Response of Soil Temperature, Moisture, and Spring Maize (Zea mays L.) Root/Shoot Growth to Different Mulching Materials in Semi-Arid Areas of Northwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, the authors have made almost all required corrections according to my suggestions.
But many mistakes remained (highlighted in the text).
Also in the title, the Latin name of maize has to be in italics “Zea Mays L.”
Even now, abstract is too long; it has 306 words. According to Instruction for author, the abstract should contain about 200 words maximum.
Line 20 – between number and physical unit has to be a free space, it means, right will be “0.6 °C lower”
Line 84 – instead “1220m”, right will be “1220 m”
Line 90 – many free spaces “Precipitation ， high”
Line 91 – free space is missing “Table1”
Line 120 – free space is missing and also unit, instead of “08:00and 20:00” right will be “08:00 and 20:00 h”
Line 125 - according to Instruction for author, do not use abbreviation Eqn(1) and number has to be without parentheses, right will be Equation 1
Lines 126, 131 – after the numeric designation of the equation, the dot must be omitted
Line 130 – instead of “Equation(2)”, right will be “Equation 2”
Lines 132, 219 - the free space should not be between the unit and the exponent, instead of “(m 2 m −2 )”, right will be “(m2 m−2)”
Lines 131, 133 – symbol for time t in Equation 2 and in the text should be in italics
Lines 181, 187 – in “Table 3.Effect” and “Figure 1.Soil” respectively, after dot, free space is missing. And also in lines 205, 211, 234, 267, 268.
Line 279 – a dot is missing at the end of the sentence after “[1, 5, 13]”
Line 282 – free space is missing “drought[“
References should exactly follow the Instruction for author. Instead of
Line 432 and 433 –
Zhang, S. L.; Sadras, V.; Chen, X. P.; Zhang, F. S. Water use efficiency of dryland wheat in the Loess Plateau in response to soil and crop management. 2013. Field Crop Res 151: 9–18.
right will be
Zhang, S.L.; Sadras, V.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, F.S. Water use efficiency of dryland wheat in the Loess Plateau in response to soil and crop management. Field Crop Res 2013, 151, 9–18.
And also, at other references. Abbreviated name of journal should be in italics. The year of paper has to be in bold. Volume of the journal should be written in italics. Dash (–) should be used instead of hyphen (-) between page numbers. There should be a dot at the end.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Replies to Reviewer 1
(1) Also in the title, the Latin name of maize has to be in italics “Zea Mays L.”.
Response: It has been revised.
(2) Even now, abstract is too long; it has 306 words. According to Instruction for author, the abstract should contain about 200 words maximum.
Response: The summary has been streamlined as required.
(3) Line 20 – between number and physical unit has to be a free space, it means, right will be “0.6 °C lower”
Response: It has been revised.
(4) Line 84 – instead “1220m”, right will be “1220 m.
Response: It has been revised.
(5) Line 90 – many free spaces “Precipitation ， high”.
Response: It has been revised.
(6) Line 91 – free space is missing “Table1”
Response: It has been revised.
(7) Line 120 – free space is missing and also unit, instead of “08:00and 20:00” right will be “08:00 and 20:00 h”
Response: It has been revised.
(8) Line 125 - according to Instruction for author, do not use abbreviation Eqn(1) and number has to be without parentheses, right will be Equation 1.
Response: It has been revised.
(9) Lines 126, 131 – after the numeric designation of the equation, the dot must be omitted.
Response: It has been revised.
(10) Line 130 – instead of “Equation(2)”, right will be “Equation 2”
Response: It has been revised.
(11) Lines 132, 219 - the free space should not be between the unit and the exponent, instead of “(m 2 m −2 )”, right will be “(m2 m−2)”
Response: It has been revised.
(12) Lines 131, 133 – symbol for time t in Equation 2 and in the text should be in italics
Response: It has been revised.
(13) Lines 181, 187 – in “Table 3.Effect” and “Figure 1.Soil” respectively, after dot, free space is missing. And also in lines 205, 211, 234, 267, 268
Response: It has been revised.
(14) Line 279 – a dot is missing at the end of the sentence after “[1, 5, 13]”
Response: It has been revised.
(15) Line 282 – free space is missing “drought[“
Response: It has been revised.
(16) References should exactly follow the Instruction for author. Instead of
Line 432 and 433 –Zhang, S. L.; Sadras, V.; Chen, X. P.; Zhang, F. S. Water use efficiency of dryland wheat in the Loess Plateau in response to soil and crop management. 2013. Field Crop Res 151: 9–18.
right will be Zhang, S.L.; Sadras, V.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, F.S. Water use efficiency of dryland wheat in the Loess Plateau in response to soil and crop management. Field Crop Res 2013, 151, 9–18.
And also, at other references. Abbreviated name of journal should be in italics. The year of paper has to be in bold. Volume of the journal should be written in italics. Dash (–) should be used instead of hyphen (-) between page numbers. There should be a dot at the end.
Response: It has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Agronomy, Manuscript ID: agronomy-741329
Response of soil temperature, moisture and spring maize (Zea mays L.)
root/shoot growth to different mulching materials in semi-arid areas of
northwest China
This paper requires minor revision
Paper has improved related to the earlier version.
Aim of this paper has regional importance (most of cited papers – 23 from 32 –state that). However, findings, related to the mulching may achieve a wider attention.
Abstract: Informative, clear.
Introduction:
Authors cleared the subchapter Introduction up; now well readable. Length and content are right now.
Materials and methods
L101-102: More acceptable than that was in the earlier text.
L104-105: Responded to the question.
L123: explained…that was not written in the earlier version.
L134: so not only BF…every treatment; right
Table 2: Whether relate to average of soil state in treatments?
Results
Table 6: I understand the importance of the data, but this table includes too much… should be 3 years average at V6, 3 years average at V12…. I hope Editor may make a best decision…
L239:…MS and CK. and…. point or comma or nothing?
Descriptions of the results are acceptable.
Discussion
L299: However…why comma?
L311-314, 324-325: right
L333: ( Figure 2) Why place of a letter?
L323-325: both heath stress and leaf senescence state WF impact.
L352:…maize… why comma?
L412-413: …”we have demonstrated the superior effect of BF on the soil water thermal conditions for root growth in maize.” Right, but which type of mulch matter may execute in larger fields? Similar L: 427-428.
Authors may give pictures about different types of mulch
Author Response
(1) Table 2: Whether relate to average of soil state in treatments?
Response: Yes, it is average of soil state in treatments.
(2) Table 6: I understand the importance of the data, but this table includes too much… should be 3 years average at V6, 3 years average at V12…. I hope Editor may make a best decision….
Response: If you use the average, it will cover up each year's change.
(3) L239:…MS and CK. and…. point or comma or nothing?
Response: It has been revised.
(4) L299: However…why comma?
Response: It has been revised.
(5) L333: ( Figure 2) Why place of a letter?
Response: It has been revised.
(6): L352:…maize… why comma?
Response: It has been revised.
(7) L412-413: …”we have demonstrated the superior effect of BF on the soil water thermal conditions for root growth in maize.” Right, but which type of mulch matter may execute in larger fields? Similar L: 427-428.
Response: It has been revised and added explanation in the article.
(8) Authors may give pictures about different types of mulch
Response: It has been revised and added field planting pattern pictures of different treatment (Figure 1) in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
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
Please address all the formatting issues.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and well organised, but English language and style need to be thoroughly revised and improved. I can suggest to have the paper revised by a mother tongue. There are several typing errors, too.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the authors present the results of an interesting field experiment that affects maize cultivation on variously mulched soils. They have made a large number of measurements during 3 years of maize cultivation. Several characteristics describing soil and plant properties in semiarid areas affecting maize production were measured and evaluated.
In the title, it is necessary to improve the Latin name of maize, right will be “(Zea Mays L.)".
Abstract is too long; it has 328 words. According to Instruction for author, the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.
In parts Introduction and Discussion, the citations have to be given only by number. After the reference number in the text, the author names and year must be omitted.
The Material and Methods section is elaborated in detail. Statistics are used correctly.
The results were discussed with the findings of many other authors.
References should exactly follow the Instruction for author. Instead of
“Zhang S L, Sadras V, Chen X P, and Zhang F S. 2013. Water use efficiency of dryland wheat in the Loess Plateau in response to soil and crop management. Field Crops Research 151: 9-18.”
Right will be
“Zhang, S.L.; Sadras, V.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, F.S. Water use efficiency of dryland wheat in the Loess Plateau in response to soil and crop management. 2013. Field Crop Res 151, 9–18.”
And also, at other references. The abbreviations of journal titles have to be used in References.
Manuscript contains formal errors (highlighted in the text).
In many cases, free spaces are missing between the word and the reference number, between two words, and so on, e.g. pages 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 12.
Between number and physical unit has to be a free space, e.g. pages 1, 2, and 3.
The word “weight” is commonly used, but according to my opinion correct will be “mass”, e.g. pages 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11.
Symbols for quantities in Equation 2 and in the text should be in italics, page 4.
In some cases, the units writing has to be corrected: the free space should not be between the unit and the exponent (pages 4 and 6); in Table 7, do not use the dot as a multiplication symbol.
According to Instruction for author, do not use abbreviation Fig., right will be Figure, instead of Eqn. right will be Equation (pages 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11).
Reviewer 4 Report
Agronomy, Manuscript ID: agronomy-680623
Aim of the paper has regional importance (most of cited papers are also supported that). However, findings, related to the mulching may have received a wider attention.
This paper requires medium revision. There are questions that are needed real answers and questions are needed explanations.
Abstract: Informative, clear.
Introduction:
-mulching or cover the surface totally… ‘mulch film’ suggests that cover… ‘plastic film mulch’… this phrase gives rise to misunderstanding. Authors is to clear what is mulch or surface cover
-Heaping numbers and author’ names in the subchapter Introduction seemed quite rambling
Materials and methods
Treatments are not comparable realistically (problem with quality of MS)
Treatments: ”maize straw (cut into 30 cm-long segments…”. Pieces are long, spreading them on soil cover that roughly…considering this that realises less efficiency compared to BF and WF.
Does apply any tillage/soil disturbance before maize sowing? There is no info about…
Most of measurements were done in BF treatment. Why? No explanation in the subchapter. How concerns exact data for other treatments?
Table 2: Data from what treatment?
Results
Temperature in maize straw mulch (MS)….considering the loosen cover (long straw pieces), that reduced the temperature and promote water loss, highly compared to WF and BF.
Figure 1: Difficult to understand clearly… authors may reform this figure.
Data (Table 3-7.) are stated the advantages of BF or WF, but a new question may also emerge: is there differences convincing? Lower yield, received by lower production cost may more realistic plan.
Discussion
“Wu et al. (2017) showed that a plastic film mulch was superior to straw for suppressing evaporation; hence use of a plastic mulch should lead to better water retention in soil during the fallow period in semi-arid areas prone to drought [13]. We found that compared with a straw mulch (MS), soil water storage was significantly higher with plastic film (black film, BF and white, WF) during the pre-tasseling stage, but significantly lower post-tasseling (Fig. 1).” It may realistic. However, use of plastic mulch (artificial cover matter) requires more costs and adding an environment-alien matter to the soil.
…MS significantly decreased soil temperature, due to their chopped state (long).
” root dry weight and shoot dry weight post-tasseling are more important for grain yield than those pre-tasseling” Right statement.
„Our results demonstrate that dry matter accumulation under BF and WF was better than under MS (Table 6) during all growth stages” ….However, chances of the treatments were uneven, so comparison seems to be unacceptable.
“Over the three years of our study, soil water storage under WF and BF was significantly higher than under MS pre-tasseling ( Fig. 1), thereby encouraging maize growth, as observed through significant increases in the dry matter of roots and shoots (Table 6).” WF and BF realised water conserving state, but MS is originated from the bad conduction (long pieces, no cover the soil normally)
Conclusions
„We therefore conclude that use of black plastic film as a mulch for maize grown in a semi-arid area that experiences intense light and heat will lead to higher grain yields.” This statement is required refining. Cover? or Mulch cover?
