Distribution and Transformation of Soil Phosphorus Forms under Different Land Use Patterns in an Urban Area of the Lower Yangtze River Basin, South China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is a resubmitted manuscript which I already revised. The authors extensively improved the text and my requests in the previous reports have been fulfilled.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advice. We invite an American scientist Dr. Huang Hui to polish English language of this manuscript. We think that the polished version is greatly improved.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Although my recommendation is to accept this paper without revision, I would suggest to the authors to run a last check for major language issues (orthography, syntax, grammar) that appear in a few places within the manuscript.
1) Lines 2-3, Title: It needs some little, but critical modification as follows:
“Distribution and transformation of soil phosphorus forms un-der different land use patterns in a large city of the lower Yang-tze River Basin, South China”Instead of “Distribution and transformation of soil phosphorus forms un-der different land use patterns in Nachang city, South China”.
2) Figure 3 and 5 might also be improved by increasing picture resolution.
3) Line 70 - 81: The background information about Nanchang City is too detailed. Ask the writer to cut out the useless information.
4) Line 112 : Please briefly describe the sampling method in the following paragraphs.
5) Figure 2: Please give the basis for classifying the soil categories in Figure 2. List relevant references.
6) Line 509: Use "Conclusions" instead of "Conclusion". The given conclusions are good and straightforward but they can be shortened, and if needed make them 4 - 6 bullets instead of 3 paragraphs.
7) The reference list needs very careful re-editing taking in consideration punctuation and numbering. Some important relevant literature please cite, for example: An, R.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, C.; Liu, X.; Cai, S. Quantitative Characterization of Drying-Induced Cracks and Permeabilityof Granite Residual Soil Using Micron-Sized X-Ray Computed Tomography. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 876, 163213.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageComments on the Quality of English Language
It is readable, but must be improved for publication. Some terms are wrong, a lot of grammar is wrong. Please get it proofread.
Author Response
- Although my recommendation is to accept this paper without revision, I would suggest to the authors to run a last check for major language issues (orthography, syntax, grammar) that appear in a few places within the manuscript.
Reply: Thank you very much for your useful comments. According to this comment, Dr. Huang Hui (an American scientist) is invited to help improve the English language of this manuscript.
- Lines 2-3, Title: It needs some little, but critical modification as follows:
“Distribution and transformation of soil phosphorus forms un-der different land use patterns in a large city of the lower Yang-tze River Basin, South China”Instead of “Distribution and transformation of soil phosphorus forms un-der different land use patterns in Nachang city, South China”.
Reply: Thanks a lot. Yes, it is. The revision is made in text. Please see lines 2-4 of the revised version.
- Figure 3 and 5 might also be improved by increasing picture resolution.
Reply: Thanks a lot for this comment. The two figures are improved. Please see lines 202-204 and 286-288 of the revised version.
- Line 70 - 81: The background information about Nanchang City is too detailed. Ask the writer to cut out the useless information.
Reply: According to this comment, the background information about Nanchang is shortened in text. Please see lines 72-73 of the revised version.
- Line 112: Please briefly describe the sampling method in the following paragraphs.
Reply: Thanks a lot. According to this comment, the sampling method is briefly described in text. Please see lines 113-120 of the revised version.
- Figure 2: Please give the basis for classifying the soil categories in Figure 2. List relevant references.
Reply: Thank you very much for this comment. The description of soil grain size classification is given in the caption of Fig. 2. The relevant reference is and cited in text and added in the section of Reference. Please see [34] in the section of Reference. And the orders of other references are adjusted.
- Line 509: Use "Conclusions" instead of "Conclusion". The given conclusions are good and straightforward but they can be shortened, and if needed make them 4 - 6 bullets instead of 3 paragraphs.
Reply: Thanks a lot. The section of Conclusions is shortened to some degree in text. Please lines 541-570 of the revised version.
- The reference list needs very careful re-editing taking in consideration punctuation and numbering. Some important relevant literature please cite, for example: An, R.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, C.; Liu, X.; Cai, S. Quantitative Characterization of Drying-Induced Cracks and Permeabilityof Granite Residual Soil Using Micron-Sized X-Ray Computed Tomography. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 876, 163213.
Reply: Thanks a lot. The references are checked. And this reference is also cited and added in the reference list. Please see [16] of the reference list in the revised version.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors compared the phosphorous forms in three different landforms (wasteland, paddy field, and dryland) across 2.4 m depth. They proposed the possible mechanisms of phosphorous distribution and gave suggestions on soil management on retaining phosphorus in top soils. The results are mostly descriptive but interesting, but the quality of the manuscript needs to be improved.
general comments
The language needs major improvement
The manuscript still has certain words or sentences marked in red, probably from the author's editing
Table 2, is described in the discussion, but not in the results
There is a lot of information in the discussion that should be in the results.
It is difficult to follow the logic in the discussion. the authors described many patterns that contradict the literature, but did not explain why this is the case.
specific comments
The legend for the map needs improvement, the sample type needs to be marked on the map, and the figure legend "greenland" refers to "grassland"?
Lines 129-133 need references for physicochemical analysis
line 313 inconsistent citation style
Fig. 6 is not informative, need additional information on what the arrows mean and why the paddy field had Discharge, while the other two have runoff.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language needs to be improved particularly the abstract. For example, it is hard to understand what "contents of soil P forms were the highest in the dryland and the lowest in the paddy field with total P accumulation in the upper wasteland and paddy field soils but in the lower dryland soil" means without finish reading the manuscript. Also there are abbreviation used without the full name spelled.
Author Response
general comments
- The language needs major improvement
Reply: Thank you very much for your advice. We invite an American scientist Dr. Huang Hui to polish English language of this manuscript. We think that the polished version is greatly improved.
- The manuscript still has certain words or sentences marked in red, probably from the author's editing
Reply: This is the revised version because the manuscript was already reviewed before this reviewing. This version is revised according to the comments of the reviewers and the revised part is marked by red color according to requirements of the journal.
- Table 2, is described in the discussion, but not in the results.
Reply: Thanks a lot. According to this comment, the information of Table 2 is described in a separated paragraph, that is, Section 3.3 of the revised version.
- There is a lot of information in the discussion that should be in the results.
It is difficult to follow the logic in the discussion. the authors described many patterns that contradict the literature, but did not explain why this is the case.
Reply: According to this comment, some information is moved to the section of Results, and the section of Discussion is revised. Some conclusions are different from previous studies, and are explained to some degree. Please see Section 4 of the revised version.
specific comments
- The legend for the map needs improvement, the sample type needs to be marked on the map, and the figure legend "greenland" refers to "grassland"?
Reply: Thanks a lot. According to this comment, the revisions are made. Please see figure 1 in the revised version.
- Lines 129-133 need references for physicochemical analysis
Reply: The relevant reference is cited in text and added in the reference list. Please see reference [33].
- line 313 inconsistent citation style
Reply: This revision is made. Please see line 363 of the revised version.
- Fig. 6 is not informative, need additional information on what the arrows mean and why the paddy field had Discharge, while the other two have runoff.
Reply: The Youkou wasteland was at a natural state without or with small human activities. The hydrological condition of the Luojiaji paddy field was manually controlled according to the requirement of rice planting. The information of the three sites is given in Section 2.2. Please see 113-116 of the revised version.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this valuable research but some points need clarification
In abstract the methods used not mentioned and also conclusion
There are many abbreviation need to identify before
As regard period of the study it began 8 years ago why?
During which season the study conducted?
In figure 2 what is the significant of left and the base of triangle?
In figure 3 what is the legend for black squares?
In discussion there is no sequence table 2 discuss before table one
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language is required
Author Response
- In abstract the methods used not mentioned and also conclusion.
Reply: Thanks a lot. The methods of extracting and measuring soil P forms are given in the abstract and conclusions. Please see lines 13-27 and 542-549 of the revised version.
- There are many abbreviation need to identify before.
Reply: Thanks a lot. In each paragraph, full names are given when they occur at the first.
- As regard period of the study it began 8 years ago why?
Reply: We are so sorry that the samples were taken on July 23, 2016. The data were actually obtained in 2017, only they were not analyzed and summarized in time. Nevertheless, we think that the sampling time does not affect the discussion on scientifical questions.
.
- During which season the study conducted?
Reply: The study was conducted in summer. The information is given in the section of Sampling. Please see lines 111-112 of the revised version.
- In figure 2 what is the significant of left and the base of triangle?
Reply: The left and base of the triangle mean the percentages of clay and sand, respectively.
- In figure 3 what is the legend for black squares?
Reply: The black square denotes pH. In this revision, the legend is added.
- In discussion there is no sequence table 2 discuss before table one
Reply: Tables 1 and 2 was described in the section of Results. In the section of Discussion, the result of Table 2 was also used to discuss the influences of phosphorus.
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study helps to understand the urban soil phosphorus cycle which also provides useful data for controlling soil phosphorus loss. The article is appropriately selected, with clear hierarchy and standardized diagrams. Acceptable level is achieved.
Author Response
- 1. This study helps to understand the urban soil phosphorus cycle which also provides useful data for controlling soil phosphorus loss. The article is appropriately selected, with clear hierarchy and standardized diagrams. Acceptable level is achieved.
Reply: Thank you very much for your useful comments!
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript should be revised before publication. Some suggestions are provided below for author’s consideration.
1. Line13：What is “P cycle”？Please give the full spelling or definition in the first place.
2. Line 20：The “pH” should be "The pH value".
3. Line 27: The "urban soils" should revised as "soils in urban areas".
4. Line 121: The title of Figure 1 should revised as "Map of the studing area and sampling locations".
5. Line 184: The instruction (The grain size is less than ……based on [36].) for Figure 2 should move to the following paragraph.
6. Conclusions：This part should be simplified and focused on the most important findings.
Author Response
Revisions according to the comments of Reviewer 2:
The manuscript should be revised before publication. Some suggestions are provided below for author’s consideration.
- Line13：What is “P cycle”？Please give the full spelling or definition in the first place.
Reply: P cycle means phosphorus cycle. According to this comment, the revision is made. Please see line 13 of the revised version.
- Line 20：The “pH” should be "The pH value".
Reply: Thanks a lot for this comment. The revision is made. Please see line 20 of the revised version.
- Line 27: The "urban soils" should revised as "soils in urban areas".
Reply: Thanks a lot. The revision is made. Please see line 27 of the revised version.
- Line 121: The title of Figure 1 should revised as "Map of the studing area and sampling locations".
Reply: The revision is made. Please see line 122 of the revised version.
- Line 184: The instruction (The grain size is less than ……based on [36].) for Figure 2 should move to the following paragraph.
Reply: Thanks a lot. The revision is made. Please see lines 186-187 of the revised version.
- Conclusions：This part should be simplified and focused on the most important findings.
Reply: Thanks a lot for this comment. The revision is made. Please see Section 5 of the revised version.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my concerns are addressed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors focused on Distribution and transformation of soil phosphorus forms under different land use patterns in Nanchang, China.
Please see below my suggestions:
Emails of each author must be added after its affiliation together with its initials.
Abstract is much too long. Please check the Instructions for authors in this regard.
L51-87. Too long paragraph. Divide it according to the idea developed (a paragraph is a separate idea).
Develop better the Aim of the study L83-87. At the final of Introduction, AIM of the study can be better presented. It must be clearly stated and addressed from the perspective of describing the contribution to the field under analysis and the elements of scientific novelty presented, as the LAST, SEPARATE paragraph of this section, to be easier visible. Develop it as better as you can. What differentiate your paper from other in the same topic? Give a reason for interest in this paper.
2nd section; please provide:
- the Model, Producer/manufacturer, City, and Country (4 information) for EACH APPARATUS (4 information) used in the research, and
- the Producer, Country, purity degree, and concentration (4 information) used for EACh REAGENT/chemical used. Check the entire manuscript in this regard. These info give the possibility for replicating you experiment to other authors
2.4. Softs used should be referenced. I suggest https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/how-cite-ibm-spss-statistics-or-earlier-versions-spss or similar links.
Discussion part in the 3rd section is too poor, develop it better:
- How are the enzymatic indicators of the soil affected by different phosphorus form in the soil and/or PH? Check https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320617256_Enzymatic_Indicators_of_Soil_Quality and https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.17.10.5864
- What is the impact of anthropogenic aspects and climatic factors on long term soil monitoring and management related to different phosphorus form accumulation/pH? https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14127-7
- Future directions should be provided.
- Last paragraph of Discussion must be added, describing the Strengths and the weakness/limitations of your research/results.
Conclusions section must be redone. Avoid duplicating information with other sections. Provide the main findings of your research, focusing on the novelty of your results and impact on the topic.
Use English editing tool for checking the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood english, minor editing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: You need to define a clear problem statement at the beginning of the abstract. Please state why it is important to explore the distribution and transformation of phosphorus forms in 13 soils under three land use patterns??Abstract should be shortened. Methodological explanations are very long. The most important quantitative findings should be emphasized.
Authors should clearly state the literature gap they are filling at the last paragragh of the introduction.
Please clearly explain why Nanchang City should be interest of global readers.
Figures are not located in appropriate places within the text. Figrue captions should not be inside the figure, they need to be shown as text in the manuscript.
Methodology section (2.3 and 2.4) are very brief and weak. Author should use scientific language and references to improve this section.
There is not any discussion section.
Conclusion is repeating the results.
Unfortunately, this paper does not contain any novelty.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
