Soil Habitats Are Affected by Fungal Waste Recycling on Farmland in Agro-Pastoral Ecotone in Northern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The research has serious defects in the design, the waste fungi are unknown and the authors did not analyze them, so the whole research will depend on unknown contents. Also, they didn't analyze the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus contents of chicken and cow manure.

It needs to revise by a native speaker.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Soil habitat are affected by fungal waste recycling to farmland in Agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China” (ID: agronomy-2474718). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections that we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in highlihted on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you for your summary. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below.

Response to the comments (the concerns of the reviewer are indicated in italic).

Question 1:The research has serious defects in the design, the waste fungi are unknown and the authors did not analyze them, so the whole research will depend on unknown contents. Also, they didn't analyze the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus contents of chicken and cow manure.

Reply: Thanks for the reviewer 's suggestion. This article does not analyze the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus contents of chicken and cow manure. Someone in the team had previously conducted detailed research on the preparation technology of fungal residue, the amount of mushroom residue returned to the field, and the growth of plants in pot experiments. The theme of my research is the application of fungal residue in the agro-pastoral ecotone with poor soil.

Others changes:

For the language problems that appear in the article, we have processed them through the editor 's recommendation in order to make the paper reach a higher level.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

agronomy-2474718-peer-review-v1

 

General comments

 

- Too many errors in grammar and typos! Please correct the MS and ensure that it needs to be reviewed by a native English editor. Use the editorial service!

 

- Use quantitative data and include the impacts of this study on other relevant studies and agricultural industries in the abstract and conclusion.

 

 

Specific comments

 

Lines 9-10

 

--> the potential to actively.soil properties ??

 

Line 15

Fungal residue return ositively impacted soil bulk density, porosity, and moisture 15

 

Lines 19-21

 

 

--> redundant sentences?? Correct.

 

Line 46

 

Therefore, reducing fertilizer, usage, promoting adequate supplies of food and 46

 

--> fertilizer usage ??

 

Line 65

 

--> trash should be waste

 

Line 77-78

 

---> is increased in the activity of soil phosphatase and urease were observed[23].

; grammatically incorrect; revise for a clear meaning

 

Line 84

the various factors used efficiently to provide references for the efficient organic 84

 

--> describe the various factors

 

Line 72

 

There functions are carried out by soil enzymes which control the direc-

--> “There” should be their.

 

Line 93

The major crops are potato(Solanum tuberosum)、naked oats(Avena chinen-

 

Line 157

0-10cm, 10-20cm, and20-30cm layers)was randomly sampled and mixed in each unit ac-

cording to the 5-point sampling method, using a 100cm3 ring knife for determination of --> correct the highlihted ones

 

 

Line 186

 

where V is the ring knife volume (cm3);W2 is the wate-rsaturated soil + ring knife weight(g);

 

--> correct the highlihted ones

 

Line 376

 

nutrients in the soil and promoting crop nutirent absorption and utilization[40,41,42Error! Reference source not found.].

 

--> correct the highlihted ones

 

Line 416

 

enzyme activiies were strongly associated(P<0.01).

 

--> correct the highlihted ones

 

 

I was greatly disappointed by the English used in the MS. 

Make sure that grammar and typos should be thoroughly checked before submission. Use scientific editorial service. 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Soil habitat are affected by fungus waste recycling to farmland in Agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China” (ID: agronomy-2474718). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections that we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in highlihted on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you for your summary. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below.

Response to the comments (the concerns of the reviewer are indicated in italic).

Question 1: Lines 9-10: the potential to actively.soil properties ??

Reply: Thank the reviewers for their questions. Considering the coherence of this paragraph, the manuscript is changed here to “it is necessary to improve soil properties”.

Question 2: Line 15:Fungal residue return ositively impacted soil bulk density, porosity, and moisture

Reply: Thank the reviewers for their questions. The manuscript is changed here to“Fungal residue return has a positive effect on reducing soil bulk density, increasing soil porosity and water content.”

Question 3: Lines 19-21:redundant sentences?? Correct.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Question 4:Line 46:Therefore, reducing fertilizer, usage, promoting adequate supplies of food and 46

--> fertilizer usage ??

Reply: Based on a check of the article, replace “fertilizer usage ”with“fertilizer application ”

Question 5: Line 65:--> trash should be waste

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. In order to ensure the fluency of manuscript expression, the sentence has been revised.

Question 6:Line 77-78:--> is increased in the activity of soil phosphatase and urease were observed[23].

; grammatically incorrect; revise for a clear meaning

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised as “Other studies also showed that the application of mushroom residue significantly increased soil urease activity and the number of actinomycetes and fungi.”

Question 7: Line 84:the various factors used efficiently to provide references for the efficient organic 84

--> describe the various factors

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. “various factors” have been identified in the manuscript as “ the correlation between soil physical and chemical properties and microbial quantity and enzyme activity”.

Question 8: Line 72:There functions are carried out by soil enzymes which control the direc-

--> “There” should be their.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Question 9: Line 93:The major crops are potato(Solanum tuberosum)、naked oats(Avena chinen-

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Question 10: Line 157:0-10cm, 10-20cm, and20-30cm layers)was randomly sampled and mixed in each unit according to the 5-point sampling method, using a 100cm3 ring knife for determination of --> correct the highlihted ones

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Question 11: Line 186:where V is the ring knife volume (cm3);W2 is the wate-rsaturated soil + ring knife weight(g);

--> correct the highlihted ones

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Question 12: Line 376:nutrients in the soil and promoting crop nutirent absorption and utilization[40,41,42Error! Reference source not found.].

-> correct the highlihted ones

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. According to our check of the full text, this part of the manuscript has been modified.

Question 13: enzyme activiies were strongly associated(P<0.01).

--> correct the highlihted ones

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Others changes:

For the language problems that appear in the article, we have processed them through the editor 's recommendation in order to make the paper reach a higher level.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Interesting work to valorise fungal waste but you did not say what we are doing with this huge quantity in China.

The soil organic matter is very very high. You can observe any effect of compost in these conditions. The tempearature (3°C) is also low. I think you should try biogas in stead of composting.

Many tables dont show any standard deviation. How many repetitions have you carried?

I dont understand why you want to study the effects of return on microbial concentration because its some thing evident. But what is more important is to analyse microbila concentrations in the final compost as part of quality assesment.

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Soil habitat are affected by fungus waste recycling to farmland in Agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China” (ID: agronomy-2474718). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections that we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in highlihted on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you for your summary. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below.

Response to the comments (the concerns of the reviewer are indicated in italic).

Question 1: Interesting work to valorise fungal waste but you did not say what we are doing with this huge quantity in China.

Reply: With the rapid development of fungus industry in China, the output of fungus residue increases. The treatment methods of edible fungi residue are mostly discarded, which has caused serious pollution and waste. The treatment and application of edible fungi residue has become an urgent problem to be solved.

Question 2: The soil organic matter is very very high. You can observe any effect of compost in these conditions. The tempearature (3°C) is also low. I think you should try biogas in stead of composting.

Reply: We are grateful to the reviewers for pointing out a new direction for our future experimental program. Our composting experiment was carried out before the seeding experiment, and the temperature was relatively higher than the annual average temperature of 3 °C. At the same time, the traditional composting technology is relatively mature.

Question 3:Many tables dont show any standard deviation. How many repetitions have you carried?

Reply: A total of 6 concentration gradients and 5 replicates were set in the experiment, and 3 replicates were also set in the process of soil sampling in each layer.

Question 4:I dont understand why you want to study the effects of return on microbial concentration because its some thing evident. But what is more important is to analyse microbila concentrations in the final compost as part of quality assesment.

 Reply: Thank you for the reviewer 's questions, let us have a more in-depth thinking on the work. The soil in the interlaced area of agriculture and animal husbandry is relatively barren as a whole. It is necessary to return mushroom residue to the field as a way of fertility replenishment, which also reduces the waste of resources. This experiment highlights the effect of mushroom residue returning to the field and planting food crops on soil habitat after several rounds.

Others changes:

For the language problems that appear in the article, we have processed them through the editor 's recommendation in order to make the paper reach a higher level.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. And here we did not list the changes but marked in highlihted in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely:

Feiyan Zhao

 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

1.       Rephrase Line No. 92 as “With an average temperature of 3.0°C, it receives average rain of 360 mm a year, mostly falling from July to August.

2.       The TN represented in Table 1 for chestnut soil is calculated in (g/kg) or (%)?

3.       The term “fungal residue” used in Line no. 105 is not appropriate. Replace it with “Mushroom residue.” The amount of mushroom residue applied on the soil surface needs to specified for efficient discussion of the results

4.        The media used for the isolation of bacteria, fungus, and actinomycetes is not clearly mentioned in the paper. The author could have used CSA for actinomycetes, PDA is more preferred media for fungus, and NA for bacteria.

5.       Are the results illustrated in table 4 for evaluating the number of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes in soil measured in CFU/g or CFU/ml?

6.       A similar experimental plan with the straw could have provided an appropriate conclusive statement as mentioned in line no. 339 on comparative assessment with fungal residue to evaluate its efficacy in the field.

7.       The values of soil urease activity is represented in mg/g which makes the data not convincing. Additionally, replace SU activity with soil urease activity in line no. 388.

8.       LSD and p values are missing in the tables and figures which needs to be incorporated.

9.       Conclusion: What is the technical value of your knowledge gain? Please highlight it.

The overall quality of English is okay. However, minor editing as suggested is advised.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Soil habitat are affected by fungus waste recycling to farmland in Agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China” (ID: agronomy-2474718). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections that we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in highlihted on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you for your summary. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below.

Response to the comments (the concerns of the reviewer are indicated in italic).

Question 1:Rephrase Line No. 92 as “With an average temperature of 3.0°C, it receives average rain of 360 mm a year, mostly falling from July to August.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.

Question 2:The TN represented in Table 1 for chestnut soil is calculated in (g/kg) or (%)?

Reply: According to the reviewer 's question, we checked in the article, TN represents in Table 1 for chestnut soil is calculated in (g /kg). The value in the table is the measured value of TN, not the proportion, so the unit is (g/ Kg).

Question 3: The term “fungal residue” used in Line no. 105 is not appropriate. Replace it with “Mushroom residue.” The amount of mushroom residue applied on the soil surface needs to specified for efficient discussion of the results

Reply:Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised. 

Question 4:The media used for the isolation of bacteria, fungus, and actinomycetes is not clearly mentioned in the paper. The author could have used CSA for actinomycetes, PDA is more preferred media for fungus, and NA for bacteria.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The parts of the materials and methods in the manuscript have been supplemented by the response.

Question 5: Are the results illustrated in table 4 for evaluating the number of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes in soil measured in CFU/g or CFU/ml?

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. After checking the manuscript, the question about the unit has been revised.

Question 6: A similar experimental plan with the straw could have provided an appropriate conclusive statement as mentioned in line no. 339 on comparative assessment with fungal residue to evaluate its efficacy in the field.

Reply: The mechanism of straw returning to the field is indeed similar to that of the residue returning to the field, but according to the specific amount of returning to the field, the difference between the way and the background soil properties of the experimental plot shows the difference of various properties, and it is also necessary to contact the local climatic conditions. Climate conditions can affect the enzyme activity and the internal micro-ecological changes of the soil in terms of nutrient transformation of a series of microorganisms.

Question 7: The values of soil urease activity is represented in mg/g which makes the data not convincing. Additionally, replace SU activity with soil urease activity in line no. 388.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. After checking the manuscript, the question about the unit has been revised.

Question 8: LSD and p values are missing in the tables and figures which needs to be incorporated.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. After checking the manuscript, the question about the unit has been revised.

Question 9: Conclusion: What is the technical value of your knowledge gain? Please highlight it.

Reply:Thanks to the reviewer 's suggestion, it gives strong suggestions for improving the quality of the article. The specific technical value has been supplemented in the manuscript.

Others changes:

For the language problems that appear in the article, we have processed them through the editor 's recommendation in order to make the paper reach a higher level.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The research has serious defects in the design, the waste fungi are unknown and the authors did not analyze them, so the whole research will depend on unknown contents. Also, they didn't analyze the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus contents of chicken and cow manure.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Soil habitats are affected by fungal waste recycling on farmland in agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China” (ID: agronomy-2474718). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections that we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in highlihted on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you for your summary. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below.

1. The research has serious defects in the design, the waste fungi are unknown and the authors did not analyze them, so the whole research will depend on unknown contents. Also, they didn't analyze the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus contents of chicken and cow manure.

Reply: Thanks for the reviewer 's suggestion. After preliminary experiments, we concluded that the content of lignin in the fungal residue was 41.2 %, the content of cellulose was about 24.05%, the content of hemicellulose was about 13.07 %, the content of nitrogen was about 1.5 % -2%, the content of phosphorus was about 0.5 % -0.8 %, and the content of potassium was about 1.5 %-2 %. Organic matter is 30%-40 %. Moreover, the above organic matter is a difficult-to-use macromolecular organic carbon source that cannot be directly absorbed by plants and has a slow effect on soil improvement. At the same time, the region 's abundant livestock manure is traditionally used as a soil improvement fertilizer. We screened a variety of lignin-degrading bacteria, phosphate-solubilizing and potassium-solubilizing bacteria, extracellular polysaccharide-producing bacteria, etc., and mixed with livestock manure (organic matter : 15% -25% ) as the experimental test material (fungi and manurre is 4 : 1 ). The test material in the pot experiment showed that it was helpful for plant growth and soil improvement. The research focus of this experiment is on the effect of fungal residue returning to the field and planting crops periodically on soil habits, which provides theoretical support for future promotion and application.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Please include the impacts of this study's results on other relevant studies and agricultural industries in the conclusion.

This has been mentioned in the previous comment. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Soil habitats are affected by fungal waste recycling on farmland in agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China” (ID: agronomy-2474718). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections that we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in highlihted on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you for your summary. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below.

1. Please include the impacts of this study's results on other relevant studies and agricultural industries in the conclusion.

Reply: Thanks for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised.The efficient use of fungal residue in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China is a sustainable and green biological measure. The conclusion provides a new way for the resource utilization of downstream wastes in the food industry. At the same time, as a pollution-free natural local good improver is very beneficial to increase crop yield. Moreover, if this measure can be used in a large area of fragile land such as desertification and salinization, the benefits of water storage and soil moisture conservation are of great significance to the prevention and control of desertification.

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

A long-term dry farmland observation was realized in order to explore the effect of fungus residue returning on soil properties. The aim was to help reduce the amount of fertilizer used in areaswith weak productivity and ultimately achieve green agriculture in China.  The study is interesting and actual.

 

1) Please, describe criteria for the choice of studied area in Wu Chuan County.

2) line 182: "W1 is quality of soil", do you mean the weight (mass)?

3) lines 185 and 188: (W2, W3) dtto

4) lines 208-209: Are values 7.66-12.12%,1.55-26.26%, and 8.23-25.83% exact? What are errors of their determinations?

 

 

Author Response

The details are as follows

Reviewer 2 Report

Improving the soil with agrotechnical means is an important issue, especially if it is possible to reduce the amount of mineral fertilizers. The use of mushroom residues helps to reduce the amount of waste. The main direction of the research was in the change of the physical properties of the soil.

Notes.1. Keywords must be words not long phases and repeated words

2. Explain specific designations Ri (Table 2),"quality of soil" -what does it mean, how it is measured (182)

3. Check the use of capital letters in the middle of the text (eg 188 and others), check the capitalization of the y-axis in Fig. 2.

4. Use indexes fig. 2, 4 --- a), b) etc. I could not find the 3rd picture.

5. It is also necessary to add numerical values in the conclusions. Why is there no information about the harvest?

 

Author Response

The details are as follows

Reviewer 3 Report

The research entitled (Soil habitat are affected by fungus waste recycling to farmland in Agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China) compare the effects of different treatment of residue management on soil contents and correlation between the various factors use efficiency to provide references organic agriculture for better residue mode. The research has serious points that need to handle.

 

1.        First, the authors need to clarify the research novelty point by point.

2.        What is the name of the fungus that the authors take his waste?

3.        A complete fungus waste analysis must include and identify the components.

4.        How it takes to form this fungus waste, and the fungus growth conditions?

5.        What is the NPK of chicken and cow manure?

6.        What are the soil moisture contents of the treatments at the beginning and the irrigation rates?

7.         Figure 2 resolution is very bad, the authors must enhance it.

8.      In the material part the authors mentioned, The fungal, bacteria, actinomyces were measured, Where are the methods and the references?

9.        What are the microbial types that were found?

10.         The discussion part is very poor and needs recent references.

11.     The authors need to revise the reference section one by one to meet the journal requirements.

12.     The whole research needs English editing and grammar corrections.

The whole research needs English editing and grammar corrections.

Author Response

The details are as follows

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work can be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

There are severe issues in the research design, analysis, and novelty.

There are severe issues in the research design, analysis, and novelty.