the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 May 2022
Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone
Abstract. Carbon is a key element for the functioning and productivity of tropical soils. While the impact of organic inputs on carbon storage in these soils is known, little is known about the contribution of non-cultivated trees.
In this study, we measured carbon content in non-cultivated trees (VC), soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil total nitrogen (TN) in different land uses in a West African forest – savanna transition zone. We used the Land Degradation Surveillance Framework for data collection and allometric equations to estimate the stocks of VC on a 10 km * 10 km landscape. Soil samples were taken in 160 sites at 0–20 cm, 20–50 cm, 50–80 cm and 80–110 cm depth in different land uses. We developed Partial Least Square regression models to predict SOC, TN and clay concentrations from mid-infrared soil spectra. We then considered soil bulk density to calculate the stocks of SOC and TN for each sampling depth and conducted a path analysis to identify the factors controlling these parameters. Our results showed that at landscape level, tree density and diversity explained most of VC stocks variability. SOC stock variability was mainly explained by clay content. The main drivers of TN stocks were clay and SOC stock. The VC and SOC stocks were not correlated with each other when considering all data. However, we found significant linear positive relationships between VC and SOC stocks for the land uses annual croplands, perennial croplands, grasslands and bushlands without soil depth restrictions until 110 cm. We concluded that in the forest-savanna transition zone, soil properties and topography determine land use, which in turn affects the stocks of SOC and TN and to some extent the VC stocks. Bushlands conservation and perennial trees cropping systems could be recommended for improved SOC storage.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(1193 KB)
-
Supplement
(669 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(1193 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(669 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-209', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 May 2022
General comments:
In light of the significant role played by tropical landscapes in sequestering atmospheric carbon (C), understanding the dynamics of above- and below-ground C stocks is essential to developing sustainable land use management in such regions. This paper was aimed at examining the relationship between stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and their surrounding soils in different land uses in a West African forest-savanna transition landscape. In spite of the fact that this aim is somewhat apparent in the paper's title (except the land use), it is extremely troubling that the paper fails to frame and thus address any specific problem regarding this relationship and to set forth a hypothesis for testing. The impact of land use (different configurations) on soil organic C stocks and their relationship has been adequately studied, so it is important for readers to know the gaps and how they can be resolved. As a result, I fear this paper lacks focus and is incoherent in content. This may be due, in part, to the weak definition of non-cultivated trees and its conceptual relation to land use. I find it challenging that such a class of trees are located even in forests and bushlands. Were the forests plantations? What is the area of influence of these non-cultivated trees in cultivated and non-cultivated fields? Were the soils sampled within this area of influence accordingly? Also, it should be noted that the study area (100 km2) is neither large enough nor its findings extrapolated to cover the Forest-Savanna transition in West African landscapes, despite the suggestion inherent in the title. There seems to be an unjustified attempt throughout the paper (e.g. the captions of the table and figures) to generalize its empirical findings to the entire West African region. This, along with the title of the manuscript, is misleading and inaccurate. Along with these flaws, the paper is also poorly written. In order to assess this manuscript for its rigor, it must be thoroughly edited for consistency in grammar and clarity. Even after reading the manuscript multiple times, it was still challenging evaluating the merit of the methodology and the conclusions and discussion, which I found shallow and poorly presented. Due to these factors, it is difficult to argue that this paper provides any new knowledge or makes any contribution to the current body of knowledge, especially on this fascinating topic of terrestrial C dynamics. In my opinion, this paper must be rewritten and resubmitted before it can be considered. I specify some concerns below for authors to consider when revising the paper.
- Abstract:
- There is no explicit statement on the objectives/aims/questions of the paper, and hence how they were achieved/answered. Also, be consistent on the study area as this is an empirical work that does not cover the whole forest-transition zone of West Africa.
- Introduction:
- There is complete lack of context and too many generalizations without a critical assessment of the current state of literature. I suggest to rewrite the introduction providing clear context on the research problem by engaging the contemporary literature on terrestrial carbon dynamics. This can help readers to appreciate the exact contribution of this work.
- Against the claims of the paper, there is no testable hypothesis provided. In line 74-75, the hypothesis of the paper is given as “…we hypothesized that the relationship between the stock of soil organic C and the stock of C in the uncultivated will not be identical in all land uses”, which is a statement of fact and not a hypothesis. It is indeed a historical fact that land use influence above and below ground C stocks. Also, this hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
- Materials and methods:
- I suppose the lack of context and a testable hypothesis in the introduction also affected this methods section. This is because, while it is clear that the sampling design of this work follow the LSDF design, it is largely unexplained as to how the aims of this work align with those of the LSDF, given that the original design was to provide baseline information for land degradation processes. Also, what are some of the unique features of the selected area that makes it useful and representative for the aims/objectives of the study. Which of these features are generalizable and which are not?
- In line 95, "The LDSF as it uses a nested hierarchical sampling design allows for the development of predictive models that has a global coverage without changing the local relevance", please explain.
- It is inadequate to state that "land use classification was done using a simplified version of the FAO Land cover classification system", please explain how and why it was implemented in this study? As it is, I fail to understand why a global classification system is used for such a small local study.
- Line 98-99, in which way is the contribution to SOC of annual crops different from that of perennial crops?
- Line 99-100, please explain how the data on the impacts of erosion, fire and grazing were collected? Also, be specific on the topographic features that were collected and how they were collected.
- What informed the reason for counting only trees that had a diameter of >2.5 cm and a height of >1.5? And why was the radius for tree data collection different in the annual croplands compared to the others?
- In section 2.3, line 122-124, was the pH of the soils measured? Because it is inadequate to assume that the values for some soils in other parts of West Africa will automatically apply to your own soils.
- Line 125-126, which specific packages in R (it is important for developers of such packages to be acknowledged whenever possible)
- Please add the information on the calibration plots (from the spectroscopy data) to the main paper, and not in the supplementary.
- How many soil samples were collected in total, and how many constituted the 15%? How representative was this 15% regarding the feature space?
- Line 125-132, this whole paragraph needs to be re-written to improve clarity.
- Line 140-144, please clarify and explain the basis for using bulk density values from Burkina Faso when the soils and the ecological conditions are so different. One would assume values from other neighboring countries with similar agroecological conditions might be applicable.
- It is largely unclear to me why the path analysis was used especially as there is no hypothesis to be tested. Obviously, the path analysis is a statistical analysis and so it should be part of the same section
- Results and discussion
- Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are quite basic information that should have been provided in the methods section or seem to be irrelevant to the work. Figure S1 is a table, not a figure. There is no table 1 in line 175.
- As to be expected the main finding was that SOC stocks vary with land use… of course they do. In Line 263-268, the argument to support the reason why perennial crops had on average higher SOC is weak and contradictory, please check.
- Bizzare conclusion: " Our results suggest that perennial crops cultivation and bushlands preservation in the forest – savanna transition zone of northeast Tiéningboué should be recommended for soil organic carbon preservation". It is quite difficult to draw such a conclusion from a single empirical study, please revise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-209-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ilboudo Tegawende Léa Jeanne, 12 Sep 2022
Dear Referee,
We thank you for your precious time in reviewing our paper " Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone (MS No.: egusphere-2022-209)".We appreciate your valuable comments that will help us improve our manuscript.
The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to provide the attached point-by-point responses for your comments and questions.
Thank you very much for your interest in this manuscript.Sincerely,
The authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-209', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2022
The preprint entitled “Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone” address an interesting issue as it is the evaluation of the impact of different land uses in are climate type and world region where limited research on the subject has been carried out. It also presents a valuable dataset, coming from a carefully planned field sample which might be of interest to the research community. The search for a land use dynamic model that could provide a scientific framework to their measurements it is also a relevant contribution of the manuscript. As such, the subject and objectives of the manuscript fits into the scope of SOIL and it is of potential interest to the field, particularly because it could contribute with a case study on the impact of different grazing strategies for a more sustainable use of grassland areas.
Despite this, the manuscript still presents some minor issues, in my view, which limits its relevance and preclude that the manuscript could be accepted for publication. Some of these issues are conceptual, while others (less relevant), are related to editorial issues.
I list below the conceptual issues.
1- The discussion part is too concise and does not depend into the fact that landscape/soil conditions is a major driver in determining land use, and in some extend management within the same land use. As part of the general improvement of the discussion section, I suggest to address this issue in more detail.
2- The dataset presents, as it is usual in this kind of large surveys, a large variability. Since the hypothesis to test depends on the ability of sampling to represent the soil properties of the plot I wonder how much of this variability for the land uses of density on non-cultivated trees (e.g. annual cropland) comes the variability in soil OC and TN that should be related to the distance to the tree, which according to the sampling method (see line 110) might be a relevant factor. This might be worth discussing in the manuscript, particularly when the higher variability in the regressions (see Figure 6) tend to appear in the land uses with lower non-cultivated tree density.
3- One of the land used (forest) has a very small number of samples (n=2) which might limit the statistical power of the analysis made on this land use. It will be a good idea to include some caveat on this in the result and discussion section, and comment its possible implications.
4- The authors are right, in my view, to claim that their hypothesis is validated for some land uses. In some areas of the world more skilled farmers or shepherds, tend to be also paying more attention to other positive landscape elements, like non-cultivated trees. Perhaps the authors want to consider this as potential underline factor in their discussion, particularly since this been true a more careful management of the grassland and cropland might be taking place.
5- Line 286. “… mainly driven…” I wonder if the authors want to qualify this statement. They have demonstrated that it is a major driver, given some of the other factors involved perhaps they want to qualify this statement.
6- The authors have developed a conceptual model to explain the dynamic evolution of the model that also might have implications for large scale exploratory analysis of SOC stock in the region. I wonder also if they also want to include this issue in the discussion and conclusions of their study.
There are other lesser questions regarded to editing issues that list below:
1- Line 64. There are also many studies in Mediterranean type of climate as compared to tropical regions in Africa.
2- Line 103. “main crop”. Does this mean that the non-cultivated tree has some use, e.g. wood occasionally? Please clarify
3- Line 110. Was proximity to the non-cultivate treed considered somehow in the land uses with low non-cultivated tree density?
4- Line 120. Indicate also the number of samples, not only the percentage.
5- Line 123. Some reference (or results of internal test) to validate this assumption?
6- Line 125- It is always better to indicate the chemical name not the commercial one.
7- Line 131 add regression y=mx+n in Figures S2, S3 and S4 to allow the reader to see possible biases as compared to the 1:1 line.
8- Line 143-145. It is a bit confusing. Did you use bulk density from measurements and coarse fragments (frag) from Hounkpatin el al. (2018) or both from Hounkptin et al. (2018)? Please clarify. Please revise titles of Table S2 to indicate this.
9- Line 154. I guess that Figure S4 should be Figure S5. Please revise.
10- Line 189 Table S3. Indicate what the numbers mean in the Table caption. I have another question. Why not statistical analysis has been carried out on Fire , Erosion…?
11- Line 171. Where the conditions for normal distribution and variance tested for proper use of ANOVA? Please indicate, or correct of needed.
12- Line 192. What do you mean by restrictions? That sampling could not be carried out because a rocky horizon was found? Please clarify. In Table 2 indicate n (number of samples) at each depth which can provide a glimpse on how many times this happened for any given depth.
13- Line 231, Section 3.5 An additional Figure showing the cumulate SOC and TN stock with depth should be included (it could go in Supplementary material or in Figures). It can help to provide a complementary view of your results and clarify the presentation. It should include an analysis of the statistical significance of differences in mean vales of SOC and TN stock which are not shown now.
For those reasons my recommendation to the editor is that this manuscript should be considered for possible publication in SOIL after the issues raised above have been addressed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-209-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ilboudo Tegawende Léa Jeanne, 12 Sep 2022
Dear Referee,
We thank you for your precious time in reviewing our paper " Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone (MS No.: egusphere-2022-209)".We appreciate your valuable comments that will help us improve our manuscript.
The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to provide the below point-by-point responses for your comments and questions.
Thank you very much for your interest in this manuscript.Sincerely,
The authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ilboudo Tegawende Léa Jeanne, 12 Sep 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-209', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 May 2022
General comments:
In light of the significant role played by tropical landscapes in sequestering atmospheric carbon (C), understanding the dynamics of above- and below-ground C stocks is essential to developing sustainable land use management in such regions. This paper was aimed at examining the relationship between stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and their surrounding soils in different land uses in a West African forest-savanna transition landscape. In spite of the fact that this aim is somewhat apparent in the paper's title (except the land use), it is extremely troubling that the paper fails to frame and thus address any specific problem regarding this relationship and to set forth a hypothesis for testing. The impact of land use (different configurations) on soil organic C stocks and their relationship has been adequately studied, so it is important for readers to know the gaps and how they can be resolved. As a result, I fear this paper lacks focus and is incoherent in content. This may be due, in part, to the weak definition of non-cultivated trees and its conceptual relation to land use. I find it challenging that such a class of trees are located even in forests and bushlands. Were the forests plantations? What is the area of influence of these non-cultivated trees in cultivated and non-cultivated fields? Were the soils sampled within this area of influence accordingly? Also, it should be noted that the study area (100 km2) is neither large enough nor its findings extrapolated to cover the Forest-Savanna transition in West African landscapes, despite the suggestion inherent in the title. There seems to be an unjustified attempt throughout the paper (e.g. the captions of the table and figures) to generalize its empirical findings to the entire West African region. This, along with the title of the manuscript, is misleading and inaccurate. Along with these flaws, the paper is also poorly written. In order to assess this manuscript for its rigor, it must be thoroughly edited for consistency in grammar and clarity. Even after reading the manuscript multiple times, it was still challenging evaluating the merit of the methodology and the conclusions and discussion, which I found shallow and poorly presented. Due to these factors, it is difficult to argue that this paper provides any new knowledge or makes any contribution to the current body of knowledge, especially on this fascinating topic of terrestrial C dynamics. In my opinion, this paper must be rewritten and resubmitted before it can be considered. I specify some concerns below for authors to consider when revising the paper.
- Abstract:
- There is no explicit statement on the objectives/aims/questions of the paper, and hence how they were achieved/answered. Also, be consistent on the study area as this is an empirical work that does not cover the whole forest-transition zone of West Africa.
- Introduction:
- There is complete lack of context and too many generalizations without a critical assessment of the current state of literature. I suggest to rewrite the introduction providing clear context on the research problem by engaging the contemporary literature on terrestrial carbon dynamics. This can help readers to appreciate the exact contribution of this work.
- Against the claims of the paper, there is no testable hypothesis provided. In line 74-75, the hypothesis of the paper is given as “…we hypothesized that the relationship between the stock of soil organic C and the stock of C in the uncultivated will not be identical in all land uses”, which is a statement of fact and not a hypothesis. It is indeed a historical fact that land use influence above and below ground C stocks. Also, this hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
- Materials and methods:
- I suppose the lack of context and a testable hypothesis in the introduction also affected this methods section. This is because, while it is clear that the sampling design of this work follow the LSDF design, it is largely unexplained as to how the aims of this work align with those of the LSDF, given that the original design was to provide baseline information for land degradation processes. Also, what are some of the unique features of the selected area that makes it useful and representative for the aims/objectives of the study. Which of these features are generalizable and which are not?
- In line 95, "The LDSF as it uses a nested hierarchical sampling design allows for the development of predictive models that has a global coverage without changing the local relevance", please explain.
- It is inadequate to state that "land use classification was done using a simplified version of the FAO Land cover classification system", please explain how and why it was implemented in this study? As it is, I fail to understand why a global classification system is used for such a small local study.
- Line 98-99, in which way is the contribution to SOC of annual crops different from that of perennial crops?
- Line 99-100, please explain how the data on the impacts of erosion, fire and grazing were collected? Also, be specific on the topographic features that were collected and how they were collected.
- What informed the reason for counting only trees that had a diameter of >2.5 cm and a height of >1.5? And why was the radius for tree data collection different in the annual croplands compared to the others?
- In section 2.3, line 122-124, was the pH of the soils measured? Because it is inadequate to assume that the values for some soils in other parts of West Africa will automatically apply to your own soils.
- Line 125-126, which specific packages in R (it is important for developers of such packages to be acknowledged whenever possible)
- Please add the information on the calibration plots (from the spectroscopy data) to the main paper, and not in the supplementary.
- How many soil samples were collected in total, and how many constituted the 15%? How representative was this 15% regarding the feature space?
- Line 125-132, this whole paragraph needs to be re-written to improve clarity.
- Line 140-144, please clarify and explain the basis for using bulk density values from Burkina Faso when the soils and the ecological conditions are so different. One would assume values from other neighboring countries with similar agroecological conditions might be applicable.
- It is largely unclear to me why the path analysis was used especially as there is no hypothesis to be tested. Obviously, the path analysis is a statistical analysis and so it should be part of the same section
- Results and discussion
- Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are quite basic information that should have been provided in the methods section or seem to be irrelevant to the work. Figure S1 is a table, not a figure. There is no table 1 in line 175.
- As to be expected the main finding was that SOC stocks vary with land use… of course they do. In Line 263-268, the argument to support the reason why perennial crops had on average higher SOC is weak and contradictory, please check.
- Bizzare conclusion: " Our results suggest that perennial crops cultivation and bushlands preservation in the forest – savanna transition zone of northeast Tiéningboué should be recommended for soil organic carbon preservation". It is quite difficult to draw such a conclusion from a single empirical study, please revise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-209-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ilboudo Tegawende Léa Jeanne, 12 Sep 2022
Dear Referee,
We thank you for your precious time in reviewing our paper " Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone (MS No.: egusphere-2022-209)".We appreciate your valuable comments that will help us improve our manuscript.
The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to provide the attached point-by-point responses for your comments and questions.
Thank you very much for your interest in this manuscript.Sincerely,
The authors
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-209', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2022
The preprint entitled “Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone” address an interesting issue as it is the evaluation of the impact of different land uses in are climate type and world region where limited research on the subject has been carried out. It also presents a valuable dataset, coming from a carefully planned field sample which might be of interest to the research community. The search for a land use dynamic model that could provide a scientific framework to their measurements it is also a relevant contribution of the manuscript. As such, the subject and objectives of the manuscript fits into the scope of SOIL and it is of potential interest to the field, particularly because it could contribute with a case study on the impact of different grazing strategies for a more sustainable use of grassland areas.
Despite this, the manuscript still presents some minor issues, in my view, which limits its relevance and preclude that the manuscript could be accepted for publication. Some of these issues are conceptual, while others (less relevant), are related to editorial issues.
I list below the conceptual issues.
1- The discussion part is too concise and does not depend into the fact that landscape/soil conditions is a major driver in determining land use, and in some extend management within the same land use. As part of the general improvement of the discussion section, I suggest to address this issue in more detail.
2- The dataset presents, as it is usual in this kind of large surveys, a large variability. Since the hypothesis to test depends on the ability of sampling to represent the soil properties of the plot I wonder how much of this variability for the land uses of density on non-cultivated trees (e.g. annual cropland) comes the variability in soil OC and TN that should be related to the distance to the tree, which according to the sampling method (see line 110) might be a relevant factor. This might be worth discussing in the manuscript, particularly when the higher variability in the regressions (see Figure 6) tend to appear in the land uses with lower non-cultivated tree density.
3- One of the land used (forest) has a very small number of samples (n=2) which might limit the statistical power of the analysis made on this land use. It will be a good idea to include some caveat on this in the result and discussion section, and comment its possible implications.
4- The authors are right, in my view, to claim that their hypothesis is validated for some land uses. In some areas of the world more skilled farmers or shepherds, tend to be also paying more attention to other positive landscape elements, like non-cultivated trees. Perhaps the authors want to consider this as potential underline factor in their discussion, particularly since this been true a more careful management of the grassland and cropland might be taking place.
5- Line 286. “… mainly driven…” I wonder if the authors want to qualify this statement. They have demonstrated that it is a major driver, given some of the other factors involved perhaps they want to qualify this statement.
6- The authors have developed a conceptual model to explain the dynamic evolution of the model that also might have implications for large scale exploratory analysis of SOC stock in the region. I wonder also if they also want to include this issue in the discussion and conclusions of their study.
There are other lesser questions regarded to editing issues that list below:
1- Line 64. There are also many studies in Mediterranean type of climate as compared to tropical regions in Africa.
2- Line 103. “main crop”. Does this mean that the non-cultivated tree has some use, e.g. wood occasionally? Please clarify
3- Line 110. Was proximity to the non-cultivate treed considered somehow in the land uses with low non-cultivated tree density?
4- Line 120. Indicate also the number of samples, not only the percentage.
5- Line 123. Some reference (or results of internal test) to validate this assumption?
6- Line 125- It is always better to indicate the chemical name not the commercial one.
7- Line 131 add regression y=mx+n in Figures S2, S3 and S4 to allow the reader to see possible biases as compared to the 1:1 line.
8- Line 143-145. It is a bit confusing. Did you use bulk density from measurements and coarse fragments (frag) from Hounkpatin el al. (2018) or both from Hounkptin et al. (2018)? Please clarify. Please revise titles of Table S2 to indicate this.
9- Line 154. I guess that Figure S4 should be Figure S5. Please revise.
10- Line 189 Table S3. Indicate what the numbers mean in the Table caption. I have another question. Why not statistical analysis has been carried out on Fire , Erosion…?
11- Line 171. Where the conditions for normal distribution and variance tested for proper use of ANOVA? Please indicate, or correct of needed.
12- Line 192. What do you mean by restrictions? That sampling could not be carried out because a rocky horizon was found? Please clarify. In Table 2 indicate n (number of samples) at each depth which can provide a glimpse on how many times this happened for any given depth.
13- Line 231, Section 3.5 An additional Figure showing the cumulate SOC and TN stock with depth should be included (it could go in Supplementary material or in Figures). It can help to provide a complementary view of your results and clarify the presentation. It should include an analysis of the statistical significance of differences in mean vales of SOC and TN stock which are not shown now.
For those reasons my recommendation to the editor is that this manuscript should be considered for possible publication in SOIL after the issues raised above have been addressed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-209-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ilboudo Tegawende Léa Jeanne, 12 Sep 2022
Dear Referee,
We thank you for your precious time in reviewing our paper " Relationship between the stocks of carbon in non-cultivated trees and soils in a West-African forest-savanna transition zone (MS No.: egusphere-2022-209)".We appreciate your valuable comments that will help us improve our manuscript.
The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to provide the below point-by-point responses for your comments and questions.
Thank you very much for your interest in this manuscript.Sincerely,
The authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ilboudo Tegawende Léa Jeanne, 12 Sep 2022
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 724 | 260 | 48 | 1,032 | 90 | 31 | 31 |
- HTML: 724
- PDF: 260
- XML: 48
- Total: 1,032
- Supplement: 90
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tegawende Léa Jeanne Ilboudo
Lucien NGuessan Diby
Delwendé Innocent Kiba
Tor Gunnar Vågen
Leigh Ann Winowiecki
Hassan Bismarck Nacro
Johan Six
Emmanuel Frossard
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(1193 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(669 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote