the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Silicon isotopes in juvenile and mature Cyperus papyrus from the Okavango Delta, Botswana
Abstract. The three most abundant stable isotopes of Silicon (Si), 28Si, 29Si, and 30Si, all occur in plants. Isotope studies are a potential tool to explore uptake and function of plant Si, and it is a developing field. However, there is a lack of studies from natural environments, and species from the African continent, and all plant parts including reproductive structures. In this study, naturally grown papyrus plants were sampled from the Okavango Delta and divided into five organs, i.e. umbel, culm, scales, rhizome, and roots. Samples were analysed for TN, TOC, BSi, TP concentrations, and for Si isotopes. Each organ of papyrus is represented by two samples, one from juvenile tissue and one mature (apart from the roots where age is difficult to determine). The study confirms that papyrus is a high Si-accumulating species, with BSi ranging from 0.88 % in rhizomes to 6.61 % in roots. High Si precipitation in the roots leads to an enrichment in heavy Si isotopes in the residual mobile Si pool, as light Si isotopes precipitate in phytoliths in the roots, even though in this study phytoliths were identified for all organs except for roots. In papyrus, shoot organs gradually become enriched in heavy Si isotopes along the transpiration stream, with an increase in heavy isotopes from rhizomes to scales, culm, and umbel, same pattern that has been observed for other plants in literature.
- Preprint
(1497 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(107 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-225', Damien Cardinal, 24 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-225/egusphere-2024-225-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-225', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jun 2024
I would first like to apologize to the authors for the delay in handing my review in. I also would like to clarify that at this current stage of submitting my own review, I haven’t read yet the other reviewer’s comment, which I saw was already posted.
To summarize, this manuscript by Lodi et al. reports the C, N, P and Si content and Si isotope composition of plants (Cyperus papyrus) collected in the Okavango Delta in Botswana. The study focuses on characterising those chemical signatures in various plant parts of both juvenile and mature individuals, with the aim to contribute to a better understanding of the Si cycling in wetland environments in general, and in particular in the Okavango Delta system, where this cycling is thought to be very dynamic in particular through the role of Si accumulating species.
The manuscript is properly organized, with acceptable phrasing (which could be improved at places still), and the analytical methods seem robust. Generally speaking, any study providing a refined understanding of Si biological cycling at the Earth surface, and/or of how Si isotopes fractionate during absorption by (and transport through) plants is timely and of interest to a wide audience, and potentially appropriate for publication in Biogeosciences.
However, I fail to identify the scientific question(s) this particular manuscript is asking. As an example, the end of the introduction states that the authors “sought to (1) Quantify the amounts of
macronutrients, including Si, in papyrus plant parts, and (2) Explore Si isotope distribution/fractionation in papyrus plants.” I don’t think either of the two makes for a sound scientific question, as (1) is merely about measuring concentrations of elements; and (2) is unclear (what does it mean “to explore” exactly?).I have more specific comments below, but I do think that as it stands this study is more of a data report. Note that this is not to dismiss the time and effort that went into this work, which I think features a very nice dataset that can be useful to the community. I think that if the authors still want to go ahead with a publication in something like Biogeosciences, this would require clarification of the scientific questions, and a more thorough investigation of e.g. a) the mechanisms at play in Si absorption and translocation in the targeted plants, and/or b) the ecosystem-scale Si fluxes involved in the context of the Okavango Delta.
***** Specific comments *****- l. 36: I don’t think “Silicon” needs to be capitalised.
- l. 39: “had been” - > “has been”.
- l. 67-69: The word “important” is repeated 3 times.
- l. 75-76: Two occurrences of “big”, for which the authors might prefer “large” or some other word.
- l. 77: “uptakes” -> “takes up”.
- Figure 1 could be made more informative, with DEM as background for example.
- l. 88: It says here that 10 plant samples were collected, but it remains unclear to me whether each of these samples was split for the different plant parts and analysed separately, or whether a selection only was analysed (and if yes, all from the same plant or across individuals?), or whether a “composite” was made…? This is important to understand what the numbers reported in the Results section (and in e.g. Fig. 3) mean (are they average? If yes this should be mention together with S.D. and n). Maybe this is something I missed in the text.
- l. 111: Use subscripts in “Na2CO3” (as l. 107).
- l. 177: Shouldn’t “C. papyrus” be italicised?
- l. 182-186: Is it reasonable to have two digits for the TOC numbers here?
- Figure 4: The way the Frings et al. (2014) data is represented in panel c is slightly misleading: I think it should just be a rectangle extending ~55 -> ~110 on the X-axis and ~-0.5 -> 1.1 on the Y-axis.
- l. 266: I don’t understand this statement: how could there be a “linear relationship between d30Si and plant part”? The latter is not a quantitative parameters… Also, why would such a linear relationship tell us that the transport os Si in papyrus is “conservative”, and what is meant by “conservative” in this context?
- l. 275: Two occurrences of “numerous” in the same line.
- l. 274-279: Do the authors mean that if present, phytoliths were removed by the cleaning steps? It is not stated clearly.
- l. 316: What does “shift from decreasing to increasing available DSi” mean?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-225-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
233 | 70 | 21 | 324 | 37 | 12 | 15 |
- HTML: 233
- PDF: 70
- XML: 21
- Total: 324
- Supplement: 37
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1