Long-Term Application of Manure and Different Mineral Fertilization in Relation to the Soil Organic Matter Quality of Luvisols

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

This is an interesting manuscript and has the potential to be of interest to agronomists. However, I have some suggestions and comments:

 

Abstract:

Abstract should not contain any undefined abbreviations, when abbreviations are used, they should be explained appropriately when they are used for the first time.

 

Introduction:

The introduction should include the research hypothesis.

 

Materials and methods:

Much information is missing in this chapter. In field conditions, the plant is influenced by agroecological factors. The characteristics of soil should be provided - origin, geological structure, granulometric composition, pH, nutrient content.

 

I suggest briefly describing the cultivation technology. Was the agrotechnical methods the same in all sites? The tillage system may influence the soil organic matter content (no-till vs conventional).

 

There is no information about experimental design. How many replicates were used, how many plots were included in the experiment, what was the plot size?

Please provide the methodology for collecting soil samples, how many samples, what sample size? (references).

 

On what basis were fertilization doses determined? Were they constant throughout the experiment, or only in the last year?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the topic of the work is interesting. Very bad workmanship. The introduction is too long. It needs to be shortened. There is no assessment of the usefulness of the methods used in the work. There is a lot of information missing from the methodology. Especially the conditions in which the experiment was conducted. Very old, Russian analysis methodology. In the European Union, there are standards for analysis. Tables edited ugly. The discussion describes outcome values that were not previously reported. The conclusions are very general. The information presented is generally known.There is no answer to the research goal stated earlier. It seems that fragments of some other study were taken carelessly. In this form, the work cannot be accepted for publication in a serious journal. It needs to be completely rewritten. There are 20 comments marked in the text.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been carefully edited. The authors have taken all comments into account. The missing information has been completed. There are currently no comments in the text. They are not necessary.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf