Chemical Fertilization Alters Soil Carbon in Paddy Soil through the Interaction of Labile Organic Carbon and Phosphorus Fractions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study analyzed the labile carbon and phosphorus fractions in paddy soils with long-term chemical fertilization at four soil depths (0–30 cm). This study demonstrated that the soil depth interval is a critical element that influences these interactions. This study could provide some information on chemical fertilization practices. However, the writing of the article, especially the quality of figures and related figure legends, needs to be improved before acceptance.
1. Introduction
1. The citation of the article is not standardized. For example, the sentences in lines 38-42 are based on reference 1, and it does not need to be written multiple times. The sentences in lines 50-52 lack reference.
2. Line 50-58; 59-61, China is the primary producer of rice. It was suggested to introduce the related current situation in China.
3. Lines 93-111, The author introduced relevant literature on the effects of different fertilizer treatments on soil physicochemical properties. But this article only deals with long-term chemical fertilizer treatment. The paper mainly analyzes the differences in soil organic carbon and P fractions under different soil depths. The author should directly introduce relevant literature reviews. And it did not explain why this study was conducted.
2. Materials and Methods
1. The legends for figures (such as Figure 1) need to be improved so that the author can understand the main content of the figure only by looking at the figure and legend.
2. Figures and tables need to be immediately followed by the first paragraph appearing in the main text. Such as Table 1 first appeared in the main text at line 131, so Table 1 should appear after line 135.
3. There is no comparison between different treatments, so it is more appropriate to present Table 1 in textual form.
4. Line 161-162， Three pseudo-replicate samples from individual farmer plots were randomly combined into a composite sample. Please explain why the samples were merged instead of being measured separately and further averaged
3．Results
1. The image quality of the article needs to be improved, such as font size, image color matching, and standardized writing of coordinates. For example, Fig. 1a (in Page) and Fig. 4a lack of description of the y-coordinate. Figure 3 lacks of the description of the x-coordinate and y-coordinate. Figures 4a and 4c lack of description of the y-coordinate.
2. Are the data in this study all computed from 132 composite soil samples？
3． It is recommended to display the correlation coefficient using a heat map instead of just numerical values.
4. Discussion
The discussion section of the article is too long, and the author seems to have provided a literature review. The author suggests discussing controversial or worthy of in-depth analysis based on the results obtained in this article rather than conducting a literature review.
The English Language should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for all your suggestions.
I have taken and mad them , and I hope more clearly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In what sense is the word compromise used in the statement ”The DOC:Avai. P ratio could serve as a compromise for the C and P dynamic indicators”. Apart from the types and amounts of synthetic fertilizers used on the plots analyzed? What was the degree of confidence of the correctness of the considered answers?
Since natural fertilizers from cows were also applied, why is it referred to in the discussions Intensive synthetic chemical fertilization and its effects.I understand that the samples were taken in 2013-2014 under the conditions of the use of both types of fertilizers. How does the study show us the behavior of the soil in the absence of the use of chemical fertilizers.
Can I understand that infraseeds - droppings from cows were also considered synthetic fertilizers?
Is the soil sampling carried out between November 2013 and May 2014 sufficient to draw conclusions regarding the evolution of the soil for a period of 40 years?
Are the values ​​obtained for the interval November 2013- May 2014 relevant for conclusions in 2023?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for all comments and suggestions.
They are useful and I have taken them for further work.
Plese read the letter for peer for the more information.
Best regards
suphathida
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has revised the article's content. However, in my opinion, the quality of the figures and related figure legends is still poor and cannot meet the standards for publication in Agronomy.
Some comments and suggestions for the figures mentioned before were not revised in the manuscript. For example, “The image quality of the article needs to be improved, such as font size, image color matching, and standardized writing of coordinates. For example, Fig. 1a (in Page) and Fig. 4a lack of description of the y-coordinate. Figure 3 lacks a description of the x-coordinate and y-coordinate. Figures 4a and 4c lack of description of the y-coordinate.” in the previous comments. However, in the revised manuscript, The image quality of the article is still need to be improved. Particularly, the font size, image color matching, and standardized writing of coordinates in the figures were still poor. Figure 2 a still lack of description of the y-coordinate. The font size and size of the subfigure in one figure (such as in Figure 2) were not uniform. Figure 3 still lacks of description of the x- coordinate and y-coordinate. In Figure 3, what is “ns” is stand for? What statistical analysis methods are used in figure 3. What are “a” and “b” stand for? Statistical analysis??
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Sir.
Thank you very much for all suggestions.
Best regards
Suphathida Aumtong
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
