the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Changes in carbon functional groups and their in situ microscale distribution under long-term continuous cropping
Abstract. Land use change is causing substantial loss of soil organic carbon (SOC). However, little is known regarding how this loss of SOC influences the composition of carbon (C) functional groups and their microscale distribution, with this being critical to the protection and storage of SOC. In this study, we examined the mechanisms influencing preservation of C forms and their distribution by comparing soils under native vegetation and cropping at two Australian sites, Waco black Vertisol (70 y cropping) and Langlands-Logie grey Vertisol (10 y cropping). Land use change caused the loss of up to 23 % (5.3 mg C g-1 soil) of bulk SOC. Strikingly, the greatest loss occurred in the mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC) fraction that accounted for 72–91 % of total SOC. Interestingly, despite losing up to 23 % of the bulk SOC, the C that remained after long-term cropping was similar in speciation to that in the native soils revealed by near edge X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy. In a similar manner, the use of infrared microspectroscopy showed that the forms of C remained similar in the two land uses and that C was closely associated with clay minerals. This suggests that the SOC loss from mineral fraction was not due to preferential consumption of particular forms of carbon, but rather, an overall loss of SOC in the mineral fractions and an increase in overall lability. These observations provide critical evidence that preservation of SOC is not driven by increasing compositional diversity or complexity in these Vertisols and that physical protection of C is of importance. Potential exists to rebuild SOC in the mineral-associated fraction under cropping. Management practices should promote the building of organo-mineral associations.
- Preprint
(2252 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(550 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-100', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2025
The authors present the results of a study investigating changes in soil C chemical composition in two Vertisols following land-use conversion from grassland/forest to cropping. These changes were analyzed using synchrotron-based near edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spectroscopy and infrared microspectroscopy (IRM). The results suggest that soil C depletion occurs primarily through the loss of MAOC and oPOC, while the distribution of C functional groups remains relatively unaffected. The authors conclude that this indicates that the C preservation is primarily driven by physical occlusion rather than by the presence of chemically recalcitrant functional groups resistant to degradation.
I’ve read the manuscript with great interest and personally appreciate the study’s outcome, as it aligns with my understanding of C loss dynamics in soils. However, I am somewhat skeptical about the generality of the results. In the infrared microspectroscopy analysis, you only examined microaggregates, which, by definition, are soil structures that preserve C through physical occlusion. Moreover, since your microaggregates were isolated by dry sieving, you inherently selected the most stable ones. This introduces a bias in your sample set—essentially, you have demonstrated that C within stable microaggregates is physically protected, which is expected. If you selectively analyze physically stable microaggregates, it is not surprising that the C within them remains protected, and consequently, the functional groups remain unchanged. However, the C outside of these microaggregates—i.e., non-physically stabilized C—may undergo different transformations.
The relatively “fresh” nature of the C stored in the microaggregates, indicated by the abundance of carboxylic groups and O-alkyl C, also suggests that the C within them is physically rather than chemically protected. I do not doubt the importance of physical protection, but I believe that non-physically stabilized C also plays a role in SOC dynamics, which is largely overlooked in this study. Could you incorporate some discussion on this to provide a more comprehensive picture?
I believe your conclusions are valid, but physical protection is not the only mechanism at play. Your study specifically confirms the storage mechanism within microaggregates, which were the only structures analyzed, rather than in the soil as a whole. Can you elaborate on this distinction? If I have misunderstood anything, please clarify.
Regarding the NEXAFS analysis, which examined bulk soil, all tested soils were Vertisols with high clay content (around 50% and 75% clay). Given these properties, it is not surprising that physical protection emerges as the dominant mechanism for C storage. I suggest explicitly stating in the discussion that your findings are limited to clay-rich soils and predominantly reflect C storage within microaggregates.
One other major concern—if I understood correctly, the samples were collected in 1986 (L.84) and stored at 4°C (L.103) until analysis. Is this accurate? While refrigeration at 4°C slows microbial decomposition, it does not completely prevent it. How can you be sure that the chemical composition of soil organic matter, particularly the functional groups, has remained unchanged after nearly 40 years of storage? If I have misunderstood, please clarify this in the manuscript.
Overall, the manuscript is extremely well written and easy to follow. I’ve read it with great interest. The data is presented transparently, and the methods are well described. I consider the paper suitable for publication after the comments have been addressed.
More specific comments:
L.370: There is a grammatical issue in the sentence.
L.435: "For the first time"—this is neither accurate nor necessary to highlight the importance of your work. I suggest removing this phrase.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhe H. Weng, 27 Apr 2025
We thank the Reviewer for their time and for assisting us improve the manuscript through their constructive feedback.
1. Regarding the selection of microaggregates for infrared microspectroscopy analysis, this is an established method for sample selection for microscopic analysis (Lehmann et al., 2008; Hernandez-Soriano et al., 2018; Hondroudakis et al., 2024; Weng et al., 2024). However, we agree with the reviewer that there is limitation in selecting physically stable microaggregates. Nevertheless, this is the focus of this study to assess and validate one of the storage mechanisms in microaggregates. We will discuss other mechanisms beyond physical protection as suggested by the Reviewer.
2. We agree with the reviewer and will incorporate further discussion on the role of non-physically stabilized C in SOC dynamics to provide a more comprehensive picture.
3. The Reviewer seeks clarification in conclusion. We will elaborate on the distinction between microaggregates and the soil as a whole.
4. Regarding the NEXAFS analysis, we will explicitly state in the discussion that our findings are limited to clay-rich soils and predominantly reflect C storage within microaggregates as suggested by the Reviewer
5. We will further clarify the sample storage in the method as requested by the Reviewer.
6. Comment regarding Line 370: We will correct the grammatical issue in the sentence.
7. Comment regarding Line 435: We will remove the phrase “For the first time”.
Reference:
Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Dathe, L., Wirick, S., & Jacobsen, C. (2008). Spatial complexity of soil organic matter forms at nanometre scales. Nature Geoscience, 1(4), 238-242.
Hernandez-Soriano, M. C., Dalal, R. C., Warren, F. J., Wang, P., Green, K., Tobin, M. J., ... & Kopittke, P. M. (2018). Soil organic carbon stabilization: Mapping carbon speciation from intact microaggregates. Environmental science & technology, 52(21), 12275-12284.
Hondroudakis, L., Kopittke, P. M., Dalal, R. C., Barnard, M., & Weng, Z. H. (2024). The influence of land use and management on the behaviour and persistence of soil organic carbon in a subtropical Ferralsol. Soil, 10(2), 451-465.
Weng, Z. H., Kopittke, P. M., Schweizer, S., Jin, J., Armstrong, R., Rose, M., ... & Tang, C. (2024). Shining a Light on How Soil Organic Carbon Behaves at Fine Scales under Long-Term Elevated CO2: An 8 Year Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Study. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(20), 8724-8735.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhe H. Weng, 27 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-100', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2025
The manuscript by Zhe H. Weng examines the response of soil carbon and nitrogen to land-use changes by comparing two subtropical sites in Australia that were converted to cropland. One site was previously grassland, while the other was forest. The authors used state-of-the-art methods, including density fractionation, near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy, and infrared microspectroscopy, to provide a comprehensive analysis of soil organic carbon characteristics.
The study’s main findings are that soil carbon decreased following land-use transformation, with this loss occurring primarily in the mineral-associated fraction—the fraction that plays a crucial role in organic matter stability. Given its methodological rigor, this study has great potential to enhance our understanding of soil carbon responses to land-use changes, a timely and societally relevant topic. However, I have several major concerns regarding the study design, presentation of methods, and formulation of the scientific motivation:
- Lack of clear scientific motivation and hypotheses: The introduction is highly technical, with a strong focus on methods rather than clearly defining the research gaps and open questions. As a result, it is unclear how the authors developed their specific hypotheses.
- Incomplete methods description: Some methodological aspects are not well explained, leading to inconsistencies between the methods section and the rest of the manuscript.
- Sampling depth and soil density changes: If soil density changed due to land-use transformation, soil sampling depth should have been adjusted accordingly.
- Study design and scientific relevance: The study investigates the conversion of two land-use types with inherently high SOC storage into cropland, a land-use type with lower SOC storage at steady state. However, the scientific significance of comparing these specific transformations is not well justified.
- Lack of clarity in SOC changes: The study does not clearly distinguish between absolute and relative changes in SOC characteristics. While the SOC content decreased following land-use transformation, it is unclear whether the composition of different SOC fractions changed proportionally within the SOC pool.
- Abstract clarity: The specific land-use transitions investigated are not mentioned in the abstract, which is misleading and a significant omission.
Line Comments:
- L18: Please clarify what is meant by “carbon functional groups” and ensure consistency in terminology throughout the manuscript.
- L21-22: The information provided here is incomplete and potentially misleading. It is essential to explicitly state that the study investigates the transformation of a grassland and a forest site into agricultural land. Given these transitions, the observed reduction in SOC is well expected.
- L28-30: The interpretation here is unclear. Does this refer to absolute or relative changes in the amounts of carbon within specific fractions in response to land-use change? Please clarify.
- L36: Please provide a reference to support this statement.
- L40: Please verify this statement. Does the reported SOC loss include only soil carbon, or does it also account for plant carbon storage? If this is meant as a global comparison, how do cold biomes factor into the sink function? Also, how does this statement relate specifically to agricultural systems?
- L56-57: It appears that this is not a complete list of methods used to study functional groups of SOC. Please ensure that all relevant techniques are mentioned.
- L62-63: This sentence requires clarification. The current phrasing is ambiguous.
- L77: What is meant by “lateral distributions”? Please define this term in the given context.
- L84: Was the soil sampling truly conducted 39 years ago? If so, what about the laboratory analyses—were they performed recently? If the analyses were conducted much later, please specify how the soils were stored to ensure data integrity.
- L86: If soil texture is similar between sites, why is a separate and detailed description provided in L87-94? Instead of repeating similarities, consider briefly highlighting key differences. Additionally, important details about the grassland and forest sites are currently placed in the Supplementary Information (SI)—should they instead be included in the main text for clarity?
- L99: How was the organic horizon handled? Were roots removed before analysis? Also, the results section distinguishes between topsoil and subsoil, but this separation is not clearly addressed in the Methods & Materials section. Please ensure consistency.
- L185: Is this a comprehensive description of the statistical analysis? How were the complex analytical methods evaluated? It seems unlikely that t-tests alone would be sufficient to assess the results—please clarify.
- L320: The finding that SOC decreases after land-use change is not surprising, especially considering the substantial amount of carbon removed through agricultural harvesting. Please provide accurate site-specific data for net primary production (NPP) in the grassland and forest systems and quantify how much carbon was lost through harvesting.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhe H. Weng, 27 Apr 2025
We appreciate the time that the reviewer has taken to read our manuscript and provide us with this valuable feedback.
1. As requested by the Reviewer, we will further clarify scientific motivation and hypotheses in the introduction by clearly defining the research gaps and open questions.
2. The Reviewer asks for more details in the method. We will explain the methods in depth and ensure consistency between the methods section and the rest of the manuscript.
3. The Reviewer questions the sampling depth and soil density changes. We will clarify in the method that soil density changes have been taken into account in estimating soil sampling depth and soil carbon stocks.
4. We will strengthen the importance of study design and scientific relevance of this study as commented by the Reviewer: “Given its methodological rigor, this study has great potential to enhance our understanding of soil carbon responses to land-use changes, a timely and societally relevant topic.”
5. The review seeks clarification in SOC changes. We will further clearly distinguish between absolute and relative changes in SOC characteristics, especially the proportional changes in the composition of different SOC fractions within the SOC pool.
6. We will further improve Abstract clarity by mentioning the specific land-use transitions investigated.
7. Comment regarding Line 18: We will clarify what is meant by “carbon functional groups” and ensure consistency in terminology throughout the manuscript.
8. Comment regarding Line 21-22: We will explicitly state that the study investigates the transformation of a grassland and a forest system into agricultural land in the abstract.
9. Comment regarding Line 28-30: We will clarify the absolute and relative changes in the amount of carbon within the mineral fractions in response to land-use change.
10. Comment regarding Line 36: We will provide a reference to support this statement.
11. Comment regarding Line 40: The Review raises an important point. We will verify this statement by clarifying the sources of the reported SOC loss. We will clarify the contribution of cold biomes factors to the sink function and its relevance to agricultural systems.
12. Comment regarding Line 56-57: We will complete the list of methods used to study functional groups of SOC and ensure that all relevant techniques are mentioned.
13. Comment regarding Line 62-63: We will clary the need for non-destructive methods to assess organo-mineral associations.
14. Comment regarding Line 77: We will clearly define “lateral distributions” as two-dimensional distribution of SOC.
15. Comment regarding Line 84: We will clarify the sample storage in the method to ensure data integrity.
16. Comment regarding Line 86: We will restructure the site description and incorporate the SI to the main text for clarity.
17. Comment regarding Line 99: We will further clarify sampling procedures as requested by the Reviewer.
18. Comment regarding Line 185: We will expand the description and provide further details of the statistical analysis to evaluate the complex analytical methods.
19. Comment regarding Line 320: The Reviewer requests accurate site-specific data for net primary production (NPP) in the grassland and forest systems and quantify how much carbon was lost through harvesting. We acknowledge this important point. However, we are unable to provide data from these sites from before land-use change (i.e. from 70 y ago) and after sampling 39 y ago as NPP (i.e, Gross Primary Productivity and Respiration) was not quantified and cannot be obtained retrospectively. Nevertheless, we agree biomass inputs and ecological constraints should be included in the discussion. We will revise the discussion to include findings from other studies to highlight the importance of NPP in SOC storage and dynamics under land use change.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-AC2
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-100', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2025
The authors present the results of a study investigating changes in soil C chemical composition in two Vertisols following land-use conversion from grassland/forest to cropping. These changes were analyzed using synchrotron-based near edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spectroscopy and infrared microspectroscopy (IRM). The results suggest that soil C depletion occurs primarily through the loss of MAOC and oPOC, while the distribution of C functional groups remains relatively unaffected. The authors conclude that this indicates that the C preservation is primarily driven by physical occlusion rather than by the presence of chemically recalcitrant functional groups resistant to degradation.
I’ve read the manuscript with great interest and personally appreciate the study’s outcome, as it aligns with my understanding of C loss dynamics in soils. However, I am somewhat skeptical about the generality of the results. In the infrared microspectroscopy analysis, you only examined microaggregates, which, by definition, are soil structures that preserve C through physical occlusion. Moreover, since your microaggregates were isolated by dry sieving, you inherently selected the most stable ones. This introduces a bias in your sample set—essentially, you have demonstrated that C within stable microaggregates is physically protected, which is expected. If you selectively analyze physically stable microaggregates, it is not surprising that the C within them remains protected, and consequently, the functional groups remain unchanged. However, the C outside of these microaggregates—i.e., non-physically stabilized C—may undergo different transformations.
The relatively “fresh” nature of the C stored in the microaggregates, indicated by the abundance of carboxylic groups and O-alkyl C, also suggests that the C within them is physically rather than chemically protected. I do not doubt the importance of physical protection, but I believe that non-physically stabilized C also plays a role in SOC dynamics, which is largely overlooked in this study. Could you incorporate some discussion on this to provide a more comprehensive picture?
I believe your conclusions are valid, but physical protection is not the only mechanism at play. Your study specifically confirms the storage mechanism within microaggregates, which were the only structures analyzed, rather than in the soil as a whole. Can you elaborate on this distinction? If I have misunderstood anything, please clarify.
Regarding the NEXAFS analysis, which examined bulk soil, all tested soils were Vertisols with high clay content (around 50% and 75% clay). Given these properties, it is not surprising that physical protection emerges as the dominant mechanism for C storage. I suggest explicitly stating in the discussion that your findings are limited to clay-rich soils and predominantly reflect C storage within microaggregates.
One other major concern—if I understood correctly, the samples were collected in 1986 (L.84) and stored at 4°C (L.103) until analysis. Is this accurate? While refrigeration at 4°C slows microbial decomposition, it does not completely prevent it. How can you be sure that the chemical composition of soil organic matter, particularly the functional groups, has remained unchanged after nearly 40 years of storage? If I have misunderstood, please clarify this in the manuscript.
Overall, the manuscript is extremely well written and easy to follow. I’ve read it with great interest. The data is presented transparently, and the methods are well described. I consider the paper suitable for publication after the comments have been addressed.
More specific comments:
L.370: There is a grammatical issue in the sentence.
L.435: "For the first time"—this is neither accurate nor necessary to highlight the importance of your work. I suggest removing this phrase.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhe H. Weng, 27 Apr 2025
We thank the Reviewer for their time and for assisting us improve the manuscript through their constructive feedback.
1. Regarding the selection of microaggregates for infrared microspectroscopy analysis, this is an established method for sample selection for microscopic analysis (Lehmann et al., 2008; Hernandez-Soriano et al., 2018; Hondroudakis et al., 2024; Weng et al., 2024). However, we agree with the reviewer that there is limitation in selecting physically stable microaggregates. Nevertheless, this is the focus of this study to assess and validate one of the storage mechanisms in microaggregates. We will discuss other mechanisms beyond physical protection as suggested by the Reviewer.
2. We agree with the reviewer and will incorporate further discussion on the role of non-physically stabilized C in SOC dynamics to provide a more comprehensive picture.
3. The Reviewer seeks clarification in conclusion. We will elaborate on the distinction between microaggregates and the soil as a whole.
4. Regarding the NEXAFS analysis, we will explicitly state in the discussion that our findings are limited to clay-rich soils and predominantly reflect C storage within microaggregates as suggested by the Reviewer
5. We will further clarify the sample storage in the method as requested by the Reviewer.
6. Comment regarding Line 370: We will correct the grammatical issue in the sentence.
7. Comment regarding Line 435: We will remove the phrase “For the first time”.
Reference:
Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Dathe, L., Wirick, S., & Jacobsen, C. (2008). Spatial complexity of soil organic matter forms at nanometre scales. Nature Geoscience, 1(4), 238-242.
Hernandez-Soriano, M. C., Dalal, R. C., Warren, F. J., Wang, P., Green, K., Tobin, M. J., ... & Kopittke, P. M. (2018). Soil organic carbon stabilization: Mapping carbon speciation from intact microaggregates. Environmental science & technology, 52(21), 12275-12284.
Hondroudakis, L., Kopittke, P. M., Dalal, R. C., Barnard, M., & Weng, Z. H. (2024). The influence of land use and management on the behaviour and persistence of soil organic carbon in a subtropical Ferralsol. Soil, 10(2), 451-465.
Weng, Z. H., Kopittke, P. M., Schweizer, S., Jin, J., Armstrong, R., Rose, M., ... & Tang, C. (2024). Shining a Light on How Soil Organic Carbon Behaves at Fine Scales under Long-Term Elevated CO2: An 8 Year Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Study. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(20), 8724-8735.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zhe H. Weng, 27 Apr 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-100', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2025
The manuscript by Zhe H. Weng examines the response of soil carbon and nitrogen to land-use changes by comparing two subtropical sites in Australia that were converted to cropland. One site was previously grassland, while the other was forest. The authors used state-of-the-art methods, including density fractionation, near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy, and infrared microspectroscopy, to provide a comprehensive analysis of soil organic carbon characteristics.
The study’s main findings are that soil carbon decreased following land-use transformation, with this loss occurring primarily in the mineral-associated fraction—the fraction that plays a crucial role in organic matter stability. Given its methodological rigor, this study has great potential to enhance our understanding of soil carbon responses to land-use changes, a timely and societally relevant topic. However, I have several major concerns regarding the study design, presentation of methods, and formulation of the scientific motivation:
- Lack of clear scientific motivation and hypotheses: The introduction is highly technical, with a strong focus on methods rather than clearly defining the research gaps and open questions. As a result, it is unclear how the authors developed their specific hypotheses.
- Incomplete methods description: Some methodological aspects are not well explained, leading to inconsistencies between the methods section and the rest of the manuscript.
- Sampling depth and soil density changes: If soil density changed due to land-use transformation, soil sampling depth should have been adjusted accordingly.
- Study design and scientific relevance: The study investigates the conversion of two land-use types with inherently high SOC storage into cropland, a land-use type with lower SOC storage at steady state. However, the scientific significance of comparing these specific transformations is not well justified.
- Lack of clarity in SOC changes: The study does not clearly distinguish between absolute and relative changes in SOC characteristics. While the SOC content decreased following land-use transformation, it is unclear whether the composition of different SOC fractions changed proportionally within the SOC pool.
- Abstract clarity: The specific land-use transitions investigated are not mentioned in the abstract, which is misleading and a significant omission.
Line Comments:
- L18: Please clarify what is meant by “carbon functional groups” and ensure consistency in terminology throughout the manuscript.
- L21-22: The information provided here is incomplete and potentially misleading. It is essential to explicitly state that the study investigates the transformation of a grassland and a forest site into agricultural land. Given these transitions, the observed reduction in SOC is well expected.
- L28-30: The interpretation here is unclear. Does this refer to absolute or relative changes in the amounts of carbon within specific fractions in response to land-use change? Please clarify.
- L36: Please provide a reference to support this statement.
- L40: Please verify this statement. Does the reported SOC loss include only soil carbon, or does it also account for plant carbon storage? If this is meant as a global comparison, how do cold biomes factor into the sink function? Also, how does this statement relate specifically to agricultural systems?
- L56-57: It appears that this is not a complete list of methods used to study functional groups of SOC. Please ensure that all relevant techniques are mentioned.
- L62-63: This sentence requires clarification. The current phrasing is ambiguous.
- L77: What is meant by “lateral distributions”? Please define this term in the given context.
- L84: Was the soil sampling truly conducted 39 years ago? If so, what about the laboratory analyses—were they performed recently? If the analyses were conducted much later, please specify how the soils were stored to ensure data integrity.
- L86: If soil texture is similar between sites, why is a separate and detailed description provided in L87-94? Instead of repeating similarities, consider briefly highlighting key differences. Additionally, important details about the grassland and forest sites are currently placed in the Supplementary Information (SI)—should they instead be included in the main text for clarity?
- L99: How was the organic horizon handled? Were roots removed before analysis? Also, the results section distinguishes between topsoil and subsoil, but this separation is not clearly addressed in the Methods & Materials section. Please ensure consistency.
- L185: Is this a comprehensive description of the statistical analysis? How were the complex analytical methods evaluated? It seems unlikely that t-tests alone would be sufficient to assess the results—please clarify.
- L320: The finding that SOC decreases after land-use change is not surprising, especially considering the substantial amount of carbon removed through agricultural harvesting. Please provide accurate site-specific data for net primary production (NPP) in the grassland and forest systems and quantify how much carbon was lost through harvesting.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zhe H. Weng, 27 Apr 2025
We appreciate the time that the reviewer has taken to read our manuscript and provide us with this valuable feedback.
1. As requested by the Reviewer, we will further clarify scientific motivation and hypotheses in the introduction by clearly defining the research gaps and open questions.
2. The Reviewer asks for more details in the method. We will explain the methods in depth and ensure consistency between the methods section and the rest of the manuscript.
3. The Reviewer questions the sampling depth and soil density changes. We will clarify in the method that soil density changes have been taken into account in estimating soil sampling depth and soil carbon stocks.
4. We will strengthen the importance of study design and scientific relevance of this study as commented by the Reviewer: “Given its methodological rigor, this study has great potential to enhance our understanding of soil carbon responses to land-use changes, a timely and societally relevant topic.”
5. The review seeks clarification in SOC changes. We will further clearly distinguish between absolute and relative changes in SOC characteristics, especially the proportional changes in the composition of different SOC fractions within the SOC pool.
6. We will further improve Abstract clarity by mentioning the specific land-use transitions investigated.
7. Comment regarding Line 18: We will clarify what is meant by “carbon functional groups” and ensure consistency in terminology throughout the manuscript.
8. Comment regarding Line 21-22: We will explicitly state that the study investigates the transformation of a grassland and a forest system into agricultural land in the abstract.
9. Comment regarding Line 28-30: We will clarify the absolute and relative changes in the amount of carbon within the mineral fractions in response to land-use change.
10. Comment regarding Line 36: We will provide a reference to support this statement.
11. Comment regarding Line 40: The Review raises an important point. We will verify this statement by clarifying the sources of the reported SOC loss. We will clarify the contribution of cold biomes factors to the sink function and its relevance to agricultural systems.
12. Comment regarding Line 56-57: We will complete the list of methods used to study functional groups of SOC and ensure that all relevant techniques are mentioned.
13. Comment regarding Line 62-63: We will clary the need for non-destructive methods to assess organo-mineral associations.
14. Comment regarding Line 77: We will clearly define “lateral distributions” as two-dimensional distribution of SOC.
15. Comment regarding Line 84: We will clarify the sample storage in the method to ensure data integrity.
16. Comment regarding Line 86: We will restructure the site description and incorporate the SI to the main text for clarity.
17. Comment regarding Line 99: We will further clarify sampling procedures as requested by the Reviewer.
18. Comment regarding Line 185: We will expand the description and provide further details of the statistical analysis to evaluate the complex analytical methods.
19. Comment regarding Line 320: The Reviewer requests accurate site-specific data for net primary production (NPP) in the grassland and forest systems and quantify how much carbon was lost through harvesting. We acknowledge this important point. However, we are unable to provide data from these sites from before land-use change (i.e. from 70 y ago) and after sampling 39 y ago as NPP (i.e, Gross Primary Productivity and Respiration) was not quantified and cannot be obtained retrospectively. Nevertheless, we agree biomass inputs and ecological constraints should be included in the discussion. We will revise the discussion to include findings from other studies to highlight the importance of NPP in SOC storage and dynamics under land use change.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-100-AC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
197 | 55 | 14 | 266 | 30 | 10 | 12 |
- HTML: 197
- PDF: 55
- XML: 14
- Total: 266
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1