CO<sub>2</sub> efflux from soils with seasonal water repellency

Urbanek, Emilia; Doerr, Stefan H.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4781-2017

Articles | Volume 14, issue 20

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4781-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-4781-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 20

Research article

|

25 Oct 2017

Research article |

| 25 Oct 2017

CO₂ efflux from soils with seasonal water repellency

Emilia Urbanek and Stefan H. Doerr

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Oct 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 15 Mar 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review on ‚Spatially variable soil water repellency enhances soil respiration rates (CO2 efflux)’ by Urbanek & Doerr', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Apr 2017
- AC1: 'responce to comments of Reviewer 1', Emilia Urbanek, 23 May 2017
RC2: 'Review of manuscript 'Spatially available soil water repellency enhances soil respiration rates (CO2 efflux)'', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 May 2017
- AC2: 'Responce to comments of Reviewer 2', Emilia Urbanek, 23 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (06 Jun 2017) by Michael Bahn

AR by Emilia Urbanek on behalf of the Authors (06 Jul 2017) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Jul 2017) by Michael Bahn

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (01 Aug 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Aug 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised version of the manuscript by Urbanek and Doerr was substantially improved. In particular, the authors are now more modest in their interpretation/discussion and clearly differentiate between facts (as demonstrated by the measured data) and assumptions/inferences. Moreover, the observed effects are now more clearly explained and interpreted and it is explained in more details what was done and why. Nevertheless, there are some minor points in the revised manuscript that should be corrected:

P1L7: CO2 should be introduced as this was done for C in L10.
P1L23: Please check this passage: ‘ ... higher nutrient concentration for microbial activity resulting in high CO2...‘.
P2L7: O2 should be introduced.
P2L21: Please check the order of references given (please carefully check the entire text; e.g. P3L5-6, P23L18).
P2L25: Please delete ‘;’ after Ritsema & Dekker, 2000.
P3L3: please use ‘C’ instead of ‘carbon’ here (as introduced at P2L13).
P3L13: please define ‘SOM’.
P5L4: it should read ‘filled circles’ instead of ‘closed circles’.
P8L13-14: Please check this passage: ‘... where the function fitting R2 was below value of 0.95...’.
P9L3: please replace ‘-‘ by ‘.’ to read: ‘... 6.7-9.2 cm ...’.
P9L3: Bulk density was deleted from this sentence (presumably because it wasn’t measured after each field visit), however, as it is presented in Table 1 and was necessary to convert gravimetric into volumetric water content its determination should be mentioned in the text.
P9L6: ‘were’ should be replaced by ‘was’.
P9L18: Is measurement via GC correct? Or were C and N rather measured by IRMS after separation on a GC column? Please check this.
P9L23: please insert ‘of’ between ‘range’ and ‘values’ and delete temp in this sentence.
P9L24: why ‘6.1-10’? This would not include values >6.0 and <6.1. Hence, ‘6-10’ would be more adequate.
P10L2: Could you please elaborate a little bit more on the linear mixed model procedure you used. Why did you use a mixed model and not a simple linear model. Usually, a mixed model is used to include random-effects factors. So which factors did you define as random-effects factors in your analysis?
P10L3: ‘... the ANOVA test ...’ sounds somewhat strange. Writing ‘... comparison, ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test ...’ would be better.
P11: Please check the alignment and the scaling of the figure (10/2015 vs. 11/2015).
P12L11: please replace ‘a full range’ by ‘the full range’.
P13: please add information about n (e.g. n = 24) as was given in the original manuscript.
P14L12: please use the singular form: ‘variation’ instead of ‘variations’.
P15: please check the scaling (11/2015 vs. 12/2015) and the alignment.
P16: Caption to Fig. 5: SWC and SWR should be written in full at their first appearance and afterwards abbreviated. Please add information about n. Why using SWC’s or SWCs? SWC may stand for both singular and plural. It should be ‘temperature classes’ instead of ‘temperatures classes’. Please add +/- in L6 (i.e. +/- 2°C). It should be ‘+/- 0.1’ instead of ‘+/-0.2’ (grouping of SWR distribution).
P17: Why reporting on SE instead of SD (as given in the figs and Table 1)? Again, please add information about n.
P19L2: Please could you explain what is meant by stating ‘... it was observed at higher soil temperatures and lower SWC ...’.
P19L4: ‘were converted’ instead of ‘was converted’.
P19L5: please use either ‘0’ and ‘1’ or ‘zero’ and ‘one’.
P19L10: please be more modest here: ‘association’ instead of ‘response’ would be more appropriate.
P19L11: ‘flux’ -> ‘efflux’.
P20L6: please check consistency: early autumn vs. late autumn (as written in L15).
P20L10-11: please add ‘a’ between ‘be’ and ‘situation’.
P20L16-18: please check the reference in this sentence. The statement ‘... clearly associated with low moisture contents and higher soil temperatures’ is connected to ‘SWR development’ but not to ‘its complete disappearance’.
P20L23: ‘change’ -> ‘changes’.
P21L11: please replace ‘lower SWR soil’ , for instance, by ‘ soil with low degree of SWR’.
P21L15: ‘DOC’ -> ‘dissolved organic C’. It should read: ‘higher nutrient and DOC concentration’. Please check ‘ in the water in wetter zones’ (do you mean ‘more wettable zones’?).
P21L19: What is meant by C fluxes here? Do you mean other C fluxes than CO2 evolution? If yes, then they should be specified. Otherwise ‘C fluxes’ should be deleted.
P22L6: ‘were -> ‘was’.
P22L15: ‘were -> ‘was’. Please add a blank after SWC.
P22L19: ‘soils’ -> ‘sites’.
P22L22: ‘C’ -> ‘SOM’.
P23L2-4: This sentence is difficult to understand. Could you please rephrase it.
P23L4-7: Please check the consistency of this sentence (‘... include soil wettability with ... high (extreme) SWR?)
P23L14: it should read ‘.. when soil temperature was high and SWC was low ...’.
P23L25: please add ‘climate’ after ‘temperature’.
P24L7-8: please rephrase: ‘Water filled pores are expected to have ... concentrated nutrients’.
P24L13: please insert ‘is’ after ‘this’.
P24L19: ‘below’ -> ‘above’.
P24L21: why differentiating between particle and pore surfaces? These are two sides of the same coin.
P24L24: ‘model’ -> ‘figure’. ‘Fig. 9’ -> ‘Fig. 6’.
P27L3: ‘leads’ -> ‘lead’.
P27L4: ‘dominated’ -> ‘associated’?
P27L11: ‘results in’ -> ‘is associated with’.
P27L21: please add ‘also’ to read ‘is also of’.
P27L22: please add ‘a better’ to read ‘then allow a better prediction’.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (11 Aug 2017) by Michael Bahn

AR by Emilia Urbanek on behalf of the Authors (31 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (15 Sep 2017) by Michael Bahn

Download

Article (6355 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

We studied CO₂ emissions from soils that are seasonally water-epellent, and the wetting and water movement is restricted. When CO₂ emissions are low soil is consistently water-repellent after a long dry spells, but when water repellency and thus soil moisture are patchy CO₂ emission rates are high. The presence of water repellency may therefore increase rather than reduce soil CO₂ emissions, which may result in higher soil carbon losses than it was previously anticipated.

CO2 efflux from soils with seasonal water repellency

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

CO₂ efflux from soils with seasonal water repellency