The soil organic carbon stabilization potential of old and new wheat cultivars: a <sup>13</sup>CO<sub>2</sub>-labeling study

Van de Broek, Marijn; Ghiasi, Shiva; Decock, Charlotte; Hund, Andreas; Abiven, Samuel; Friedli, Cordula; Werner, Roland A.; Six, Johan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2971-2020

Articles | Volume 17, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2971-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2971-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 11

Research article

|

11 Jun 2020

Research article |

| 11 Jun 2020

The soil organic carbon stabilization potential of old and new wheat cultivars: a ¹³CO₂-labeling study

Marijn Van de Broek, Shiva Ghiasi, Charlotte Decock, Andreas Hund, Samuel Abiven, Cordula Friedli, Roland A. Werner, and Johan Six

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Jun 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Jan 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review - The soil organic carbon stabilization potential of old and new wheat cultivars: a 13CO2 labelling study', Stefan Karlowsky, 31 Jan 2020
- AC1: 'Replies on comments by referee #1', Marijn Van de Broek, 19 Mar 2020
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Feb 2020
- AC2: 'Replies on the comments by referee #2', Marijn Van de Broek, 19 Mar 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (23 Mar 2020) by Sara Vicca

AR by Marijn Van de Broek on behalf of the Authors (11 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Apr 2020) by Sara Vicca

RR by Stefan Karlowsky (29 Apr 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments:

The authors took into account all comments from both reviewers and revised their manuscript accordingly. The structure and flow of the text body (especially the discussion) greatly improved and the overall context as well as the study objective are clear. Only using root data from 0-45 cm depth for Fig. 4, Table 2 and the respective statistics was a good idea. Because the root biomass below 45 cm is very low, it is reasonable to only use the complete dataset above 45 cm, where most root biomass was found. Nevertheless, there is still a bit of information missing regarding the statistics in Fig. 4a. As I understood it, only the summed excess 13C values of aboveground biomass, root biomass and soil were compared. Is that right? It would be good to test the plant parts and soil separately to see if there are effects on 13C belowground allocation and 13C rhizodeposition. From Fig. 4a it looks like the variation of excess 13C is relatively smaller than for carbon rhizodeposition in Fig. 4c, though this is hard to distinguish. As you correctly note that the calculation of total carbon rhizodeposition (Eq. 4) involves a high uncertainty, excess 13C could also serve as a proxy for differences between the cultivars. Otherwise, all open questions have been clarified and I think the manuscript is in a good shape for publication.

Specific comments:

Line 216: I would add to the argumentation for excluding data that the root biomass in deeper soil layers was negligible compared to the upper 45 cm.

Technical corrections:

Lines 287-288: “The effect of cultivar and depth … was …” -> use “The effects … were…”

Line 730: Please add information on the individual statistics for the excess 13C of aboveground biomass, root biomass and soil in Figure 4a.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Apr 2020)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (29 Apr 2020) by Sara Vicca

AR by Marijn Van de Broek on behalf of the Authors (01 May 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (2982 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Four wheat cultivars were labeled with ¹³CO₂ to quantify the effect of rooting depth and root biomass on the belowground transfer of organic carbon. We found no clear relation between the time since cultivar development and the amount of carbon inputs to the soil. Therefore, the hypothesis that wheat cultivars with a larger root biomass and deeper roots promote carbon stabilization was rejected. The amount of root biomass that will be stabilized in the soil on the long term is, however, unknown.

The soil organic carbon stabilization potential of old and new wheat cultivars: a 13CO2-labeling study

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

The soil organic carbon stabilization potential of old and new wheat cultivars: a ¹³CO₂-labeling study