Multivariate Analyses of Soil Properties and CO₂ Emissions Under Long-Term Fertilization and Crop Rotation in Luvic Chernozem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here at first some propositions to improve the text, and also some information about deficits. The deficits are major ones, so that the manuscript should never be published in the given form.

 

Line 39 manipulate??   I propose „manage“ as a more positive (and correct) wording?

 

Line 40 Land use “to provide population with food” or “to assure nutrition of humans”

 

Line 46 “excessive or irrational mineral fertilization” not adequate fertilization is mainly due to uncertain weather forecast and is not the rule in agriculture also due to high costs of synthetic fertilizers. It is important to formulate adequately.

 

Line 54 : decomposition as support of soil biota and humification, essential for soil structure stability and chemical buffering, leading also to the release of CO2

 

Line 95 give C and N contents. Is the soil N-limited (see line 328 in discussion) ?

 

Line 96 change “laye”r into depth or zone

 

Line 132: repetition of line 122. Please simplify

 

Line 138: “Thre greenhouse gas emissions” to be changed in “the CO2 emissions”

Line 138: give all dimensions of the plastic chambers, if plants were included in, etc. (a height of 1 m above the plots – is not sufficient and not clear)

You inform “Thre greenhouse gas emissions were measured during the crop growing seasons in the three year period 2021-2023.” Please give details about number/rhythm of measurements, technics in field (plants included in covering chambers?), esp. kind of calculation to achieve the values of Fig 4. The amounts 40-60 kg ha-1day-1 are questionable.

 

Table 1 replace soil layer by soil depth (they are no layered soils in this field!)  

 

Table 2, Title - add “upper soil 0-20 cm” 

You had 2 sampling times (Soil samples for chemical and microbiological analyses were taken once in two periods - May and October, in 2023,). Are the values a calculation of both results? Please give some information, as values before and after vegetation period are different and are not comparable, with in October a surplus of nutrients issued from the mineralization of residues after harvest, so intnesive formation of NO3 and NH4.

(Same remark for microbiota data as you note in lines 240… “the season has the strongest influence on the number of the studied groups of microorganisms”

Add values for N total (see remark line 95) and C/N, as essential to understand soil parameters and management inputs. Consider the values in result validation and esp. in discussion.

About the available forms of macroelements : N (N-NO3, N-NH4)  is not sufficient to understand the ecosystem development.

 

Line 330 “Soil microorganisms are directly related to greenhouse gas emissions” is wrong. No relationship between number and kind of microorganisms and any gas emissions, CO2, CH4, N2O. Ecological conditions steering and determining microorganism’s activities incl their microsite environment are decisive for metabolisms and outputs, independent on number of microorganisms.

 

Given the deficit of information about the soil/site of the field experiment and in frame of the data from several samplings, the results are not understandable, and the discussion gives no real information and knowledge about the impacts of the long-term fertilization rates.

I propose the editor to not accept the manuscript for publication. I expect the authors miss some data to improve the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1  Comments

Thank you for your valuable   comments and requirements!

WE hope this will improve the manuscript quality and acceptance

All recommendations for inaccuracies in the text have been corrected according to your comments.

Reviewer 1

Line 39 manipulate??   I propose „manage“ as a more positive (and correct) wording?

 Line 40 Land use “to provide population with food” or “to assure nutrition of humans”

 Line 46 “excessive or irrational mineral fertilization” not adequate fertilization is mainly due to uncertain weather forecast and is not the rule in agriculture also due to high costs of synthetic fertilizers. It is important to formulate adequately.

 Line 54 : decomposition as support of soil biota and humification, essential for soil structure stability and chemical buffering, leading also to the release of CO2

 Line 58 give C and N contents. Is the soil N-limited (see line 328 in discussion) ?-

 Line 96 change “laye”r into depth or zone

 Line 132: repetition of line 122. Please simplify

 Line 138: “Thre greenhouse gas emissions” to be changed in “the CO2 emissions”

Response - All above comments we corrected. For Line 328 we deleted the citation

 

Reviewer1 - Line 138: give all dimensions of the plastic chambers, if plants were included in, etc. (a height of 1 m above the plots – is not sufficient and not clear)

Response- For this comment we rewrite all explanations about chambers. Emission measurements do not include plants. Only soil emissions were measured in the plots, after cleaning the surface from plants and residues, without disturbing the soil surface. The chambers are dark, with a volume of 5 l. and openings for placing gas analyzer sensors, which are previously tightly closed and incubated for 30 minutes. One meter above the ground we measured the atmospheric emissions at the moment, and in addition we take into account the temperature and atmospheric pressure, on which the partial pressure of the gas at the moment depends. These are then used in the calculation of emissions according to formula 1.

 

 

Reviewer 1 - You inform “Thre greenhouse gas emissions were measured during the crop growing seasons in the three year period 2021-2023.” Please give details about number/rhythm of measurements, technics in field (plants included in covering chambers?), esp. kind of calculation to achieve the values of Fig 4. The amounts 40-60 kg ha-1day-1 are questionable.  

 Response - The measurements were made during the periods May to October. 12 complete measurements were made. The measurements were carried out in three replicates per variant. The measurements were made regardless the crops were harvested, as in the autumn they were on bared soil. We add explanations in “material and methods”.  The measured on average fluxes - 40-60 kg ha-1day-1 are completely adequate as you can from:

-Ray, R.L., Griffin, R.W., Fares, A. et al. Soil CO₂ emission in response to organic amendments, temperature, and rainfall. Sci Rep 10, 5849 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62267-6.

- https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/35789/Sainju_198562.pdf

- Carbon Storage Potential and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Mineral-Fertilized and Manured Soil, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/7/4620

- Influence of Tillage Practices and Crop Type on Soil CO₂ Emissions, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/90

 The emissions in our experiment varied between 9-10 to 200-300 kg ha day, depending on season, because in our country between July and August is hot and dry part of summer and fluxes are low. In the spring  and autumn is wet, but  the temperatures are low, especially in the mornings, and the maximum of fluxes are in late May and June, after that they are low again. There was a severe drought during the 2023, and 3-4 measurements showed low intensity at all. We change the dimension in an hour, because we didn’t measure the fluxes all 24 hours, and maybe it is not relevant to extrapolate to a day. We change the intensity of fluxes to kg ha^-1 h^-1.

 

 

Reviewer1 - Table 1 replace soil layer by soil depth (they are no layered soils in this field!)  

 Table 2, Title - add “upper soil 0-20 cm” 

Response - We corrected this mistakes.

Reviewer 1 -  You had 2 sampling times (Soil samples for chemical and microbiological analyses were taken once in two periods - May and October, in 2023,). Are the values a calculation of both results? Please give some information, as values before and after vegetation period are different and are not comparable, with in October a surplus of nutrients issued from the mineralization of residues after harvest, so intnesive formation of NO3 and NH4.

(Same remark for microbiota data as you note in lines 240… “the season has the strongest influence on the number of the studied groups of microorganisms”

Response – In the spring, 32 samples were taken, in 8 variants for 4 crops, the same was done in the autumn. The samples were collected from several sods in two repetitions of the experiment. The results for the 8 fertilization variants are averaged from 8 results (4 crops and two seasons). The mineral nitrogen content does not depend on the season. The results for mineral nitrogen were slightly higher in the autumn, but they are not statistically significant

Reviewr 1 Add values for N total (see remark line 95) and C/N, as essential to understand soil parameters and management inputs. Consider the values in result validation and esp. in discussion.

Response - We are agreeing with this comment absolutely, but it is impossible to do that in 10 days, because we didn’t measure the total nitrogen. It is very time consuming for these 64 samples. We can do that in future.

Reviewer 1 - About the available forms of macroelements: N (N-NO3, N-NH4)  is not sufficient to understand the ecosystem development.

Response – We choose available forms for elements, because they are relevant to fertilization.

 

Reviewer 1 - Line 330 “Soil microorganisms are directly related to greenhouse gas emissions” is wrong. No relationship between number and kind of microorganisms and any gas emissions, CO2, CH4, N2O. Ecological conditions steering and determining microorganism’s activities incl their microsite environment are decisive for metabolisms and outputs, independent on number of microorganisms.

Response: We deleted the figure 8  and  table 7 and the text from the manuscript that is related to them, if it is not relevant, if you mean that.

We are very sorry, but this underlined text is a citation. This is not our opinion and there are many references we provide [41,42,43]. We change the sentences as you suggested, and we propose to delete the figure 8  and  table 7 and the underlined text from the manuscript that is related to them, to make the manuscript more relevant.

Reviewer 1 Given the deficit of information about the soil/site of the field experiment and in frame of the data from several samplings, the results are not understandable, and the discussion gives no real information and knowledge about the impacts of the long-term fertilization rates.

I propose the editor to not accept the manuscript for publication. I expect the authors miss some data to improve the manuscript.

 

Response If you meant to delete the last PCA analysis, we removed it and provide explanations about CO2 measurements in Material and methods.

 

Thank you for your review!

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper entitled ‘ Multivariate analyses of chemical and microbiological soil  properties and CO₂ emission under long-term fertilizer experiment and four-crop rotation on Luvic Chernozem’ attempts monitoring of chemical and microbiological soil properties and CO₂ emission in the context of a 64 years old long-term fertilizer experiment on Luvic Chernozem. An experiment over six decades of nutrient management really holds the potentiality to deliver good information about changes in soil properties. Following are some comments needed to be revised.

 

Table 1. The sand silt clay % should have decimals ….

2.2 Experiment design: As mentioned different varieties……pls be assure that the same variety was used since the inception of the experiment.

The major flaws as noted here is that there are only 2 replications for each treatments!

 

The contradictory results are presented. Like:

 

Line 208-209: The most intensive CO₂ emissions were recorded in the NP and NPK variants (Figure  4). Also in these treatments, the highest accumulation of organic carbon was established  (Table 2).

The author must discuss why emission was more yet SOM was recorded highest for NP and NPK treatment. The higher CO₂ emission may lead to more C-mineralization and still how SOM was recorded high in those respective treatments?

 

In this regard a metabolic quotient (qCO₂) would have answered whether the stimulated organic matter is getting sequestered or aggravated emission is ultimately reducing the SOC in result!

 Figure 4: must have properly denoted X and Y axis.

 

Also, there is dearth of information whether 365 days of an year was taken care of while presenting the kg CO2/ha/day or it was for any specific crop out of four types of crops or whether only all crop days were considered!

 

 Line 251-252: The number of bacteria utilizing mineral nitrogen was highest in variants with arising amounts of nitrifying and nitrogen-fixing bacteria in NP, NK, NPK treatments (Table 5).

Sentence is not clear.

 Author should present the absolute and clear data regarding different parameters like count of ammonifying, N fixing bacteria, Actinomycetes….through bar diagram and the ANOVA may be presented in supplementary file.

 

Also did not present any clear data on Microbial Biomass Carbon …about what amount it ranged from treatment to treatments. The all data are although analyzed and presented in statistics but absolute data should be presented in bar or other presentable chart and the ANOVA may be shared in the supplementary data sheet.

 

Line 214-215: Despite the low amount of SOC, recorded in the zero variants, CO2 emissions in the absence of fertilization were not the most strongly reduced. CO2 fluxes in N, P, K treatments were lower compared to the zero control.

 

Sentence should be reframed.

Line 218: Very casually the term used as ‘agrochemical indicators’ but there are called soil physico-chemical properties.

Senior authors must look into the complete MS for major revision.

Pls keep in mind SOM and SOC as used by the authors synonymously in throughout the paper, but SOC and SOM is not same!

Line 268: zero control……Control once defined as zero dose of fertilizer….should not be used so carelessly!

Line 276: ‘The data were loaded into three principal components……’

The language are very much imperfect…..may be used data fitted into…

Figure 4………………Serious calculation mistake.

Pls recheck again about the amount of CO2 emission in terms of kg/ha/day……………….for which crop?

 

(Please find the figure in the attachment.)

 

This is a review paper content by H Pathak (2022). Pls check…the amount….there must be some serious calculation mistake done in the calculation part og GHG.

 

I must suggest for a deep look into the paper by the author again. As it is a paper from very long term experimental set up, thus, pls take a second chance for thorough check into the data set and presentation style.

The paper needs major revision.

It needs major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language should be improved.

Data analysis, calculation should be rechecked.

Major flaws are suspected in the calculation aspect especially in the GHG emission part.

Author Response

For research article

Multivariate analyses of chemical and microbiological soil properties and CO₂ emission under long-term fertilizer experiment and four-crop rotation on Luvic Chernozem

 

Response to Reviewer2 Comments

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the valuable remarks and comments to improve the quality of the manuscript! We made corrections that you suggested.

 

Reviewer 2 - The paper entitled ‘ Multivariate analyses of chemical and microbiological soil properties and CO2 emission under long-term fertilizer experiment and four-crop rotation on Luvic Chernozem’ attempts monitoring of chemical and microbiological soil properties and CO2 emission in the context of a 64 years old long-term fertilizer experiment on Luvic Chernozem. An experiment over six decades of nutrient management really holds the potentiality to deliver good information about changes in soil properties. Following are some comments needed to be revised.

Reviewer 2 - Table 1. The sand silt clay % should have decimals ….

Response – We fixed the table. We put points instead of comma, if you meant that.

Reviewer 22.2 Experiment design: As mentioned different varieties……pls be assure that the same variety was used since the inception of the experiment.

Response – The mentioned varieties were used  in the 16^th for 4 years.

Reviewer 2 -The major flaws as noted here is that there are only 2 replications for each treatments!

Response _ This experiment was configured before many years under method and scheme of Georges Ville (1879)   in two replicates with eight variants each, arranged according to Rümker.

Reviewer 2 -The contradictory results are presented. Like:

Line 208-209: The most intensive CO2 emissions were recorded in the NP and NPK variants (Figure 4). Also in these treatments, the highest accumulation of organic carbon was established (Table 2).

The author must discuss why emission was more yet SOM was recorded highest for NP and NPK treatment. The higher CO2 emission may lead to more C-mineralization and still how SOM was recorded high in those respective treatments?

In this regard a metabolic quotient (qCO2) would have Responseed whether the stimulated organic matter is getting sequestered or aggravated emission is ultimately reducing the SOC in result!

Response – Yes, we are sure that methabolic quotient could give information but we measured the emissions in the field. And now we couldn’t provide information about that. In fact under combined fertilization the biomass production is higher and C input into the soil is increasing. That intensifies  CO₂ emissions by heterotrophic respiration too.

Reviewer 2 Figure 4: must have properly denoted X and Y axis.

Response We made adjustment

Reviewer 2 Also, there is dearth of information whether 365 days of an year was taken care of while presenting the kg CO2/ha/day or it was for any specific crop out of four types of crops or whether only all crop days were considered!

Response This  is average of measurements we made.  We measure only soil emissions with dark chambers.  If you consider, we can provide this figure in hour, not in a day. There isn’t mistake in the calculations, references:

1. Ray, R.L., Griffin, R.W., Fares, A. et al. Soil CO₂emission in response to organic amendments, temperature, and rainfall. Sci Rep 10, 5849 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62267-6.
2. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/35789/Sainju_198562.pdf

 

Reviewer 2 Line 251-252: The number of bacteria utilizing mineral nitrogen was highest in variants with arising amounts of nitrifying and nitrogen-fixing bacteria in NP, NK, NPK treatments (Table 5).

Sentence is not clear.

 

Response – We corrected the sentences

Reviewer 2 Author should present the absolute and clear data regarding different parameters like count of ammonifying, N fixing bacteria, Actinomycetes….through bar diagram and the ANOVA may be presented in supplementary file.

Also did not present any clear data on Microbial Biomass Carbon …about what amount it ranged from treatment to treatments. The all data are although analyzed and presented in statistics but absolute data should be presented in bar or other presentable chart and the ANOVA may be shared in the supplementary data sheet.

Response We provided figures  for Microbial biomass carbon and diagram about microbial parameters

Line 214-215: Despite the low amount of SOC, recorded in the zero variants, CO2 emissions in the absence of fertilization were not the most strongly reduced. CO2 fluxes in N, P, K treatments were lower compared to the zero control.

Sentence should be reframed.

Response We corrected the sentences

Reviewer 2Line 218: Very casually the term used as ‘agrochemical indicators’ but there are called soil physico-chemical properties.

Senior authors must look into the complete MS for major revision.

Pls keep in mind SOM and SOC as used by the authors synonymously in throughout the paper, but SOC and SOM is not same!

Response Ok, we agree. We corrected the sentences.

Reviewer 2 Line 268: zero control……Control once defined as zero dose of fertilizer….should not be used so carelessly!

Response – We change with “unfertilized”

Reviewer 2 Line 276: ‘The data were loaded into three principal components……’

The language are very much imperfect…..may be used data fitted into…

Response- We made correction as you suggested

Reviewer 2 Figure 4………………Serious calculation mistake.

Pls recheck again about the amount of CO in terms of kg/ha/day……………….for which crop?

This is a review paper content by H Pathak (2022). Pls check…the amount….there must be some serious calculation mistake done in the calculation part og GHG.

I must suggest for a deep look into the paper by the author again. As it is a paper from very long term experimental set up, thus, pls take a second chance for thorough check into the data set and presentation style.

The paper needs major revision.

It needs major revision.

 

Response Some references about soil emissions in kg ha^-1day^-1 :

Ray, R.L., Griffin, R.W., Fares, A. et al. Soil CO₂ emission in response to organic amendments, temperature, and rainfall. Sci Rep 10, 5849 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62267-6.

- https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/35789/Sainju_198562.pdf

- Carbon Storage Potential and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Mineral-Fertilized and Manured Soil, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/7/4620

- Influence of Tillage Practices and Crop Type on Soil CO₂ Emissions, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/90

In our experiment the emissions varied between 9-10 to 200-300 kg ha day, depending on season, because in our country between July and August is hot and dry part of summer and fluxes are low. In the spring  and autumn is wet, but  the temperatures are low, especially in the mornings, and the maximum of fluxes are in late May and June, after that they are low again. There was a severe drought during the 2023, and 3-4 measurements showed low intensity at all. We change the dimension in an hour, because we didn’t measure the fluxes all 24 hours, and maybe it is not relevant to extrapolate to a day. We change the intensity of fluxes to kg ha^-1 h^-1.

 

Thank you for your review!

Best regards,

The authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some parts were improved, but a few corrections should be made.

 

Considering CO2 emissions measurements, you explain “Only soil emissions were measured, placing the plastic chambers in the plots after cleaning the surface from plants and residues, without disturbing the soil surface”. So you removed the aerial part of the plants, starting the decomposition of the below parts, the roots plus rhizosphere microbiota, initiating more CO2 formation. It is so? When yes, you should consider this fact in the discussion. Higher plant development with higher CO2 fixing by photosynthesis leads to higher root biomass and higher degradation degree of roots. So the higher CO2 emission in certain cases is the effect of higher photosynthesis intensity. The calculation input of CO2 versus output of CO2 delivers the real effect and the real cCO2 balance.

 

Considering the total nitrogen contents of the soil materials: are they not available from the manager of the experimental field? Analysis of major nutrients like N is usual in field experiments considering fertilizing, esp. N-fertilization. C/N ratios deliver valuable information about N status, N mineralization, N fertilization etc. I expect such data are available in the data base of the field reports. 

First sentence in conclusion: add “for the here considered soils”

Line 325: In this study, and considering the used soils and site conditions, long term….

 

Despite some uncertainties I propose the edition to accept the manuscript, however after consideration of proposed corrections.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Reviewer - Considering CO2 emissions measurements, you explain “Only soil emissions were measured, placing the plastic chambers in the plots after cleaning the surface from plants and residues, without disturbing the soil surface”. So you removed the aerial part of the plants, starting the decomposition of the below parts, the roots plus rhizosphere microbiota, initiating more CO2 formation. It is so? When yes, you should consider this fact in the discussion. Higher plant development with higher CO2 fixing by photosynthesis leads to higher root biomass and higher degradation degree of roots. So the higher CO2 emission in certain cases is the effect of higher photosynthesis intensity. The calculation input of CO2 versus output of CO2 delivers the real effect and the real cCO2 balance.

 Answer - In relation to what you pointed out, we added clarifying comments in the discussion, and removed "soil emissions only"

Reviewer - Considering the total nitrogen contents of the soil materials: are they not available from the manager of the experimental field? Analysis of major nutrients like N is usual in field experiments considering fertilizing, esp. N-fertilization. C/N ratios deliver valuable information about N status, N mineralization, N fertilization etc. I expect such data are available in the data base of the field reports. 

Answer - In relation with the requirement you made, we have requested a 10-day delay from the editors for uploading the revised manuscript,  in order to obtain the required data and we added it to the results.

Reviewer - First sentence in conclusion: add “for the here considered soils”

Line 325: In this study, and considering the used soils and site conditions, long term….

 Answer - We made corrections in the indicated places

 

 

Thank you for your review!

Best regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Looking into the scientific aspects of the paper, the responses towards the comments are not satisfactory.

The answers which are made are quite vague!

Also, pls see the Pathak et al., 2022 EMAS paper. 

It is not about the unit of emission of CO2 but see your amount of emission!

it is quite huge. If your crop emits so high per day, then just calculate for it's total duration in field and then you will understand that the emission amount that you are showing it is super super high.....................not acceptable!

It is not about to change the units.......it is about your emission amount!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Major fault in the GHG emission part is suspected.

Readers will get misleading information if this paper gets published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have read the articles you recommended, for which we thank you. We have read and cited the paper that you suggested. The place in text and in references we highlighted in blue.

Most of our measurements were carried out at the beginning of the season (May, June) when the emissions from soil are more intensive and for this reason are higher than 20-30 kg ha^-1 day^-1, as in Jain, N. et al., 2016, Greenhouse gases emission from soils under major crops in Northwest India. Our results in 2023 are in this range (20-30 kg ha^-1 day^-1, that you mean), because of a drought, but the measurements in 2021 were higher and averaged results are higher. We also have measurements  for 2023, 2024 and other years on Calcic Chernozem in this range (20-30 kg ha^-1 day^-1), but in the case of long-term fertilizer experiment the measurements were not many and the results from very wet 2021 influenced the averaged readings. But in other studies, we found that emissions were measured with higher values too, as:

 

• Ray, R.L., Griffin, R.W., Fares, A. et al. Soil CO₂emission in response to organic amendments, temperature, and rainfall. Sci Rep 10, 5849 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62267-6.
• https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/35789/Sainjupdf
• Carbon Storage Potential and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Mineral-Fertilized and Manured Soil, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/7/4620
• Influence of Tillage Practices and Crop Type on Soil CO₂Emissions, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/90
• Mariela H. Fuentes-Ponce, Jonatán Gutiérrez-Díaz, Antonio Flores-Macías, Emmanuel González-Ortega, Alejandro Ponce Mendoza, Luis Manuel Rodríguez Sánchez, Ivan Novotny, Iván Pável Moreno Espíndola, Direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions under conventional, organic, and conservation agriculture, Agriculture, Ecosystems & nvironment, Volume 340, 2022, 108148, ISSN 0167-8809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108148. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880922002973)
• Мuhammad Israr Khan, Rubab Sarfraz, Taeyoung Kim, Hye-Jin Park, Pil Joo Kim, Gil Won Kim, Partitioning carbon dioxide emissions from soil organic matter and urea in warm and cold cropping seasons, Atmospheric Pollution Research, Volume 15, Issue 2, 2024, 101995, ISSN 1309-1042, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2023.101995.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104223003495?via%3Dihub
• https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/bitstream/doc/1089160/1/APUseofdataFerhateetal.pdf
• https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/326666
• https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/agg2.20012

 

We changed the dimension in an hour, because we didn’t measure the fluxes all 24 hours, and maybe it is not relevant to extrapolate to a day. We change the intensity of fluxes to kg ha^-1 h^-1.

Thank you for reviewing!

 

Best regards,

The authors