- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 On “Effects of sugarcane harvest method on microclimate in Florida and Costa Rica”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 169
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 1 On “Effects of sugarcane harvest method on microclimate in Florida and Costa Rica”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation: Major Revision 2. Comments to Author: This paper discusses the effect of harvesting methods (green vs. burnt cane harvesting) on the temperature of sugarcane crops. Although it is possible that the main findings are indeed true the lack of information about sensors, procedures, physical arguments, etc diminishes this study. Main concern: 1. There is not information about the sensors (brand, model, sensitivity, etc) used and the procedure followed for their installation. There are a number of studies that discuss the influence of these details on the measured values (I strongly suggest the authors review the micrometerological studies carried out in the Large Scale Biosphere Atmosphere experiment in the Amazonia-LBA experiment). How many sensors per site were used? What is the footprint of these sensors? 2. The authors did not present a convincing argument to certify that the differences in temperature values were exclusively related to the harvesting methods. The possible influences of weather conditions, advection, installation procedure, etc., were not mentioned.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.011. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.018
3. The article title should better reflect what is actually presented in the paper. The objectives of this study are important but they are not properly justified. It would be much more helpful if the authors could present a deeper discussion about which harvesting method is more desirable. Suggestions: There are studies showing the differences in temperature, water, and carbon in sugar cane plantations before and after harvest at 30-minute, hourly, daily seasonal and interanual time scales. The following links/references may be of interest: ht**tp:// fluxnet.ornl.gov/site/90 ht tp://dedalus.usp.br/F/I1LX842M56VD8JVT34DJY9EX9PTHB MMV36QSPK2EIFYPFRY38R-58163?func=full-set-set&set number =007526&set entry=000006&format=99(in Portuguese) Cabral, Osvaldo M. R.; Rocha, Humberto R.; Gash, John H.; Ligo, Marcos A. V.; Tatsch, Jonatan D.; Freitas, Helber C.; Brasilio, Emília. Water use in a sugarcane plantation. GCB BIOENERGY, v. 999, p. n/a-n/a, 2012. Cabral, Osvaldo M. R; Rocha, Humberto Ribeiro; Ligo, Marcos A.V.; Brunini, O.; Dias, M.. Turbulent fluxes of latent heat, water and CO2 in sugar cane plantations (Saccharum sp.) in Sertãozinho-SP. Brazilian Journal of Meteorology, v. 18, p. 61-70, 2003. Robinson I Negron-Juarez Available online 6 August 2015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 1 On “Effects of sugarcane harvest method on microclimate in Florida and Costa Rica”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation: Major Revision 2. Comments to Author: This paper discusses the effect of harvesting methods (green vs. burnt cane harvesting) on the temperature of sugarcane crops. Although it is possible that the main findings are indeed true the lack of information about sensors, procedures, physical arguments, etc diminishes this study. Main concern: 1. There is not information about the sensors (brand, model, sensitivity, etc) used and the procedure followed for their installation. There are a number of studies that discuss the influence of these details on the measured values (I strongly suggest the authors review the micrometerological studies carried out in the Large Scale Biosphere Atmosphere experiment in the Amazonia-LBA experiment). How many sensors per site were used? What is the footprint of these sensors? 2. The authors did not present a convincing argument to certify that the differences in temperature values were exclusively related to the harvesting methods. The possible influences of weather conditions, advection, installation procedure, etc., were not mentioned.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.011. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.018
3. The article title should better reflect what is actually presented in the paper. The objectives of this study are important but they are not properly justified. It would be much more helpful if the authors could present a deeper discussion about which harvesting method is more desirable. Suggestions: There are studies showing the differences in temperature, water, and carbon in sugar cane plantations before and after harvest at 30-minute, hourly, daily seasonal and interanual time scales. The following links/references may be of interest: ht**tp:// fluxnet.ornl.gov/site/90 ht tp://dedalus.usp.br/F/I1LX842M56VD8JVT34DJY9EX9PTHB MMV36QSPK2EIFYPFRY38R-58163?func=full-set-set&set number =007526&set entry=000006&format=99(in Portuguese) Cabral, Osvaldo M. R.; Rocha, Humberto R.; Gash, John H.; Ligo, Marcos A. V.; Tatsch, Jonatan D.; Freitas, Helber C.; Brasilio, Emília. Water use in a sugarcane plantation. GCB BIOENERGY, v. 999, p. n/a-n/a, 2012. Cabral, Osvaldo M. R; Rocha, Humberto Ribeiro; Ligo, Marcos A.V.; Brunini, O.; Dias, M.. Turbulent fluxes of latent heat, water and CO2 in sugar cane plantations (Saccharum sp.) in Sertãozinho-SP. Brazilian Journal of Meteorology, v. 18, p. 61-70, 2003. Robinson I Negron-Juarez Available online 6 August 2015