane, because there was more consumption of methane than emission. Hence the variation of positive and negative values.

L-409-414: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

Author: Ok. Modified

Figure 8: how the end of fertilization cycles were determined? Please provide details in the text

Author: The fertilization cycles were determined based on predefined application intervals, aligned with the crop’s growth stages. Each cycle represents the period between two consecutive NPK applications, as detailed in Table 1.

L-452: add a reference

Author: Ok. Added

L-453-455: I would suggest to delete the sentence as the information is repetitive

Author: Ok. It has been deleted.

L-479: can authors provide more details why greater methanotrophic activity was observed in NTVS that had greater moisture content?

Author: Ok. Added

L-492: add a reference

Author: Ok. Added

L-496-499: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

Author: Ok. Modified.

L-500: the second fertilization cycle does not have different letters

Author: Ok. Modified

L-525: highest of the season?

Author: This is explained in the text. That is due to plant cover having a lower C/N ratio, specifically vetch and velvet bean, and higher soil nitrogen (Table 3). High nitrogen availability, both in cover crops and in the soil, accelerates the decomposition of plant material, releasing more carbon as CO₂ [56; 57; 58].

L-550-552: this sentence seems in contradiction with the fact that NTVS had lower temperature

Author: Ok. It has been corrected in the text.

L-564: it seems that the third cycle, along with the first, had significant difference

Author: Ok. It has been corrected in the text.

L-577-580: the paragraph is confusing and require revision

Author: Ok. Modified.

References

Reference 9 is missing the journal title

IPCC 2021 is not present in the reference list

Reference 59 seems to have a different year than the in-text citation

Tedesco et al., 1995 is not present in the reference list

Walschick et al., 2016 is not present in the reference list

Wang et al., 2022 is not present in the reference list

Author: All references have been corrected in accordance with the rules. Those that were missing from the list have been added, and those that were on the list but not cited in the text have been excluded.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the effects of no-tillage and cover-crops on soil C/N storage, physicochemical properties, yield, and GHG emissions, indicating that cover-crops have a certain soil C/N sequestration capacity and can mitigate GHG emissions. However, the presentation of your figures and tables are very poor., and you should make sufficient modifications and improvements. Besides, It is noted that your manuscript must be careful edited by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. There are many problems in this paper that need to be revised:

1. There are many detailed errors in the paper, such as the irregular use of GHG/GGE abbreviations in the abstract and the full text, the lack of clear labels for SPC in line42 and SP in line73, the lack of superscripts for the units in 2.1/3.1, the font size of the figure notes in figure 3, the incorrect and unclear labelling of Table1, the subscripting of CO2 in line300, reference citation error in line307, COT in line318 what it means, it is suggested to check and modify the whole text;
2. the citation format of references is inconsistent with the requirements of MDPI journals, and there are many errors, it is recommended to modify;
3. The format of the formula in 2.2 is incorrect, it is recommended to be revised;
4. 2.3 lacks reference methods for the determination of soil physical and chemical indicators;
5. Line234-235, NT should be TN? check and revise;
6. Units in Figure 4 are not superscripted and the picture format is not standard;
7. Data in Table2 and Table3 should be showed as mean ± standard error, and the format of the table is not standard;
8. The format of figures in the whole text should be consistent as far as possible;
9. the font size of Figure7 and figure15 caption is not correct, please check and amend;
10. NPK (15-00-15) should be stated clearly, and NPK (15-0-15) appears again in Figure6, check and revise;
11. There should be error bars in Figure15, N2O, CO2, etc. are not subscripted in the figure;
12. the relationship between soil C/N sequestration and GHG emissions should be added to the introduction, how GHG emissions can be offset. Moreover, please verify the calculation of carbon equivalent in figure15;
13. what PAG stands for in equation 5, please explain in this manuscript;
14. The “NTVS” should be stated the full name on its first occurrence in 2.1;

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript must be careful edited by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

Author Response

Revisor 2.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the effects of no-tillage and cover-crops on soil C/N storage, physicochemical properties, yield, and GHG emissions, indicating that cover-crops have a certain soil C/N sequestration capacity and can mitigate GHG emissions. However, the presentation of your figures and tables are very poor., and you should make sufficient modifications and improvements. Besides, It is noted that your manuscript must be careful edited by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader. There are many problems in this paper that need to be revised:

Author: All figures and tables were corrected, especially in relation to font and size, with everything being standardized. The manuscript was subjected to English language review to correct grammar, spelling and sentence structure.

1. There are many detailed errors in the paper, such as the irregular use of GHG/GGE abbreviations in the abstract and the full text, the lack of clear labels for SPC in line42 and SP in line73, the lack of superscripts for the units in 2.1/3.1, the font size of the figure notes in figure 3, the incorrect and unclear labelling of Table1, the subscripting of CO2 in line300, reference citation error in line307, COT in line318 what it means, it is suggested to check and modify the whole text;

 

Authors: All these details have been corrected in the text.

 

1. the citation format of references is inconsistent with the requirements of MDPI journals, and there are many errors, it is recommended to modify;

 

Authors: Everything has been corrected, according to the rules

 

1. The format of the formula in 2.2 is incorrect, it is recommended to be revised;

Auhors: We don't understand what the reviewer is suggesting at this point. But we have modified the text numbering.

 

1. 2.3 lacks reference methods for the determination of soil physical and chemical indicators;

Authors: It was inserted in the text

 

1. Line234-235, NT should be TN? check and revise;

Authors: It has been corrected throughout the text

 

1. Units in Figure 4 are not superscripted and the picture format is not standard;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. Data in Table2 and Table3 should be showed as mean ± standard error, and the format of the table is not standard;

Authors: We present the coefficient of variation (CV%) instead of standard error and join tables 2 and 3, as suggested by reviewer 1.

 

1. The format of figures in the whole text should be consistent as far as possible;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. the font size of Figure7 and figure15 caption is not correct, please check and amend;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. NPK (15-00-15) should be stated clearly, and NPK (15-0-15) appears again in Figure6, check and revise;

 

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. There should be error bars in Figure15, N2O, CO2, etc. are not subscripted in the figure;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. the relationship between soil C/N sequestration and GHG emissions should be added to the introduction, how GHG emissions can be offset. Moreover, please verify the calculation of carbon equivalent in figure15;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. what PAG stands for in equation 5, please explain in this manuscript;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. The “NTVS” should be stated the full name on its first occurrence in 2.1;

Authors: It has been corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

the corrections made to the manuscript are adequate, the importance of peer review is to enter into a scientific decision that contributes to the development of science, I would recommend that in the future the letter of response to reviewers be a little clearer, to facilitate the reviewer to find answers with theoretical basis, in addition to indicating the changes in the manuscript. 
I congratulate you for your work and for choosing horticulture for publication.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 = The corrections made to the manuscript are adequate, the importance of peer review is to enter into a scientific decision that contributes to the development of science, I would recommend that in the future the letter of response to reviewers be a little clearer, to facilitate the reviewer to find answers with theoretical basis, in addition to indicating the changes in the manuscript.

I congratulate you for your work and for choosing horticulture for publication.

 

Authors: We thank the reviewer for the feedback. We would like to explain why we left all the comments in the revised article. In addition to the review by three reviewers, the English language was also reviewed. Therefore, we left all the changes visible in the manuscript to make it easier to see the changes made. Now, we send a version of the manuscript without the comments, but it is possible to see throughout the text all the changes that were made (changes suggested by the three reviewers, as well as the correction of the English language). In the manuscript you can see the changes in blue and red.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors provided answers to all the comments but it is very difficult to follow the changes in the document provided. Authors should consider uploading a clean version of the manuscript where all the track changes are accepted. Authors should also consider adding in the response document, the numbers of the lines in the clean version of the manuscript where the specific change for each comment has been added. Thank you  

Author Response

Reviewer 2 = Authors provided responses to all the comments but it is very difficult to follow the changes in the document provided. Authors should consider uploading a clean version of the manuscript where all the track changes are accepted. Authors should also consider adding in the response document, the numbers of the lines in the clean version of the manuscript where the specific change for each comment has been added. Thank you.

 

Authors: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. We would like to explain why we left all the comments in the revised article. In addition to the review by three reviewers, the English language was also reviewed. Therefore, we left all the changes visible in the manuscript to make it easier to see the changes made. Now, we send a version of the manuscript without the comments, but it is possible to see throughout the text all the changes that were made (changes suggested by the three reviewers, as well as the correction of the English language). In the manuscript you can see the changes in blue and red.

We send below the reviewer's responses, with the appropriate indication of the line in the revised text, according to the reviewer's comment. Some more general comments, changes were made throughout the text

 

 

1. 2.3 lacks reference methods for the determination of soil physical and chemical indicators;

Authors: It was inserted in the text (Line 264 to 267)

 

1. Units in Figure 4 are not superscripted and the picture format is not standard;

Authors: It has been corrected (Line 328-329)

 

1. Data in Table2 and Table3 should be showed as mean ± standard error, and the format of the table is not standard;

Authors: We present the coefficient of variation (CV%) instead of standard error and join tables 2 and 3, as suggested by reviewer 1. (line 345 to 352)

 

1. The format of figures in the whole text should be consistent as far as possible;

Authors: It has been corrected

 

1. the font size of Figure7 and figure15 caption is not correct, please check and amend;

Authors: It has been corrected (line 485 and 658)

 

1. NPK (15-00-15) should be stated clearly, and NPK (15-0-15) appears again in Figure6, check and revise;

 

Authors: It has been corrected (line 467 t0 471)

 

1. the relationship between soil C/N sequestration and GHG emissions should be added to the introduction, how GHG emissions can be offset. Moreover, please verify the calculation of carbon equivalent in figure15;

Authors: It has been corrected (Line 71 to 77; and 246 to 257)

 

1. what PAG stands for in equation 5, please explain in this manuscript;

Authors: It has been corrected (line 246 = GWP not PAG )

 

1. The “NTVS” should be stated the full name on its first occurrence in 2.1;

Authors: It has been corrected (Line 59)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Add subheadings such as 2.1, 3.1, etc.

Line 870: There is an incorrect reference

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback.  Below are the answers to the questions asked.

 

Reviewer 3 =Add subheadings such as 2.1, 3.1, etc.

Authors= Added in the text: 2.1; 2.1.1 ........3.3

 

Reviewer 3 = Line 870: There is an incorrect reference

Authors: It was deleted, as it is part of reference number 4. It was repeated in the text.