Changes in Dry Matter and Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulfur Stocks after Applications of Increasing Doses of Pig Slurry to Soils with Tifton-85 for Six Years in Southern Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We highlight the following: with the regression analysis, we entered the Tifton 85 production biomass from six agricultural years, and used the accumulated biomass to run the PCA together with the stocks of C, N and S. And through PCA, which showed excellent data variability ( PC1 plus PC2 = 70%) it was possible to show that the accumulation of dry mass reflected in increases in C, N and S stocks. And in the case of the Control treatment, the variable N30 is separating the control treatment from the other tre atments precisely because in the conventional method (ANOVA), the control has higher values ​​of total N or N stocks in this layer (or without differing from the other treatments). It is evident that the use of PCA separated the treatments Control, PS400 and grouped the other treatments (PS100, P200, PS300 and MIn200). And this allowed us to conclude that the PS100 and PS200 doses have a similar effect to urea (MIN200).

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors corrected their manuscript. The only thing, line 49: "63.000" replace with "63

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attached file.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The manuscript entitled “Changes in dry matter and carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur stocks after applications of increasing doses of pig slurry to soils with Tifton-85 for six years in southern Brazil” reported the results of application of pig slurry (PS) to increase the Tifton-85 dry matter production, and soil organic C, N, and S contents. It had certain meaning to promote the use of PS by reducing environmental risks. The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

1．The Figure 1 was not clear. It should modified to fit the theme of “Tifton-85 dry matter production”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

The manuscript entitled “Changes in carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur stocks after successive applications of pig slurry to soils with Tifton-85 in southern Brazil” reported the results of application of pig slurry (PS) to increase soil organic C, N, and S contents. It is not suitable for publication on agronomy for the follow questions.

1．We cannot find the scientific problems or value of application promotion technology from the paper. There were also no innovations to do these works. It is not clear to reader, which knowledge can be obtained from this article.

2. The manuscript entitled “Changes in carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur stocks after successive applications of pig slurry to soils with Tifton-85 in southern Brazil”. but there were only one year data with dry matter production (DMP) in 2017/2018, and soil organic C, N, and S contents in 2019. We cannot find any dynamically changing data with DMP and SOC, TN, TS, etc.

3. The equations used to calculate total stock (Cs) was exit problem, and they need check. The unit with soil carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur stocks in table 6 were wrong. (g kg^-1)?

4．The results and discussion in the manuscript is too descriptive and lack of condensed. They are need to promote and streamline. The relationship between DMP of Tifton-85 and the rates of PS could be used to build regression model.

5.    The conclusion in the manuscript is not clear, and it was lack of persuasive.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript agronomy-1841032 «Changes in carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur stocks after successive applications of pig slurry to soils with Tifton-85 in southern Brazil» is devoted to the influence of pig slurry on the content of nutrients (carbon, nitrogen, etc.) in soils. In general, the manuscript is well written, but there are some minor errors:

line 48: 63.000 Mg day^-1 should be replaced by 63 Gg day^-1 to avoid confusion with magnesium;

line 130: The name of the soil according to WRB should be Rhodic Ferralsol (Dystric) because Dystric is an supplementary qualifiers and he uses in brackets, Normal - no such qualifiers;

line 163: NH₃⁺ - remove ⁺.