Effects of precipitation seasonality, irrigation, vegetation cycle and soil type on enhanced weathering – modeling of cropland case studies across four sites

Cipolla, Giuseppe; Calabrese, Salvatore; Porporato, Amilcare; Noto, Leonardo V.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3877-2022

Articles | Volume 19, issue 16

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3877-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-3877-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 16

Research article

|

26 Aug 2022

Research article |

| 26 Aug 2022

Effects of precipitation seasonality, irrigation, vegetation cycle and soil type on enhanced weathering – modeling of cropland case studies across four sites

Giuseppe Cipolla, Salvatore Calabrese, Amilcare Porporato, and Leonardo V. Noto

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Aug 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Apr 2022)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-196', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 May 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-196/egusphere-2022-196-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-196-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Giuseppe Cipolla, 22 Jun 2022
  
  We thank the Reviewer for his/her in-depth analysis of this work. It improved a lot our manuscript. Please find our responses to the comments in the attached file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-196-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-196', Ingrid Smet, 31 May 2022

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-196-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Giuseppe Cipolla, 22 Jun 2022
  
  We thank the Reviewer for the in-depth analysis of this work. It improved a lot our manuscript. Please find our responses to the comments in the attached file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-196-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (24 Jun 2022) by Sara Vicca

AR by Giuseppe Cipolla on behalf of the Authors (28 Jun 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Jun 2022) by Sara Vicca

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Jul 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Most of my comments have been addressed, but there are still a few points that need some attention:

• The other reviewer mentioned that some explanation of how to read heatmaps would be useful and I certainly found this to be the case when I looked at them again; it took me a moment to remember that the Y axis represented simulation year. Day of year is on the X axis which seems obvious to me, but it is still worth mentioning. All these figures have colour bars so an explanation of what the colours mean was less important, at least for me. In any case please say what the axes tickmark values represent, either in the text or (preferably) in the caption of the first heatmap figure, e.g.:
◦ Figure 6. Time-series heatmaps (X axes: day of year, Y axes: simulation year) ...

• Please provide a reference for the laboratory rates being considered in the following revised text. One good possibility would be Bandstra et al. 2008 (in Brantley, Kubicki and White Kinetics of Mineral Dissolution):
"The order of magnitude of weathering rates provided by our model is more typical of the field environment with respect to those achieved in laboratory conditions (e.g., Bandstra et al. 2008)."

• The immediately-following revised text stating that the modelled rates are "similar" to those of Amann et al. (2020) is misleading because the modelled weathering rates are an order of magnitude faster than those of Amann et al. Your rates are a lot more similar to those of Renforth et al. (2015, you already cite them), although their study used soil without plants. It is best to state that both the modelling and mesocosm studies achieved rates that are slower than those observed in the laboratory, and then give all the values for readers to see for themselves, e.g.
"This was also the case for the mesocosm studies of Renforth et al. (2015) and Amann et al. (2020). Our rates (10^-11.67 Iowa, 10^-11.79 California, 10^-12.50 Padan and 10^-12.32 Sicily, mol Olivine/m2/s) are comparable to theirs: 10^-12.7 to 10^-11.8 mol Olivine/m2/s (Renforth et al 2015), 10^-13.12 and 10^-13.75 mol Olivine/m2/s (Amann et al. 2020)."

Note that the spread of dissolution rates observed at similar pH can approach or exceed an order of magnitude even at the same experimental scale, as can be seen in the laboratory data shown for olivine by Bandstra et al. (figure on page 809 in the Appendix of Brantley, Kubicki and White 2008).

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Ingrid Smet (22 Jul 2022)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Jul 2022) by Sara Vicca

AR by Giuseppe Cipolla on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Aug 2022) by Sara Vicca

AR by Giuseppe Cipolla on behalf of the Authors (02 Aug 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

Enhanced weathering (EW) is a promising strategy for carbon sequestration. Since models may help to characterize field EW, the present work applies a hydro-biogeochemical model to four case studies characterized by different rainfall seasonality, vegetation and soil type. Rainfall seasonality strongly affects EW dynamics, but low carbon sequestration suggests that an in-depth analysis at the global scale is required to see if EW may be effective to mitigate climate change.