Influence of Liming Intensity on Fractions of Humified Organic Carbon in Acid Soil: A Case Study
, Monika Vilkiene 1, Regina Repsiene 1, Zita Braziene 1 and Olga Anne 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1664329-peer-review-v1
Manuscript Title: Influence of liming of different intensity liming on fractions of humified organic carbon in acid soil.
The presented work is very interesting and, at the same time, considered to be applied work, as most of the work was carried out in a study and real field experiment of the effects of restriction at different degrees of intensity on the functioning of agro-ecosystems, as well as contributing to addressing climate change issues and searching for a long-term agricultural development model term.
- The manuscript is technically well described. The results are straightforward and support the author's conclusions.
- The statistical analysis is appropriately conducted.
my comments to the Authors
Abstract section:
It has written well.
Keywords: Please try to change (soil organic carbon; humic acids; soil acidity.) to another keywords as you already mentioned them in the title and abstract.
Introduction section:
It has written well, but there is a little notes:
P2 L63: Authors mentioned (several long-term studies [21]), but they just mentioned to one study. Is it several studies or one study???
Materials and methods section:
P4 L126: Add (as) between (such humic) to be (such as humic).
P4 L138: Please delete the comma from (??, %) to be (?? (%)).
P4 L140: I think it is preferable when adding units of measurement to put them in parentheses () instead of placing them after comma (,) such as [humic acids carbon content (g kg-1); SOC is a soil organic carbon content (g kg-1).
P4 L140: Also, ??????????????(%)
Results and discussion section:
P2 L161 and Table 2: at the 0.05 and 0.001 probability level; (P < 0.005) and (P < 0.001)
I think in both cases you mean (P < 0.05) and (P < 0.01), Please check them carefully.
Table 2: the font of the note in table 2 is bigger than its title.
P5 L198: modify (Ntot) to (Ntotal).
P5 L191: I think the style of citations in MDPI [26 – 28] should be [26-28] please check.
P6 L234: the comme (highlighted, that) should be after (that).
In whole manuscript: Authors sometimes mentioned that (under different intensity liming) and sometimes mentioned (under different rate liming), I suggest to use one form and changing (intensity) to (intensities) as you have 3 levels (Unlimed, Limed at 0.5 rate, and Limed at 2.0 rate).
In chapter 3.3. : the units of (HA1, HA2, and HA3) SOMETIME you are used (g kg-1 C) and sometimes you are used (% C), please check them carefully and use one if them.
In Figures 3 and 4, show the y-axis line as in Figure 2, and it is preferable to use a uniform format for all shapes.
In table 4: delete the comma in (HD, %).
Conclusion section: It is well written
You must add a future plan.
References:
References 11: missing page number.
References 32: Two authors name MAY should add and between authors
References 34: delete 611
Please check all references carefully and follow the style of MDPI.
I hope my comments improve the quality of your manuscript
Best regards
Author Response
General comment: The presented work is very interesting and, at the same time, considered to be applied work, as most of the work was carried out in a study and real field experiment of the effects of restriction at different degrees of intensity on the functioning of agro-ecosystems, as well as contributing to addressing climate change issues and searching for a long-term agricultural development model term.
- The manuscript is technically well described. The results are straightforward and support the author's conclusions.
- The statistical analysis is appropriately conducted.
Response: Many thanks to the Reviewer for this positive feedback, which we appreciate. The answers to the following questions are given below.
Special comments:
- Keywords: Please try to change (soil organic carbon; humic acids; soil acidity.) to another keywords as you already mentioned them in the title and abstract.
Response: As suggested by Reviewer, we have change keywords to another as they are mentioned in the title.
Keywords: carbon sequestration 1; humic substances 2; qualitative characteristics of SOC 3; lime 4; acidification 5.
- P2 L63: Authors mentioned (several long-term studies [21]), but they just mentioned to one study. Is it several studies or one study???
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this mistake. As suggested by Reviewer, we have rewritten the sentence as follows: The potential of surface lime application to increase SOC storage and accumulation in acid soil by enhancing plants’ growth and SOC input have been shown in several long-term studies [20-21].
- P4 L126: Add (as) between (such humic) to be (such as humic).
Response: This is done.
- P4 L138: Please delete the comma from (??, %) to be (?? (%)).
Response: This is done.
- P4 L140: I think it is preferable when adding units of measurement to put them in parentheses () instead of placing them after comma (,) such as [humic acids carbon content (g kg-1); SOC is a soil organic carbon content (g kg-1).
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this mistake. As suggested by Reviewer, we have rewritten units of measurement by putting them in parentheses ().
- P4 L140: Also, ??????????????(%)
Response: This is done.
- P2 L161 and Table 2: at the 0.05 and 0.001 probability level; (P < 0.005) and (P < 0.001)
I think in both cases you mean (P < 0.05) and (P < 0.01), Please check them carefully.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this mistake. We have corrected it.
- Table 2: the font of the note in table 2 is bigger than its title.
Response: Thank you for your remark. We have corrected it.
- P5 L198: modify (Ntot) to (Ntotal).
Response: This is done.
- P5 L191: I think the style of citations in MDPI [26 – 28] should be [26-28] please check.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this mistake. As suggested by Reviewer, we have corrected the style of citations.
- P6 L234: the comme (highlighted, that) should be after (that).
Response: This is done.
- In whole manuscript: Authors sometimes mentioned that (under different intensity liming) and sometimes mentioned (under different rate liming), I suggest to use one form and changing (intensity) to (intensities) as you have 3 levels (Unlimed, Limed at 0.5 rate, and Limed at 2.0 rate).
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. We have corrected this.
- In chapter 3.3. : the units of (HA1, HA2, and HA3) SOMETIME you are used (g kg-1 C) and sometimes you are used (% C), please check them carefully and use one if them.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We have corrected it.
- In Figures 3 and 4, show the y-axis line as in Figure 2, and it is preferable to use a uniform format for all shapes.
Response: As suggested by the Reviewer, we have corrected y-axis to uniform scale in the Figure 3 and 4.
- In table 4: delete the comma in (HD, %).
Response: This is done.
- You must add a future plan.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for suggesting how to improve Conclusion section. We have added few sentences about the future plan.
- References 11: missing page number.
References 32: Two authors name MAY should add and between authors
References 34: delete 611
Please check all references carefully and follow the style of MDPI.
Response: This is done.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I like the topic, I find it significant.
However I think the manuscript needs major corrections and improvements.
Some of them are very crucial (1 and 2) the others are debatable (3-9).
- The study took for five years. How does the data represent the time duration/flow?
- Pleases be as much as possible in describing the experiment. Please add:
2.1. The scheme of experiment,
2.2. Number of samples taken,
2.3. Dates of sampling,
2.4. Line 111 ‘after harvesting, soil samples were collected(…)’. Please add what was harvested? What plants were cultivated.
2.5. ‘The liming rates are not clear for me. For instance table 1. First row, liming using x0,5 of the liming rate every seven years’. Why don’t you write the dose of applied lime.
2.6. Are the other possible sources of calcium in the sampled soil? i.e. Organic fertilizers?, phosphorus fertilisers?
2.7. What was the size of the experimental plot?
2.8. How was the lime homogenise with the soil? What agricultural practices were carried on after liming?
- There is only one localisation of the study. Please consider the tittle? What do you think to ad ‘A case study’? I am not English i.e. English language is not my mother tongue however the title is too much complicated. Think over following suggestion ‘Influence of liming intensity on fractions of humified organic carbon in acid soil. A case study?’
- Data presentation, In table 2. Please add standard deviation or relative standard deviation or any other index showing the variability of the data you averaged. Did you use any post hoc test (Tukey, Student or Duncan) if yes please add the LSD values to the table 2.
- Did you statistically compared lime at 0,5 rate to limed at 2,0 rate? Or ‘only’ 0,5 rate to control (unlimed) and 2,0 rate to control?
- Please carefully check the figure 3. Check if the data read from the figure correspond to the data from the text?
- In all figures explain what are the whiskers?
- Lines 301 delete foreign scientists and write the surnames. Lines 332 and 334 delete the name initial letters.
- The references some of them are very high ranked unlike the other are not raked at all.
Author Response
General comment: I like the topic, I find it significant. However I think the manuscript needs major corrections and improvements.
Response: Many thanks to the Reviewer for this rightful feedback, which we appreciate. The answers to the following questions are given below.
Special comments:
- Some of them are very crucial (1 and 2) the others are debatable (3-9).
- The study took for five years. How does the data represent the time duration/flow?
Response: Once again, we are grateful to the Reviewer for mentioning this point. As organic carbon is the indicator that has little effect over time, there were no significant variations in the data during the study period. The data obtained throughout the study were similar and did not differ. As we know, the time is required for the change of organic carbon, the changes of OC can be observed only after 10 years, our study evaluated the amount of labile (rather showing the effect of the applied measures) and stable fractions. As the data obtained did not differ significantly from each other, there were no exceptional weather conditions that would lead to sudden changes in chemical properties, so we did not show annual data in the article but presented their average values.
- Pleases be as much as possible in describing the experiment. Please add:
2.1. The scheme of experiment,
2.2. Number of samples taken,
2.3. Dates of sampling,
2.4. Line 111 ‘after harvesting, soil samples were collected (…)’. Please add what was harvested? What plants were cultivated.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this weakness. We have added additional information that seems significant and helps the reader better understand the structure of experiment. We have added the graphical scheme of experiment (please look at the Figure 2), wrote the number of samples, date of sampling, as well as the crop rotation. The new sentences are given below:
Soil samples were collected every year, in autumn (2015 – 2019 September) after the harvesting. The five – field crop rotation were as follows: barley with perennial grasses, perennial grasses, winter triticale and spring oilseed rape. Soil samples (n- 45) were collected with a steel auger from three replicates of topsoil (0–20 cm).
2.5. ‘The liming rates are not clear for me. For instance, table 1. First row, liming using x0,5 of the liming rate every seven years’. Why don’t you write the dose of applied lime.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. The amounts of lime at 0.5 and 2.0n rate were different, as they were calculated on the basis of the hydrolytic acidity of the soil at that time, so it’s quite difficult to write one number. The amounts of lime in physical weight are given in Table 1.
2.6. Are the other possible sources of calcium in the sampled soil? i.e. Organic fertilizers?, phosphorus fertilisers?
Response: We are appreciative to the Reviewer for this question. Crop rotations were fertilized equally in all treatments with a minimum rate of granular superphosphate of P2O560 mineral fertilizer. Organic fertilizers were not inserted, the getted harvest was removed from the field.
2.7. What was the size of the experimental plot?
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. We have added the size of experimental plot: the initial size of each treatment is 74.75 m2 (length 11.5 meters, width 6.5 meters.
2.8. How was the lime homogenise with the soil? What agricultural practices were carried on after liming?
Response: As suggested by the Reviewer we wrote a sentence about agricultural practices that were carried on after liming. Please, look page 3, line 103-104: Lime was spread on the soil surface and applied to the soil on the same day with a cultivator at 7-12 cm depth.
- There is only one localisation of the study. Please consider the title? What do you think to ad ‘A case study’? I am not English i.e. English language is not my mother tongue however the title is too much complicated. Think over following suggestion ‘Influence of liming intensity on fractions of humified organic carbon in acid soil. A case study?’
Response: We are grateful for the Reviewer for suggestion how to improve title of the article. We fully agree with Yours suggestion and corrected the title.
- Data presentation, In table 2. Please add standard deviation or relative standard deviation or any other index showing the variability of the data you averaged. Did you use any post hoc test (Tukey, Student or Duncan) if yes please add the LSD values to the table 2.
Response: As suggested by Reviewer, we have added a standard deviation to the table 2. Also, we added a different lowercase letter to indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level based on the least significant difference (LSD) test.
- Did you statistically compared lime at 0,5 rate to limed at 2,0 rate? Or ‘only’ 0,5 rate to control (unlimed) and 2,0 rate to control?
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. Now we corrected all graphics and tables and compared all treatments among each other, not only with the control (unlimed) treatment.
- Please carefully check the figure 3. Check if the data read from the figure correspond to the data from the text?
Response: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We have corrected it. It was a typing mistake.
- In all figures explain what are the whiskers?
Response: We are grateful for the Reviewer for pointing out this mistake. We wrote the explanation in the Table 2. We removed the whiskers from the graphics and added an alphabetical letters seeking to compare all treatments with each other.
- Lines 301 delete foreign scientists and write the surnames. Lines 332 and 334 delete the name initial letters.
Response: This is done.
- The references some of them are very high ranked unlike the other are not raked at all.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. We tried to correct and changed some references with higher rank.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Number: sustainability-1664329-peer-review-v1
Title: Influence of liming of different intensity liming on fractions of 2 humified organic carbon in acid soil.
Comments:
This study aimed to assess the impact of liming of different intensity liming on fractions of 2 humified organic carbon in acid soil. This article is well written, technically sound and in well scientific style. However, manuscript needs to address certain critical points before recommending it for publication.
- Authors have suggested that please update introduction section with few latest references.
- Novelty point of view, authors have suggested that please write how this research work is unique from already published research work.
- If possible, please redesign GIS map location as per GPS coordinates.
- Please add alphabetical letters on each column of graphs 3 and 4.
- Please check the data value of given table 3.
- The results and discussion section of this manuscript should be revised carefully and add some recently published articles related to your topic.
- Finally, the language of the manuscript should be improved to increase the readability of the manuscript.
Author Response
General comment: This study aimed to assess the impact of liming of different intensity liming on fractions of 2 humified organic carbon in acid soil. This article is well written, technically sound and in well scientific style. However, manuscript needs to address certain critical points before recommending it for publication.
Response: Many thanks to the Reviewer for this positive feedback, which we appreciate. The answers to the following questions are given below.
- Authors have suggested that please update introduction section with few latest references.
Response: As suggested by Reviewer, we have added some latest references to the introduction section (please look, reference 2,12,15,20).
- Novelty point of view, authors have suggested that please write how this research work is unique from already published research work.
Response: As suggested by Reviewer, we have written the novelty of our work as follows: Nonetheless, while many studies have investigated the different characteristics of HA and FA, the specific effects of lime on humus fractional composition and different humification process indices have not been less reported.
- If possible, please redesign GIS map location as per GPS coordinates.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. The scheme of the experiment was added (please look at the Figure 2). Also, we have corrected the coordinates.
- Please add alphabetical letters on each column of graphs 3 and 4.
Response: Thank You for the suggestion. This is done.
- Please check the data value of given table 3.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We have corrected it and change the commas to dots.
- The results and discussion section of this manuscript should be revised carefully and add some recently published articles related to your topic.
Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for pointing out this observation. As suggested by the Reviewer, we carefully looked over all results and discussions section, corrected some mistakes. Also, we added some recently published articles.
- Finally, the language of the manuscript should be improved to increase the readability of the manuscript.
Response: We completely agree with the Reviewer that the quality of the particular sentence required English revisions. We submitted the article to our institution's translator, who corrected the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the asnwers. I ask the Editor to accept the manuscript.
