- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 On “On the spatial variation of soil rhizospheric and heterotrophic respiration in a winter wheat stand”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 415
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 On “On the spatial variation of soil rhizospheric and heterotrophic respiration in a winter wheat stand”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author The manuscript presents a well done study on the spatial variability of soil respiration that should be considered when planning sampling design of chamber measurements. It is written in a clear and concise way and can be accepted with minor modifications. Specific comments: 1. It is not clear why only 14 of the 18 samplings were used in the later analysis. Please clarify. 2. Line 77: Please check the wording in (ii): . . .to identify the process? having the biggest influence. . . Also related to the aims: was determination of the spatial autocorrelation length not an aim of the study? 3. Line 100: It would be clearer to write “Each measurement took 3 min. . .” since “ever 3 minutes” sounds like there were continuous measurements.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.016. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.232
4. Line 124: references missing 5. Line 135: add “it” before “took” 6. Line 203: increases -> increased 7. Line 228: range -> ranged 8. Line 245: variation -> respiration 9. Line 335: Fig. 5 -> Fig. 6 10. Line 355: change the capital letter to lower case in “Measurements” 11. Line 365: correct “autocrorrelation” 12. Table 1: It might be a good idea to mark with bold formatting the al values that were finally used for determining the autocorrelation length. That would help the reader to follow the reasoning/selection process. 13. Fig. 2 I am not sure if the difference in the lines for heterotrophic and rhizopheric respiration will be visible in the printed version. Different symbols for each line would be a better choice. 14. Fig. 4: Some of the lines are too thin. Anonymous 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 “On the spatial variation of soil rhizospheric and heterotrophic respiration in a winter wheat stand”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author The manuscript presents a well done study on the spatial variability of soil respiration that should be considered when planning sampling design of chamber measurements. It is written in a clear and concise way and can be accepted with minor modifications. Specific comments: 1. It is not clear why only 14 of the 18 samplings were used in the later analysis. Please clarify. 2. Line 77: Please check the wording in (ii): . . .to identify the process? having the biggest influence. . . Also related to the aims: was determination of the spatial autocorrelation length not an aim of the study? 3. Line 100: It would be clearer to write “Each measurement took 3 min. . .” since “ever 3 minutes” sounds like there were continuous measurements.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.016. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.232
4. Line 124: references missing 5. Line 135: add “it” before “took” 6. Line 203: increases -> increased 7. Line 228: range -> ranged 8. Line 245: variation -> respiration 9. Line 335: Fig. 5 -> Fig. 6 10. Line 355: change the capital letter to lower case in “Measurements” 11. Line 365: correct “autocrorrelation” 12. Table 1: It might be a good idea to mark with bold formatting the al values that were finally used for determining the autocorrelation length. That would help the reader to follow the reasoning/selection process. 13. Fig. 2 I am not sure if the difference in the lines for heterotrophic and rhizopheric respiration will be visible in the printed version. Different symbols for each line would be a better choice. 14. Fig. 4: Some of the lines are too thin. Anonymous Available online 6 August 2015