A Preliminary Study on the Determination of the Fertilization Tolerance of an Entisol in the Yuanmou Dry-Hot River Valley Based on Soil Qualities in Plot Scale
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for submitting this interesting work to sustainability.
This is a sound study and I hope to see it published soon.
Abstract
-mention that the valley is in China in title: "...Yuanmou Dry-hot River Valley, Yunnan, China..."
Introduction
-Phosphate rock in China also seem to contain considerable amounts of Uranium and other heavy metals as shown by a recent study: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110740 rational use of fertilizer can those also result in less heavy metal pollution on soils
-Line 56, list these proposed useful indicators of soil quality
Materials and Methods
-Maybe include picture of the plots of maize. This is usually nice to get an idea of how this looked like
-the journal editors will usually ask you to include the producers of the chemicals from where you purchsed them to make sure the experiments could be repeated. So you could include this directly
Results
-Arrange Fig3 a-c all on top of one another
-All figures, try to make sure that they are similar in size
-check that you use the right MDPI template for the tables
-Maire sure fig 5 and 6 are aligned
Conclustions, and also in abstract
-quantify how much the treatment affected the physical, chemical and microbial properties in percentage compared to original soil, then do the same for the different slopes
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract
-mention that the valley is in China in title: "...Yuanmou Dry-hot River Valley, Yunnan, China..."
Response 1: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have added the sentence “ in the Yuanmou Dry-hot River Valley” in the abstract. The adding locations are as follows: This study using field slope farmland plots planted the typical crop of maize (Zea mays L.), investigated the effects of varied chemical fertilizer (organic compound fertilizer of potassium nitrate, containing 17% each of nitrogen and phosphorus) application levels (0.5 times the traditional fertilizer amount (CK, 0.75 t·hm-2 to 2.5 CK) on the soil fertility in the Yuanmou Dry-hot River Valley.
Point 2: Introduction
-Phosphate rock in China also seem to contain considerable amounts of Uranium and other heavy metals as shown by a recent study: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110740 rational use of fertilizer can those also result in less heavy metal pollution on soils
-Line 56, list these proposed useful indicators of soil quality.
Response 2: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. The problem of heavy metals in purple soil is not considered in this paper. Because there are many factors affecting soil quality, we select the existing indicators to characterize soil quality according to the research objectives.
Point 3: Materials and Methods
-Maybe include picture of the plots of maize. This is usually nice to get an idea of how this looked like
-the journal editors will usually ask you to include the producers of the chemicals from where you purchsed them to make sure the experiments could be repeated. So you could include this directly.
Response 3: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have added the picture of the plots of maize in Figure 2.
Point 4: Results
-Arrange Fig3 a-c all on top of one another
-All figures, try to make sure that they are similar in size
-check that you use the right MDPI template for the tables
-Maire sure fig 5 and 6 are aligned.
Response 4: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have arranged Fig3 a-c all on top of one another, and made the fig 5 and 6 been aligned. We also have modified all the table formats in this paper according to the correct format of the table in MDPI template, and modified the size of the graph according to the actual situation of the graph.
Point 5: Conclustions, and also in abstract
-quantify how much the treatment affected the physical, chemical and microbial properties in percentage compared to original soil, then do the same for the different slopes
.Response 5: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. The conclusion of this paper is the SQI based on the soil chemical and microbial characteristics, and there are many differences between the soil chemical and microbial characteristics and the original soil, so it is not suitable to be reflected in the abstract and the conclusion. We set the soil quality index in percentage compared to original soil, then do the same for the different slopes.
Different fertilization treatments significantly affect the chemical and microbial properties of the purple topsoil in Yuanmou dry-hot valley. Both in five and ten degree slope croplands soil, the results showed that chemical properties, microbial quantity and enzymes of soil were increased with the increase of fertilization level, but decreased at a high level of fertilization with 2.5 times the traditional amount.Five parameters (available N, nitrifying bacteria, inorganic phosphorus bacteria, organic matter and invertase) in five degree slope cropland and three parameters (organic matter, ammonifying bacteria and total P) in ten degree slope cropland, which had the greatest weight in the principal components analysis, were selected to calculate the soil quality index (SQI).
The SQI calculated by integrating all critical parameters indicated that the highest SQI values were found in fertilizer levels 1.5 CK (0.71) and 2.0 CK (0.69), followed by CK (0.64), and the lowest were found in 0.5CK (0.62) and 2.5CK (0.61) in five degree slope cropland soil. The highest SQI values were found in fertilizer levels 1.5 CK (0.26) and 2.0 CK (0.29), followed by CK (0.23), and the lowest were found in 0.5CK (0.14) and 2.5CK (0.20) in ten degree slope cropland soil. The order of the soil quality in five degree slope cropland soil was 1.5 CK ＞ 2.0 CK ＞CK ＞ 2.5 CK ＞ 0.5 CK, nevertheless, 2.0 CK ＞ 1.5 CK ＞CK ＞ 2.5 CK ＞ 0.5 CK was the order of the soil quality in ten degree slope cropland. In view of the impact of slope, the soil qualities of five degree slope crop land of five fertilization treatments were higher than did in ten degree slope cropland. the SQI values in five degree slope cropland soil were found higher than the SQI values in ten degree slope cropland soil by 68.65%, 64.20%, 62.22%, 57.46% and 67.01%, respectively.
According to effect of soil chemical and microbial properties by the degree slope, the present study suggests that the range amounts of fertilizer with 0.75–1.50 t∙hm-2 in ten degree slope cropland and 0.75–1.13 t∙hm-2 in five degree slope cropland soil (organic compound fertilizer of potassium nitrate) are the determined fertilization tolerance for slope farmland.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review
The manuscript contains the results of soil tests (Entisol) in terms of its tolerance to fertilization on a micro scale. The manuscript has been prepared correctly and contain all adequate chapters. The abstract is structural and inform about the content of the manuscript. The aim of research is clear and in the chapter "Introduction" the reasons why the Authors took on the experiment are listed. The chapter " Materials and methods" generally contains all essential information on performed studies. The results are presented in a legible and understandable way (minor errors) and discussed with the current state of knowledge. The quoted references concerns the subject of the field of research. The tables and figures are easy to read. The literature requires considerable rewriting and improvement both in the text and in the list of references. Notes to manuscript:
Line 20: … nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium);
Line 36: Keywords should be different from the words used in the title;
Line 76: Carroll[20] – should be Carroll [20];
Line 77: Bastida et al.[21] – should be Bastida et al. [21];
Line 111: m2 – should be m2
Line 120: table 1 – all soil properties with a capital letter;
Urease(mgNH4+-N∙g-1) – should be: Urease (mg NH4-N∙g-1);
Line 114 – line 141: reference [27] was not cited?
Line 153: mgNH4+-N∙g-1 – should be mg NH4-N∙g-1;
Line 292: Figure 3a - Are the homogeneous groups c and d properly marked?
Line 293: (…) bacteria (AB,a) – should be : (…) bacteria (AB) – Fig. 3a;
(…) bacteria (NB,b), denitrifying bacteria (DB,b) – should be : (…) bacteria (NB)
and denitrifying bacteria (DB) – Fig. 3b;
(…) organic phosphorus bacteria (OPB,c) and inorganic phosphorus bacteria
(IOPB,c) – should be: (…) organic phosphorus bacteria (OPB) and inorganic
phosphorus bacteria (IOPB) – Fig. 3c;
Line 321-323, 327 and Figure 4 - mgNH4+-N∙g-1 – should be mg NH4-N∙g-1;
Line 363 (Table 3): Why in (5°) PC1 only 0.952 is marked, and TN and Urease? Similarly in (10°) PC1
PC2 (Invertase and DB)
Line 195– line 418: reference [30] was not cited?
Line 400: (,0.62) and (,0.61) – should be: (0.62) and (0.61)
Line 434: (,0.75) should be: (0.75) and et al should be et al.
López-Bellino et al – should be López-Bellino et al. (this position haven’t in the reference list), [41] – this is Conde et al.;
Line 442: Li et al. in reference list is [45] not [46]
Line 465: NO3--N – should be NO3-N
Line 469: Luo et al. – [60] (this position haven’t in the reference list), [60] – this is Marschner
et al.;
Line 471: to 478 between position of references [60] and [61] is [78]?
Line 522: Bi (2006) – should be Bi et al. (…) to the end [85]
Line 525: Bi (2006) – should be Bi et al. (…) to the end [85], in the reference list is [86 – Li et
al.]
Line 532: Latin names – italics;
Line 598: under number 1 there are two literature items;
Line 597 – 776: The literature has not been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal, all of it should be redrafted according to MDPI guidelines for Authors.
for example:
- Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
- Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
- Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.
- Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name stage of publication (under review; accepted; in press).
- Author 1, A.B. (University, City, State, Country); Author 2, C. (Institute, City, State, Country). Personal communication, 2012.
- Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Title of the Collected Work (if available), Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference; Editor 1, Editor 2, Eds. (if available); Publisher: City, Country, Year (if available); Abstract Number (optional), Pagination (optional).
- Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.
- Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).
If the manuscript is corrected in accordance with the marked remarks.
Best regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Point 1: Line 20: … nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium);
Response 1: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have revised the sentence “organic compound fertilizer of potassium nitrate, containing 17% each of nitrogen and phosphorus” to “organic compound fertilizer of potassium nitrate, containing 17% each of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.”
Point 2: Line 36: Keywords should be different from the words used in the title;
Response 2: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have replaced the same key words as the title of the article such as “Fertilization” and “soil quality”. The new key words are “Fertilization amount” and “soil quality index”.
Point 3: Line 76: Carroll[20] – should be Carroll [20];
Response 3: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 4: Line 77: Bastida et al.[21] – should be Bastida et al. [21];
Response 4: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 5: Line 111: m2 – should be m2
Response 5: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
A plot design on land with a 5°and 10º slope were employed, using a plot area of 25 m2 (10 m length × 2.5 m width).
Point 6: Line 120: table 1 – all soil properties with a capital letter;
Urease(mgNH4+-N∙g-1) – should be: Urease (mg NH4-N∙g-1);
Response 6: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
The physicochemical, microbial and enzyme properties of the experimental purple topsoil before test fertilization treatment were presented in table 1.
Table 1. Basic properties of the purple soil before fertilization.
|
Soil properties |
Value |
Soil properties |
Value |
|
Total N（g∙kg-1） |
0.47±0.02 |
Ammonifying bacteria（105 cfu ∙ g-1） |
10.13±3.18 |
|
Total P（g∙kg-1） |
0.30±0.01 |
Nitrifying bacteria（104 cfu ∙ g-1） |
6.80±1.35 |
|
Available N（mg∙ kg-1） |
31.50±2.12 |
Organic phosphorus bacteria（103 cfu ∙ g-1） |
33.95±10.01 |
|
Available P（mg∙ kg-1） |
1.66±0.02 |
Inorganic phosphorus bacteria（103 cfu ∙ g-1） |
22.47±8.33 |
|
Organic Matter（g∙ kg-1） |
9.45±0.99 |
Denitrifying bacteria（104 cfu ∙ g-1） |
30.70±5.23 |
|
Bulk density（g∙cm-3） |
1.46±0.22 |
Invertase（mg Glucose ∙ g-1) |
2.03±0.10 |
|
pH value |
8.12±0.03 |
Alkaline phosphatase（mg phenol ∙ g-1) |
0.23±0.01 |
|
Urease（mg NH4+-N ∙ g-1) |
1.85±0.26 |
|
|
Point 7: Line 114 – line 141: reference [27] was not cited?
Response 7:Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 8: Line 153: mgNH4+-N∙g-1 – should be mg NH4-N∙g-1;
Response 8: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have corrected it as “”Results are expressed as mg NH4+–N∙g−1.
.Point 9: Line 292: Figure 3a - Are the homogeneous groups c and d properly marked?
Response 9: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 10: Line 293: (…) bacteria (AB,a) – should be : (…) bacteria (AB) – Fig. 3a;
(…) bacteria (NB,b), denitrifying bacteria (DB,b) – should be : (…) bacteria (NB) and denitrifying bacteria (DB) – Fig. 3b;
(…) organic phosphorus bacteria (OPB,c) and inorganic phosphorus bacteria
(IOPB,c) – should be: (…) organic phosphorus bacteria (OPB) and inorganic
phosphorus bacteria (IOPB) – Fig. 3c;
Response 10: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 11: Line 321-323, 327 and Figure 4 - mgNH4+-N∙g-1 – should be mg NH4-N∙g-1;
Response 11: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
In five degree slope cropland topsoil, urease, alkaline phosphatase and invertase activities were highest under the 1.5 CK with values of 4.35 mg NH4+-N∙g-1, 0.37 mg Phenol∙g-1 and 4.40 mg Glucose∙g-1 respectively, and fertilization treatment 1.5 CK came second with 4.30 mg NH4+-N∙g-1, 0.33 mg Phenol∙g-1 and 3.49 mg Glucose∙g-1, respectively. The lowest values of 2.68 mg NH4+-N∙g-1, 0.30 mg Phenol∙g-1 and 2.95 mg Glucose∙g-1 in 0.5 CK, respectively. In ten degree slope cropland topsoil, the highest activities of urease (4.40 mg NH4+-N∙g-1), alkaline phosphatase (0.41 mg Phenol∙g-1) and invertase (9.22 mg Glucose∙g-1) were also found in the 2.0 CK, and the lowest activities of urease (2.95 mg NH4+-N∙g-1), alkaline phosphatase (0.30 mg Phenol∙g-1) and invertase (5.35 mg Glucose∙g-1) were also found in the 0.5 CK. In general, compared to CK, the highest of all soil enzyme activities were in 2.0 CK and 1.5 CK, whereas the lowest were in 0.5 CK and 2.5 CK for 5°and 10°slopes, respectively.
Point 12: Line 363 (Table 3): Why in (5°) PC1 only 0.952 is marked, and TN and Urease? Similarly in (10°) PC1 PC2 (Invertase and DB)
Response 12: Thanks. Within each PC, the highest weighted variable is selected for indexing, along with variables having an absolute value within 10% of the highest weighted variable. For example: the highest weighted in (5°) PC1 was AN (0.952), then 0.952-0.952×0.1=0.8568. Unless the weight of other components is greater than 0.8568, it will not be considered as the calculated value of SQI. The weights of TN (0.846) and Urease (0.846) are less than 0.8568. The same in (10°) PC1, PC2.
Point 13: Line 195– line 418: reference [30] was not cited?
Response 13: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have corrected it.
Point 14: Line 400: (,0.62) and (,0.61) – should be: (0.62) and (0.61)
Response 14: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
In both slope croplands two fertilizer levels 1.5 CK and 2.0 CK showed the highest SQI values, followed by CK (0.64), and the lowest were found in 0.5CK (0.62) and 2.5CK (0.61) (Figure 5).
Point 15: Line 434: (,0.75) should be: (0.75) and et al should be et al.
López-Bellino et al – should be López-Bellino et al. (this position haven’t in the reference list), [41] – this is Conde et al.;
Response 15: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
The 2.5 CK (1.88 t∙ha-1) brought 15.11 g∙kg-1 OM compared to the content of OM (12.49 t∙ha-1) in the soil of CK (0.75t∙ha-1). López-Bellido et al. showed that the 100 and 150 kg N∙ha-1 rates gave rise to higher OM contents than did 50 kg N∙ha-1 .
In the process of revising the paper, I deleted the relevant references by mistake, and supplemented them completely after this inspection.
Point 16: Line 442: Li et al. in reference list is [45] not [46]
Response16: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have corrected it.
Point 17: Line 465: NO3--N – should be NO3-N
Response 17: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
The lower soil moisture and high content of NO3-N were not beneficial to survival of nitrifying bacteria and denitrifying bacteria, and inhibited the growth of nitrifying bacteria and denitrifying bacteria.
Point 18: Line 469: Luo et al. – [60] (this position haven’t in the reference list), [60] – this is Marschner et al.;
Response 18: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have corrected it.
Point 19: Line 471: to 478 between position of references [60] and [61] is [78]?
Response 19: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it. It should be the reference .
Point 20: Line 522: Bi (2006) – should be Bi et al. (…) to the end [85]
Response 20: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Bi et al. (2006) found the urease, acid phosphatase, invertase and catalase have significant positive straight line correlation, and the lossing of water and soil cause the lossing of all enzyme in soil.
Point 21: Line 525: Bi (2006) – should be Bi et al. (…) to the end [85], in the reference list is [86 – Li et al.]
Response 21: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Li et al. (2006) showed the declined trend of enzyme in lossing soil with the higher degree slope land.
Point 22: Line 532: Latin names – italics;
Response 22: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Masto et al.established a soil quality index (SQI) with the aim to evaluate and quantify the long term effect of different fertilizer and farm yard manure treatments in a rotation system with Z. mays, Pennisetum americanun, Triticum aestivum and Vigna unguiculata in New Delhi.
Point 23: Line 598: under number 1 there are two literature items;
Response 23: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 24: Line 597 – 776: The literature has not been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal, all of it should be redrafted according to MDPI guidelines for Authors.
for example:
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name stage of publication (under review; accepted; in press).
Author 1, A.B. (University, City, State, Country); Author 2, C. (Institute, City, State, Country). Personal communication, 2012.
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Title of the Collected Work (if available), Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference; Editor 1, Editor 2, Eds. (if available); Publisher: City, Country, Year (if available); Abstract Number (optional), Pagination (optional).
Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.
Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).
Response 24: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected it.
Point 25: Other questions in the article.
Response 25: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have corrected all questions in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript on the determination of the fertilization tolerance of the purple topsoils in Yuanmou dry-hot river valley presents the effects of different application levels of chemical fertilizer (organic compound fertilizer of potassium nitrate, containing 17% of each N, P2O5, and K2O) on the soil fertility.
The objectives of the study were: a) to assess changes in soil properties, including physical, chemical, microbial and enzyme parameters after the maize harvested compared to the basic properties of the soil before fertilization under different degree slope croplands; (b) to determine a minimum set of soil properties for an SQI, which is capable of assessing soil quality after applying different amounts of fertilization and (c) to determine fertilization treatment the most suitable soil fertility for planting maize in the purple soil regions of degree slope croplands.
The field experiment was conducted in 2011 year with plot area of 25 m2. Five fertilizer treatments were applied with three replications: the common fertilization amount of 750 kg∙ha-1 (CK), 0.5 CK, 1.5 CK, 2 CK, and 2.5 CK in April before maize sowings. Soil samples were collected in each plot after maize harvest from the top 15 cm soil depth with a 5 cm diameter stainless steel corer. Soil fertility included physico-chemical properties, microbial quantity, enzyme activities and soil quality index (SQI) of five and ten degree slope croplands topsoil.
The results showed that the soil chemical and microbial properties and enzyme activities increased with the increase of fertilizer application levels from 1 CK to 2.0 CK. However, a declining trend showed both under 0.5 CK level and the 2.5 CK level, and higher in fertilizer application 1.5 CK and 2.0 CK compared to level 1 CK. Soil physicochemical properties, microbial properties and enzyme activities in five degree slope cropland topsoil were higher than these in ten degree slope cropland topsoil. Five parameters (available N, nitrifying bacteria, inorganic phosphorus bacteria, organic matter and invertase) in five degree slope cropland and three parameters (organic matter, ammonifying bacteria and total P) in ten degree slope cropland, which had the greatest weight in the principal components analysis, were selected to calculate the soil quality index (SQI). The final SQI values implied that the fertilization treatments CK, 1.5 CK and 2.0 CK could improve the soil fertility, whereas the fertilization treatments 0.5 CK and 2.5 CK could decrease the soil fertility. For this study, the range of fertilization tolerance was 0.75–1.50 t·hm-2 (organic compound fertilizer of potassium nitrate) in ten degree slope plot scale and 0.75–1.13 t∙hm-2 in five degree slope cropland soil.
The manuscript presents an interesting study. The text is generally correct, however it requires some corrections. Most of the reviewer comments can be found in the text of the work and here only some general ones are presented:
The study is based on only one year experiment. Usually it is not enough for more general conclusions and 2-3 experiment is required.
Physical soil properties were not determined beyond the bulk density before maize sowings.
In Materials and Method chapter nothing about the experimental design nor the plot design on land with a 5 degree slope was mentioned.
Description of the study results should be corrected. Besides some mistakes in the description of the data in Figure 4, it includes comparisons of means using percentage without statistical analysis, which is not allowed in the scientific text. If you are not able to indicate the statistically significant differences you are not allowed to specify differences between means. That was in the case of comparisons between soil properties before and the end of the experiment and between both five and ten degree slopes croplands.
Some data in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 8 are illegible.
Passive voice should be used instead of active voice.
Some sentences needs to make grammar corrections.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The study is based on only one year experiment. Usually it is not enough for more general conclusions and 2-3 experiment is required.
Response 1: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. In the present study, we mainly focused on revealing the fertilization tolerance of an Entisol in the Yuanmou Dry-hot River Valley based on soil qualities in Plot Scale , and we think that one year experiment data may not be optimal, but should be sufficient to draw a preliminary conclusion. We are now doing further research and selecting indicators for screening, and combined with micro scale experiments to reveal the fertilization tolerance of an Entisol in the Yuanmou Dry-hot River Valley based on soil qualities more accurately.
Point 2: Physical soil properties were not determined beyond the bulk density before maize sowings.
Response 2: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. Because of the short period of our experiment, we did not consider more soil physical properties. Therefore, the soil physical properties will be deleted in this modification.
Point 3: In Materials and Method chapter nothing about the experimental design nor the plot design on land with a 5 degree slope was mentioned.
Response 3: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have corrected it.
The experimental plots were designed on the land with 5°and 10º slope were employed, respectively, and the area of each plot was 25 m2 (10 m length × 2.5 m width). Plot boundary walls of height 60 cm (i.e. the soil thickness) surrounding purple soil were constructed using bricks, with a runoff collection system including surface runoff and leaching constructed at the end of every plot in 2010[26] (Figure 2).
Point 4: Description of the study results should be corrected. Besides some mistakes in the description of the data in Figure 4, it includes comparisons of means using percentage without statistical analysis, which is not allowed in the scientific text. If you are not able to indicate the statistically significant differences you are not allowed to specify differences between means. That was in the case of comparisons between soil properties before and the end of the experiment and between both five and ten degree slopes croplands.
Response 4: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion. We have made corrections in the article.
Point 5: Some data in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 8 are illegible.
Response 5: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have made some changes in the article. As Figure 5 and Figure 6 are generated directly by R language, the color configuration is not reasonable, so we have modified it as much as possible.
Point 6: Passive voice should be used instead of active voice.
Response 6: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have made some changes in the article.
Point 7: Some sentences needs to make grammar corrections.
Response 7: Thanks for your very thoughtful suggestion.We have made some changes in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Good work - this can be published now
