Effect of Different Tillage Systems on Soil Organic Carbon and Enzymatic Activity
, Ewa Szpunar-Krok 2, Renata Pawlak 2, Jadwiga Stanek-Tarkowska 1 and Anna Ilek 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The cultivation and tillage depth of the O_Fs tillage system and C_Ts tillage system are not much different, but the soil organic matter content of the O_Fs tillage system is lower than that of the C_Ts tillage system, and winter wheat and winter rapeseed are grown in each tillage system. Why? Further explanation is needed in the discussion.
- The farming methods, crop types, fertilization types, and dosage of the three tillage systems are all inconsistent. How to define which factors affect the differences in soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and enzyme activity? Tillage has a negative impact on the content of organic carbon and organic matter components in the O_Fs system, which needs to be deeper explained in the discussion.
- The first sentence of the abstract lacks an introduction to the purpose of the experiment.
- Before the 2016 trial, what are the differences in soil organic matter and total nitrogen content between the three farming systems?
- I noticed that C_Ts and S_Ts soils are both silt loam, and O_Fs soil is silt. The average content of O_Fs soil organic carbon, Nt and organic matter components are the lowest. For example, soil organic carbon O_Fs is easy to lose.
- There is an error in the 20th line of the summary, which should be 2016-2018.
- Where does the conclusion on lines 364-367 come from? The source should be indicated.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The cultivation and tillage depth of the O_Fs tillage system and C_Ts tillage system are not much different, but the soil organic matter content of the O_Fs tillage system is lower than that of the C_Ts tillage system, and winter wheat and winter rapeseed are grown in each tillage system. Why? Further explanation is needed in the discussion.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We added some missing information in the discussion section(e.g., L454-455, 501-509).
Point 2: The farming methods, crop types, fertilization types, and dosage of the three tillage systems are all inconsistent. How to define which factors affect the differences in soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and enzyme activity? Tillage has a negative impact on the content of organic carbon and organic matter components in the O_Fs system, which needs to be deeper explained in the discussion.
Response 2: The aim of the research was to assess the variability of selected soil parameters in private farms. These soils were used in a manner not imposed by the authors, and farmers kept the burrows defining - conventional tillage systems, simplified tillage systems, and the organic farming system. Most research on the influence of different tillage systems on soil properties is based on strict field experiments with a known system of experimental factors. In our study, we worked closely with farmers, and the obtained results allowed us to estimate the changes in selected soil properties under specific farming conditions.
We added some missing information in the abstract, introduction, discussion, and summary sections.
Point 3: The first sentence of the abstract lacks an introduction to the purpose of the experiment.
Response 3: The abstract section has been modified accordingly.
Point 4: Before the 2016 trial, what are the differences in soil organic matter and total nitrogen content between the three farming systems?
Response 4: Year 2016 was the starting point of our research. Soil properties before 2016 were not determined.
Point 5: I noticed that C_Ts and S_Ts soils are both silt loam, and O_Fs soil is silt. The average content of O_Fs soil organic carbon, Nt and organic matter components are the lowest. For example, soil organic carbon O_Fs is easy to lose.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comments. Indeed, the granulometric soil composition plays a crucial role in organic matter accumulation. In our study, We did not determine the effect of the soil granulometric composition on the SOC accumulation because all soils were characterized by a similar granulometric composition, which was presented in Table 2. So we do not think that the difference in the content of fine fractions under these conditions significantly influenced SOC accumulation or losses, especially in soils under organic farming systems.
Point 6: There is an error in the 20th line of the summary, which should be 2016-2018.
Response 6: Done
Point 7: Where does the conclusion on lines 364-367 come from? The source should be indicated.
Response 7: The citations have been added. Please see positions number 19 and 41 in the references section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewers’ Comments
Abstract
The first sentence should relate the research background and the significance of the study.
Line 20: 2016-1108？
Line 37: drop the keywords ‘soil enzymatic activity’, and ‘soil organic carbon’. they are a repeat of the title.
There are a number of qualitative analyses in the Abstract. Numerical values should be presented when parameters were compared between treatments.
Introduction
The introduction section is generally well-written. While literature review is missed and several comparison of the current study and previous studies was not well presented here. Also, what is your hypothesis of this study? The authors need add related research results to highlight the innovation of the present study.
- Materials and Methods
2.1. Study area and sampling
In this section, basic information about the weather data should be improved, including long-term annual precipitation, air temperature, sunshine hour, evapotranspiration etc. Soil property is supposed to be given in Table form.
- 3. Results
Line 198: In figure 3, we encourage the authors to change axis title ‘rainfalls’ into ‘precipitation’, making the expression consistent with the passage.
- Discussion
In this section, the authors compared the current findings of the effect of tillage systems on C, N and C/N ratio with the previous studies. However, the innovative points of the study is lacked in the section. The authors should point out what are the creative points of this study, and your advance in updating the current knowledge.
5.Conclusions
The section should be re-written since it did not address the main findings of the study, and the hypothesis of the experiment was also missed.
In general, the manuscript listed several parameters in this study but the authors were unable to integrate those parameters together to elucidate the major advantage of simplified tillage adopted in this study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The first sentence should relate the research background and the significance of the study.
Response 1: The abstract section has been modified accordingly.
Point 2: Line 20: 2016-1108？
Response 2: Corrected
Point 3: Line 37: drop the keywords ‘soil enzymatic activity’, and ‘soil organic carbon’. they are a repeat of the title.
Response 3: Done
Point 4: There are a number of qualitative analyses in the Abstract. Numerical values should be presented when parameters were compared between treatments.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. The abstract section has been modified.
Point 5: The introduction section is generally well-written. While literature review is missed and several comparison of the current study and previous studies was not well presented here. Also, what is your hypothesis of this study? The authors need add related research results to highlight the innovation of the present study.
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. The aim of the study has been modified according to the Reviewer's suggestions.
Point 6: In this section, basic information about the weather data should be improved, including long-term annual precipitation, air temperature, sunshine hour, evapotranspiration etc. Soil property is supposed to be given in Table form.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The weather data (long-term annual precipitation and air temperature) has been added. The evapotranspiration and sunshine data have not available for this area. We prefer show weather data on the chart, not on the table.
Point 7: Line 198: In figure 3, we encourage the authors to change axis title ‘rainfalls’ into ‘precipitation’, making the expression consistent with the passage.
Response 7: Done
Point 8: In this section, the authors compared the current findings of the effect of tillage systems on C, N and C/N ratio with the previous studies. However, the innovative points of the study is lacked in the section. The authors should point out what are the creative points of this study, and your advance in updating the current knowledge.
Response 8: Discussion section has been modified accordingly.
Point 9: The section should be re-written since it did not address the main findings of the study, and the hypothesis of the experiment was also missed.
In general, the manuscript listed several parameters in this study but the authors were unable to integrate those parameters together to elucidate the major advantage of simplified tillage adopted in this study.
Response 9: The summary section has been rewritten according to the Reviewer's suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
