Improved Straw Decomposition Products Promote Peanut Growth by Changing Soil Chemical Properties and Microbial Diversity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of all the figures is very low; they need to be redone.

Most of the references are very old; they need to be updated.

Very acidic or very basic pH levels are harmful to the development of microorganisms. How did you control the optimal pH?

What is the advantage of using straw with lime directly in the soil or after incubation?

How did you minimize the effects of the type of straw, fertilizers, and soil nature on your results?

Why did you choose to use lime? Could potassium hydroxide be used instead? Additionally, what is the effect of calcium on your results?

Author Response

Dear professor,

I have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to a very interesting and relevant topic: finding ways to decompose peanut straw after treatment with chemicals.

However, there are several shortcomings in the work that need to be corrected.

The title of the article is very long and the meaning is similar to one of the conclusions. The name should be made more concise.

The drawings need to be improved: at the moment the clarity is quite weak.

Calcium hydroxide is a fertilizer and must be written in lower case.

Author Response

Dear professor,

I have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

The manucript "Calcium hydroxide treated straw decomposition products improve peanut growth by alleviating soil acidification and changing soil microorganisms" provide an important analysis on plant residues and their use in improvement of peanut growth and development. This research is connected with the current context of better recycle all residues for increasing the soil fertility and quality.

Some suggestions can be made to the current form of the manuscript.

The Abstract is clear and offer information on the most important findings of this study.

The Introduction section provides the context of the research, the necessity of the study and a clear aim and objectives.

The Materials and Methods section is well organized, with sub-sections of an appropriate length and offer details regarding all the techniques used in the study.

Results section - general recommendation - provide clearer graph, at a good resolution. The text in all Figures is not very visible.

Overall, the Results section is detailed, all the findings being presented in graphs and tables, well explained and interpreted.

The Discussion section is separated in three sub-sections, with the trends from Results section interpreted and compared with interational references.

Conclusion section - this section need to be expanded, to provide at least one sentence for each of the main findings from the results section. In this form is too general.

 

Author Response

Dear professor,

I have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a manuscript on microbial composition of soil after different types of straw treatments. The agrochemical part of the analysis is very strong and clearly presents the differences between treatments. But this has been done many times before. The novelty of the work is stated to be in the NGS analysis of the microbiome. While the results have been presented very neatly, some questions to the choice of analyses arises due to the small size of the dataset (only 12 samples). No data on the acquired amount of read bases was provided.

All in all, the article structure is good, the description of the experiment is comprehensive, but to my opinion the authors have too small amount of NGS data to make any interesting observations on the microbiome composition, which is reflected in the abstract and conclusions. Apart from that, mostly, I think that the article is ok, I just have a few notes:

1. line 29 - AK abbreviation is not explained

2. Abstract doesn't explain the use of NGS sequencing in the study 

3. The Methods 2.5 section lacks citation for used programs and packages

4. Table 2 - letters representing significant differences are not lowercased

5. Line 236 and onward - make microbial taxonomy more consistent with figures and modern phyla names, eg Firmicutes -> Bacillota, Proteobacteria -> Pseudomonadota, etc.

6. Figure 4 - please add dots of different samples on the graph. Is it statistically appropriate to draw box-plots with three replicates?

7. Please justify the use of LEfSe and Mantel analysis on such a small dataset. Which other methods did you consider using?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be proofread along the whole article. Many sentences lack words or word coordination.

Author Response

Dear professor,

I have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the figures are unclear.

Language needs polishing.

 

Title：Changing Soil Microorganisms？alter？ What has changed? Growth, activity, community, etc? Need to clarify.

The premise of Alleviating Soil Acidization is that Straw Decomposition Products are known to cause Soil Acidization... But you did not give such information.

Abstract: The first appearance of statistical analysis methods requires a full name rather than an abbreviation.

There are too many results, further screening is needed. 

 

Introduction: 

The first and second paragraphs provide too much description of soil acidification and its remediation. The purpose of Straw returning and previous research results should be provided first.

L63-70: There should be a lot of research on the response of soil microorganisms to straw returning and related treatments. What discoveries and shortcomings have been made? 

Introduction lacks of information on the impact of soil properties (such as acidification, microorganisms, etc.) on crop growth and their relationships. 

 

The authors studied the growth of peanuts at various stages of growth. At different stages, soil properties vary, which can affect plants. Meanwhile, the impact of soil on plants may exhibit lag. The conclusion can not be drawn from the author's statistical analysis which is too simple. In addition, secondary metabolism and root exudates of plants can also alter soil microorganisms. Therefore, the author's statement that changes in microorganisms improve crop growth is likely incorrect. On the contrary, significant improvement in soil acidification and nutrients are the fundamental reasons.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to be polished. 

Author Response

Dear professor,

I have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Acceptable for publication 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is fine. No more comments.