the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Mar 2024
Soil organic matter interactions along the elevation gradient of the James Ross Island (Antarctica)
Abstract. Around half of the Earth’s soil organic carbon (SOC) is presently stored in the Northern permafrost region. In polar permafrost regions, low temperatures particularly inhibit both the production and biodegradation of organic matter. In such conditions, abiotic factors such as mesoclimate, pedogenic substrate or altitude are thought to be more important for soil development than biological factors. In Antarctica, biological factors are generally underestimated in soil development due to the rare occurrence of higher plants and the short time since deglaciation. In this study, we aim to assess the relationship between SOC and other soil properties related to the pedogenic factors or properties. Nine plots were investigated along the altitudinal gradient from 10 to 320 m at the deglaciated area of James Ross Island (Ulu Peninsula) with a parallel tea-bag soil proteins (EE-GRSP; Spearman r = 0.733, P=0.031) and the soil buffer capacity (expressed as a ΔpH; Spearman r = 0.817, P=0.011). The soil available P was negatively correlated with altitude (Spearman r = -0.711, P=0.032) and the exchangeable Mg was negatively correlated to the content of rock fragments (Spearman r = -0.683, P=0.050)No correlation was found between the available mineral nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg) and SOC nor GRSP. This may be a consequence of the inhibition of biologically mediated nutrient cycling in the soil. Therefore, the main factor influencing nutrient availability in these soils decomposition experiment. SOC contents showed a positive correlation with the contents of easily extractable glomalin-related seems to be not the biotic, but rather the abiotic environment influencing the mesoclimate (altitude) or the level of weathering (rock content). Incubation in tea bags for 45 days resulted in the consumption and/or translocation of more labile polyphenolic and water-extractable organic matter, along with changes in C content (increase of up to +0.53 % or decrease of up to -1.31 % C) and a decrease in the C:N ratio (from 12.5 to 7.1–10.2), probably due to microbial respiration and an increase in the abundance of nitrogen binding microorganisms. Our findings suggest that one of the main variables influencing SOC/GRSP content is not altitude or coarse fraction content (whose correlation with SOC/GRSP were not found) but probably other factors that are difficult to quantify, such as the availability of liquid water.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1022 KB)
-
Supplement
(3319 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1022 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3319 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-607', Ondřej Keresteš, 03 May 2024
Dear authors,
This study is very thorough. However, my recommendation would be the addition of the date of sampling. This is missing in the manuscript and it could potentially be very useful for future studies to be done by other authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 03 May 2024
Dear Mr. Kerestes, thank you for the substantive comment, the work was created from the data sets of the 2019 and 2020 expeditions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 03 May 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-607', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 May 2024
Soil organic matter interactions along the elevation gradient of the James Ross Island (Antarctica)
This manuscript examines SOM interactions on James Ross Island, Antarctica, focusing on SOC, GRSP, P, and microbial activities across altitudes. It provides insightful data on how extreme polar conditions affect soil C dynamics, contributing to our understanding of carbon sequestration processes in polar ecosystems. Despite its promising contributions, the manuscript would benefit from further refinement in areas such as methodological descriptions, statistical analyses, and discussion to enhance overall clarity and impact.
The introduction of this manuscript could benefit from a clearer connection between global soil C significance and the specific contexts of Antarctic soils. Currently, the introductory section opens with a sentence that seems unrelated to the central theme of the research (L39), which might distract from the focal point of the study. By consolidating the first and second paragraphs into a more cohesive unit, the narrative could be strengthened, thus providing a clearer justification for the research focus.
Materials and Methods:
- Please verify and standardize subscript and superscript usage throughout this section to maintain consistency.
- It is essential to specify the number of soil samples collected at each site. Detailing this information will strengthen the study's replicability and statistical validation.
- Section 2.3 lacks details on soil C and N testing methodologies.
- The absence of ANOVA or similar statistical tests to analyze data variability among elevation gradients and treatments should be addressed.
- The inclusion of delta pH in the statistical analysis needs reevaluation.
- I have not seen papers using the difference between pHH2O and pHKCl as an indicator of soil buffering capacity. I am not saying that’s incorrect, but an explanatory experiment or references justifying this approach would be beneficial.
- Please use built-in functions for equations like this (Δ[H+] = 10^(-pHKCl)–10^(-pHwater)) to enhance readability.
Results:
- Inclusion of statistical significance and standard error details in Tables 2-4 is necessary to substantiate the research findings.
- For Table 2:
- the symbols (***, **, *) generally used to denote statistical significance. Please consider used other symbols to avoid any potential confusion;
- The term "coarse fractions" needs to be specified—do these refer to gravels or sands?
- M&M does not address the presence of total N explicitly. If total N is measured, does and how SOC is measured? In addition, I don’t really understand why SOC is in Table 3 instead of Table 2. I think Table 2 and some parts of Table 3 should be combined or represent their data through a figure that illustrates changes across elevation gradients.
- The rationale for displaying both ∆pH and ∆[H+] is unclear. The expression 10^(-5.80) may not be readily interpretable by all readers.
- Table 3: Please specify what "N" stands for—is it referring to soil total N?
- Figures 3 and 4: captions should be positioned underneath the figures.
Discussion:
- L271-273 redundantly states the last part of Introduction.
- L286: I think another important thing that could be mentioned is P has low mobility. Apatite has calcium. If the decrease in weathering intensity of apatite is indeed the cause behind the correlation observed between Melich-3-P and altitude, then why is it that we do not observe a similar correlation between altitude and available Ca?
- While the manuscript provides data on total N, the discussion on N cycling is notably brief. Given the unique environmental conditions of Antarctica, incorporating a detailed analysis of N transformations could significantly enhance the understanding of nutrient dynamics in polar ecosystems. The effects of Antarctic conditions, such as low SOM concentrations and C/N inputs, along with the ecological influences of freeze-thaw cycles and seabird activities, warrant deeper exploration.
- Something about Table 3:
- I didn’t find any linear curve in Table 3 (L300).
- The most important data in this study were in Tables 2-4 and Figure 2. I do think the authors have spaces to provide more in-depth relationship of measured parameters, like presenting the linear curve mentioned in L300.
- By just looking at numerical values in Table 3, I felt the deviation of the conversion factor would be large. The authors should also provide R2 and p-value of the regression lines.
- Another question is, is C in GRSP not part of SOC? The authors didn’t provide information about C (and SOM) analysis in M&Ms, but I think GRSP is part of SOC for dry combustion analysis. If C analysis approach in this study is not the most common approach, does it make sense to compare the conversion factor to studies with different SOC/SOM measurement method?
- I am not sure how to interpret Fig 4 to get this statement “OM decomposition was linked with microbial activity”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 29 May 2024
Thank you for your important comments. In the following text I will keep a similar structure (for clarity).
Materials and Methods:
- Thank you for the warning, there were errors in the conversion to template.
- The following samples were collected as part of the measurements: - soil (before the start of the TBI experiment - tea bag index), soil (after the end of the experiment) and tea samples (= standardized organic matter used for incubation - tea 89% Lipton Unilever green tea according to Keuskamp et al., 2013; EAN: 8714100770542) after incubation. For tea, 3pcs of tea bags per plot were used.
- Soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen were analysed by thermogravimetry (Section 2.4.1).
- basic statictics Phosphorus vs. altitude, SOC vs. ΔpH and GRSP vs. SOC see attach.
5+6. δpH or ∆pH were used in:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.03.009
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.e00185
- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1407-2021
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 29 May 2024
Results
2. For Table 2:
- we accept the objection, other markings should be used.
- Coarse fraction are particles larger than 2mm (= soil skeleton).
- Total nitrogen was measured by thermogravimetry (as one of the elements C, H, O, N). Merging Tables 2 and 3 was an option. We have chosen to have two tables for clarity, with one side showing the "site potential" for available nutrients, pH, thermogravimetry nitrogen (converted to mg/kg), skeleton amount, etc. The table 3 shows the results of the analyses for organic matter and losses in each temperature range. Nitrogen in Tables 2 and 3 is therefore only in different units, this is to clarify the information in the individual tables.
- The pH refers to the hydrogen ion concentration, and when evaluating the ∆pH, it will make a difference whether we subtract two concentrations in the neutral region or two concentrations in the acidic region (if we subtract pH 6.5 and 7.0 or 4.5 and 5.0, the ∆pH will be -0.5 in both cases; however, if we subtract individual hydrogen ion concentrations, the result of the two zones will be different). It is an attempt to distinguish areas with different microbial activity based on chemical properties.
3. Table 3 referred to soil nitrogen from thermogravimetry so total nitrogen.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 30 May 2024
Discussion
2. If calcium came only from weathering apatite, a correlation with elevation (as with phosphorus) would be expected. However, calcium, as one of the macro-elements, is present in the environment in large quantities for example in silicates minerals (Feldspars). The measured calcium concentration, which is more than two orders of magnitude higher (3000-11000 mg/kg Ca vs. 5 - 37 mg/kg P) than that of phosphorus, corresponds to this.
3. I agree with the potential of nitrogen as an element. Although its levels in the environment are very low. Though we assume that it is (as with phosphorus) one of the limits that any community encounters. However, in terms of statistics, this element did not provide significant correlations.
4. Both GRSP and EEGRSP are part of soil organic matter (SOM). However, we wanted to determine, by correlating with other properties, how much of a substantial part of SOM it is.
5. Part of the changes in TBI analysis can be (at least partly) attributed to thaw/freeze cycles or liquid water accessibility (reduction of water extractables compounds). But, we believe that to the most significant changes have occurred through microbial decomposition (changes in polyphenols, increase in N-content, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC4
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-607', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jul 2024
Dear colleagues,
I had a privilige to review a manuscript titled "Soil organic matter interactions along the elevation gradient of the James Ross Island (Antarctica)", which presents important study of soil organic matter in Maritime Antarctica region.
Despite, soil organic matter is quite studied topic in soil science, still only few research exists dedicated to complex investigationn of soil organic matter in Antarctic soils. It is also worth to note that the carbon stocks in Antarctica are underestimated compared to the Arctic due to the lack of data on many parts of this continent due to the high occurrence of rocky soils, as well as the high variability of the carbon content in
fine-earth material. This also highlight the importance of the abovementioned submission, since every single work providing assessment of carbon content in Antarctic soils is vital for delineating the stocks along the sixth continent as well as its changes along the latitudinal, longitudinal gradients and different landscapes. For example, current estimates report the stocks of organic carbon in Antarctic soil are 0.5 kg m2 100 in polar deserts, about 1.0 kg m2 in barrens, up to 3-5 kg m2 in subantarctic tundra and up to 30 kg m2 in localities under penguin nesting sites in Maritime Antarctica.
I believe that this article is worth publishing in the journal. The experimental design of this paper is clear and understandable, all the goals highlights the importance of provided results. However, some minor revision is needed. My comments are below:
1. Could you please try to combine Results and Discussion into one chapter, so it will be easier for readers to follow the discussion after the respective results (which are many and of great importance for soil and permafrost communitym and not only for them!)
2. Please think about performing (if possible) some detailed SOM molecular study, i.e. 13C-NMR or FTIR, to show the difference in molecular composition in soil organic matter along the studied environmental gradient. This is also imprtant for assessment of stability of organic matter and for assessment of current and potential stocks of organic carbon and related to the degree of humification in Antarctic soils.3. Please try to expand the "Conclusions" part, since in the present form there are less conclusions than results provided in the manuscript (which are of course worth to be explained as Conclsuions of the presented work).
I would be pleased to review the revised manuscript and see it published in the journal in near future.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-RC2 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Vitezslav Vlcek, 12 Aug 2024
1. Thank you for the suggestion. We acknowledge the potential benefits of combining the Results and Discussion into one chapter for improved readability. However, to maintain clarity and focus, particularly given the significance of the results, we have kept them separate. This structure allows for a clear presentation of the data followed by a thorough analysis.
2. We recognize the value of conducting detailed SOM molecular studies, such as 13C-NMR or FTIR, to better understand the molecular composition and stability of organic matter along the environmental gradient. However, due to current resource and logistical constraints, we were unable to perform these analyses in this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Vitezslav Vlcek, 12 Aug 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-607', Ondřej Keresteš, 03 May 2024
Dear authors,
This study is very thorough. However, my recommendation would be the addition of the date of sampling. This is missing in the manuscript and it could potentially be very useful for future studies to be done by other authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 03 May 2024
Dear Mr. Kerestes, thank you for the substantive comment, the work was created from the data sets of the 2019 and 2020 expeditions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 03 May 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-607', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 May 2024
Soil organic matter interactions along the elevation gradient of the James Ross Island (Antarctica)
This manuscript examines SOM interactions on James Ross Island, Antarctica, focusing on SOC, GRSP, P, and microbial activities across altitudes. It provides insightful data on how extreme polar conditions affect soil C dynamics, contributing to our understanding of carbon sequestration processes in polar ecosystems. Despite its promising contributions, the manuscript would benefit from further refinement in areas such as methodological descriptions, statistical analyses, and discussion to enhance overall clarity and impact.
The introduction of this manuscript could benefit from a clearer connection between global soil C significance and the specific contexts of Antarctic soils. Currently, the introductory section opens with a sentence that seems unrelated to the central theme of the research (L39), which might distract from the focal point of the study. By consolidating the first and second paragraphs into a more cohesive unit, the narrative could be strengthened, thus providing a clearer justification for the research focus.
Materials and Methods:
- Please verify and standardize subscript and superscript usage throughout this section to maintain consistency.
- It is essential to specify the number of soil samples collected at each site. Detailing this information will strengthen the study's replicability and statistical validation.
- Section 2.3 lacks details on soil C and N testing methodologies.
- The absence of ANOVA or similar statistical tests to analyze data variability among elevation gradients and treatments should be addressed.
- The inclusion of delta pH in the statistical analysis needs reevaluation.
- I have not seen papers using the difference between pHH2O and pHKCl as an indicator of soil buffering capacity. I am not saying that’s incorrect, but an explanatory experiment or references justifying this approach would be beneficial.
- Please use built-in functions for equations like this (Δ[H+] = 10^(-pHKCl)–10^(-pHwater)) to enhance readability.
Results:
- Inclusion of statistical significance and standard error details in Tables 2-4 is necessary to substantiate the research findings.
- For Table 2:
- the symbols (***, **, *) generally used to denote statistical significance. Please consider used other symbols to avoid any potential confusion;
- The term "coarse fractions" needs to be specified—do these refer to gravels or sands?
- M&M does not address the presence of total N explicitly. If total N is measured, does and how SOC is measured? In addition, I don’t really understand why SOC is in Table 3 instead of Table 2. I think Table 2 and some parts of Table 3 should be combined or represent their data through a figure that illustrates changes across elevation gradients.
- The rationale for displaying both ∆pH and ∆[H+] is unclear. The expression 10^(-5.80) may not be readily interpretable by all readers.
- Table 3: Please specify what "N" stands for—is it referring to soil total N?
- Figures 3 and 4: captions should be positioned underneath the figures.
Discussion:
- L271-273 redundantly states the last part of Introduction.
- L286: I think another important thing that could be mentioned is P has low mobility. Apatite has calcium. If the decrease in weathering intensity of apatite is indeed the cause behind the correlation observed between Melich-3-P and altitude, then why is it that we do not observe a similar correlation between altitude and available Ca?
- While the manuscript provides data on total N, the discussion on N cycling is notably brief. Given the unique environmental conditions of Antarctica, incorporating a detailed analysis of N transformations could significantly enhance the understanding of nutrient dynamics in polar ecosystems. The effects of Antarctic conditions, such as low SOM concentrations and C/N inputs, along with the ecological influences of freeze-thaw cycles and seabird activities, warrant deeper exploration.
- Something about Table 3:
- I didn’t find any linear curve in Table 3 (L300).
- The most important data in this study were in Tables 2-4 and Figure 2. I do think the authors have spaces to provide more in-depth relationship of measured parameters, like presenting the linear curve mentioned in L300.
- By just looking at numerical values in Table 3, I felt the deviation of the conversion factor would be large. The authors should also provide R2 and p-value of the regression lines.
- Another question is, is C in GRSP not part of SOC? The authors didn’t provide information about C (and SOM) analysis in M&Ms, but I think GRSP is part of SOC for dry combustion analysis. If C analysis approach in this study is not the most common approach, does it make sense to compare the conversion factor to studies with different SOC/SOM measurement method?
- I am not sure how to interpret Fig 4 to get this statement “OM decomposition was linked with microbial activity”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 29 May 2024
Thank you for your important comments. In the following text I will keep a similar structure (for clarity).
Materials and Methods:
- Thank you for the warning, there were errors in the conversion to template.
- The following samples were collected as part of the measurements: - soil (before the start of the TBI experiment - tea bag index), soil (after the end of the experiment) and tea samples (= standardized organic matter used for incubation - tea 89% Lipton Unilever green tea according to Keuskamp et al., 2013; EAN: 8714100770542) after incubation. For tea, 3pcs of tea bags per plot were used.
- Soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen were analysed by thermogravimetry (Section 2.4.1).
- basic statictics Phosphorus vs. altitude, SOC vs. ΔpH and GRSP vs. SOC see attach.
5+6. δpH or ∆pH were used in:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.03.009
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.e00185
- https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-1407-2021
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 29 May 2024
Results
2. For Table 2:
- we accept the objection, other markings should be used.
- Coarse fraction are particles larger than 2mm (= soil skeleton).
- Total nitrogen was measured by thermogravimetry (as one of the elements C, H, O, N). Merging Tables 2 and 3 was an option. We have chosen to have two tables for clarity, with one side showing the "site potential" for available nutrients, pH, thermogravimetry nitrogen (converted to mg/kg), skeleton amount, etc. The table 3 shows the results of the analyses for organic matter and losses in each temperature range. Nitrogen in Tables 2 and 3 is therefore only in different units, this is to clarify the information in the individual tables.
- The pH refers to the hydrogen ion concentration, and when evaluating the ∆pH, it will make a difference whether we subtract two concentrations in the neutral region or two concentrations in the acidic region (if we subtract pH 6.5 and 7.0 or 4.5 and 5.0, the ∆pH will be -0.5 in both cases; however, if we subtract individual hydrogen ion concentrations, the result of the two zones will be different). It is an attempt to distinguish areas with different microbial activity based on chemical properties.
3. Table 3 referred to soil nitrogen from thermogravimetry so total nitrogen.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Vitezslav Vlcek, 30 May 2024
Discussion
2. If calcium came only from weathering apatite, a correlation with elevation (as with phosphorus) would be expected. However, calcium, as one of the macro-elements, is present in the environment in large quantities for example in silicates minerals (Feldspars). The measured calcium concentration, which is more than two orders of magnitude higher (3000-11000 mg/kg Ca vs. 5 - 37 mg/kg P) than that of phosphorus, corresponds to this.
3. I agree with the potential of nitrogen as an element. Although its levels in the environment are very low. Though we assume that it is (as with phosphorus) one of the limits that any community encounters. However, in terms of statistics, this element did not provide significant correlations.
4. Both GRSP and EEGRSP are part of soil organic matter (SOM). However, we wanted to determine, by correlating with other properties, how much of a substantial part of SOM it is.
5. Part of the changes in TBI analysis can be (at least partly) attributed to thaw/freeze cycles or liquid water accessibility (reduction of water extractables compounds). But, we believe that to the most significant changes have occurred through microbial decomposition (changes in polyphenols, increase in N-content, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC4
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-607', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jul 2024
Dear colleagues,
I had a privilige to review a manuscript titled "Soil organic matter interactions along the elevation gradient of the James Ross Island (Antarctica)", which presents important study of soil organic matter in Maritime Antarctica region.
Despite, soil organic matter is quite studied topic in soil science, still only few research exists dedicated to complex investigationn of soil organic matter in Antarctic soils. It is also worth to note that the carbon stocks in Antarctica are underestimated compared to the Arctic due to the lack of data on many parts of this continent due to the high occurrence of rocky soils, as well as the high variability of the carbon content in
fine-earth material. This also highlight the importance of the abovementioned submission, since every single work providing assessment of carbon content in Antarctic soils is vital for delineating the stocks along the sixth continent as well as its changes along the latitudinal, longitudinal gradients and different landscapes. For example, current estimates report the stocks of organic carbon in Antarctic soil are 0.5 kg m2 100 in polar deserts, about 1.0 kg m2 in barrens, up to 3-5 kg m2 in subantarctic tundra and up to 30 kg m2 in localities under penguin nesting sites in Maritime Antarctica.
I believe that this article is worth publishing in the journal. The experimental design of this paper is clear and understandable, all the goals highlights the importance of provided results. However, some minor revision is needed. My comments are below:
1. Could you please try to combine Results and Discussion into one chapter, so it will be easier for readers to follow the discussion after the respective results (which are many and of great importance for soil and permafrost communitym and not only for them!)
2. Please think about performing (if possible) some detailed SOM molecular study, i.e. 13C-NMR or FTIR, to show the difference in molecular composition in soil organic matter along the studied environmental gradient. This is also imprtant for assessment of stability of organic matter and for assessment of current and potential stocks of organic carbon and related to the degree of humification in Antarctic soils.3. Please try to expand the "Conclusions" part, since in the present form there are less conclusions than results provided in the manuscript (which are of course worth to be explained as Conclsuions of the presented work).
I would be pleased to review the revised manuscript and see it published in the journal in near future.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-RC2 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Vitezslav Vlcek, 12 Aug 2024
1. Thank you for the suggestion. We acknowledge the potential benefits of combining the Results and Discussion into one chapter for improved readability. However, to maintain clarity and focus, particularly given the significance of the results, we have kept them separate. This structure allows for a clear presentation of the data followed by a thorough analysis.
2. We recognize the value of conducting detailed SOM molecular studies, such as 13C-NMR or FTIR, to better understand the molecular composition and stability of organic matter along the environmental gradient. However, due to current resource and logistical constraints, we were unable to perform these analyses in this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-607-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Vitezslav Vlcek, 12 Aug 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 402 | 100 | 43 | 545 | 38 | 31 | 40 |
- HTML: 402
- PDF: 100
- XML: 43
- Total: 545
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 40
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
David Juřička
Martin Valtera
Helena Dvořáčková
Vojtěch Štulc
Michaela Bednaříková
Jana Šimečková
Peter Váczi
Miroslav Pohanka
Pavel Kapler
Miloš Barták
Vojtěch Enev
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1022 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3319 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper