the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The Impact of Scoria-Filled Aeration Trenches on the N-cycle and Greenhouse Gases Emissions from a Clayey Soil
Abstract. Treated wastewater (TWW, i.e., treated effluents) is a growing water source. However, irrigation with TWW irrigation exacerbates oxygen deficiencies in the root zone, particularly in clayey soils. Coarse-textured filled trenches are used to ameliorate soil oxygen deficiencies in agriculture. This study aimed to investigate the impact of scoria-filled soil aeration trenches on nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from clayey soil irrigated with TWW. N2O and CO2 fluxes were measured in the field for three years, along with soil water content monitoring (10 and 35 cm depth) and porewater (30 cm depth) sampling. Irrigation and intense rain events led to transient (hours-long) near-saturation conditions in the clay soil. Concomitantly, the soil at the bottom of the trench remained saturated for prolonged periods, extending to days and even weeks. Nitrate was the dominant N-form and showed a seasonal trend with high concentrations (>50 mgL-1) between June and October. N2O fluxes were positively correlated with fertilizer applications, and fluxes from the trenches were higher throughout the year, with maximal differences during the winter. CO2 fluxes were higher from the trenches during the fertigation seasons yet lower during the winter. Simulation results of N2O fluxes showed higher fluctuation in the scoria-filled trenches following fertigation events. Further, it showed that filling the trench with finer medium, aimed to maximize the rate of water uptake by the trees' roots, increased the emissions maxima, dampening its minima. Overall, our study shows that aeration trenches may serve as N2O hotspots and that, during winter, they might be counterproductive. Further study is needed to find the optimal filling material that would maximize aeration yet minimize water build-up at the trench bottom.
- Preprint
(1172 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(337 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Oct 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2140', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Sep 2024
reply
General comments:
This work examines the influence of aeration trenches in planted orchards, on the trends of N2O and CO2 emissions. I find the manuscript interesting, and the team has performed an extensive long year study to capture dynamics at various timescales. My main concern is whether the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. It seems that the authors are over-interpreting some of the results, or drawing conclusions that are not entirely supported by their experimental data, or there are analyses missing that would have been beneficial for their explanations.
Another issue that harms the reader’s flow and understanding, is the choice of symbols and colors in the figures, also, there are multiple grammar and formatting errors.
Below are some specific comments that I hope will help refine the manuscript.
Specific comments:
Line 43 – Why do N2O levels peak at 60-80% water capacity? It would be helpful to add an explanation.
Line 51 – Why has this been done specifically for planted orchards?
It would also be helpful to add a sentence on the knowledge gaps and what this study is contributing to previous knowledge.
Line 66 – please make sure there is a space between number and unit. 6m should be 6 m.
Line 237 – I am not sure there is any trend in the N2O values, especially when considering the error bars.
Fig 3 – Perhaps consider using different symbols or colors so the differences between treatments are easier to follow. This is particularly important in panel 3D – the black circles and squares look identical.
Fig 4 – The symbols are confusing. It seems like the exact same symbol is given for Ctrl and Irrigation.
Line 239 – The period in 2018 is not identical with that of 2019-2020. Fig. 4 shows the data starting from July 2018. How was the statistical analysis done for this comparison?
Fig. 5 – What are the A, B and C referring to? The figure caption does not seem to correlate with the data presented. Please correct this.
Line 278 – the differences in N2O emissions between 2018 and subsequent years is intriguing. I think the authors should provide a more thorough discussion on potential reasons for this difference. Insights into the pathways of N2O formation would be helpful to explain this difference in more detail.
Line 315 – it would have been interesting to monitor dissolved oxygen levels in this experiment, or other redox indicators, as this would give vital information on the presence and extent of anaerobic conditions.
Line 322 – Please use correct formatting of numbers and units.
Line 325 – I am not sure the results are indicative of nitrite buildup. Are the authors referring to the five points where NO2 levels were higher? (Also, this sentence should be rephrased as it does not read well)
Line 353 – Where is the weekly scale data shown? Also, there are multiple factors that will influence CO2 emissions, and I am not sure one can simply attribute CO2 trends to nitrate concentrations. Having data at least of DOC and DIC would have been vital to better understand C dynamics.
Line 356 – “aeration teaches”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2140-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
81 | 17 | 11 | 109 | 10 | 7 | 9 |
- HTML: 81
- PDF: 17
- XML: 11
- Total: 109
- Supplement: 10
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1