visible in both plots.
I see it much clearer for PAAE10 than for PCO2. Perhaps phrase it more cautiously. E.g.: A site-specific effect can be identified.
31 Matching Annotations
- Last 7 days
-
andrapodon.github.io andrapodon.github.io
-
-
Figure 6:
Maybe add r and R² in the figures?
-
two correlation plots were generated. The first compares J0 to the chelate-extractable P (PAAE10), and the second compares it to the water-soluble P (PCO2).
I suggest not to mention the plots as sucht, but rather that you correlated them. E.g.:
Jo was correlated with chelate-extractable P (Figure 6a) and water soluble P (Figure 6 b).
-
silt
Whe I look up the table, its rather clay, no? But the content of the section remains valid.
-
ighly significant positive effect
Significance is not shown acording to the table, right?
-
m
c?
-
Initial P Flux
Jo = k*Pdesorb? Make this linkt again in the text, otherwise, the reader might be lost. Or use Jo in the models.
-
J0
Jo = k*Pdesorb? Make this linkt again in the text, otherwise, the reader might be lost.
-
Table 3.6.
Numbering is not corrects.
-
(previous descriptive section ends here)…
Oh, so Section 5.4 is obsolete? So then, ignore my comments.
-
as one of the best predictors across all agronomic response variables
one of the best, or the best? If you write, one of the best, thef other good ones would also be interesting. Therefore, maybe just write: "the best" ore the most predictive, to be less judgy.
-
Predicting P Balance (Pbal):
Reference to table missign.
-
Predicting P Uptake (Pup)
Reference to table missing.
-
p < 0.001, ’’ p < 0.01, ’’ p < 0.05.
The asterisks are missing in the codes. It is not clear from the caption, what the table shows.
-
physical properties
Could you be more precise here? E.g. granularity? Mabye, this is a bad idea. Just an input.
-
particularly the rate constant k,
Before, you state, that k has the least direct relation to fertilisation. So why is it particularly interesting? A clarifying sentence might help here.
-
* Desorbable P (Pdesorb):
Its not so nice to use : after :
I suggest to rephrase the sentences, e.g. to The desorbable P parameter ( P desorb ) behaved very ...
-
including the standard
suggestion: including those of the standard STP
-
of
dito
-
of
Here I am not sure wether the "of" is needed.
-
(Eexp_10080)
In der caption zu Figure 3. E7d. I suggest to be consistent.
-
(nlme)
The abreviation was introduced before already.
-
Figure 3.1
The figure has label "Figure 1". Text and captions should be consistent.
-
This Study
this Study?
-
chart of the adapted Kinetik-experiment after Flossmann & Richter.
Why you stir for 90 minutes but take the last sample at 60 min? Maybe stir until last measurement?
-
Unlike the original protocol, a pre-washing step to remove soluble P was not performed
But in the flowchart, the supernantant fluid is also discarded. Isn't this a pre-washing?
-
Switzerland
Suggestion: across the Swiss Plateau
-
fixed-plot t
fixed-plot or fixed plot?
-
To manage this challenge,
What challenge? The challenge of disentangling different P fates? Shortly introduce.
-
The efficacy of P fertilization is often low due to these rapid and competing immobilization processes, and P lost from agricultural fields can become an environmental pollutant, disturbing P-limited aquatic ecosystem
It's a repetition from previous paragraph.
-
The efficacy of P fertilization is often low due to these rapid immobilization processes, and P lost from agricultural fields can become an environmental pollutant, disturbing P-limited aquatic ecosystems.
Proposition: Make it two sentences and give a little more specifying detail on the second point as for me, it is not clear, if excess soluble or fixed P becomes a problem. Also, the second point can be better introduced, as it is not an evident consequence of the previous content.
The efficacy of P fertilization is often low due to these rapid immobilization processes. Also, soluble/immoblizied P lost from agricultural fields can become an environmental pollutant, disturbing P-limited aquatic ecosystems.
-