Soil Microbial Residual Carbon Accumulation Affected by Reclamation Period and Straw Incorporation in Reclaimed Soil from Coal Mining Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
my comments and suggestions are attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Although the topic is interesting, there are some comments should be considered before publication such as:
It is better to put a map to the study area
Please superscript the statistical letters in table 1 and table 2, and improve the table format
In line 108: the sentence meaning is not clear "The experiment was divided into 7 destructive sampling sessions", please rephrase to be clearer
In 111 and 112 " Dry the soil samples and use them for the determination of"; it is better to write : the soil samples were dried and used to determine …
All the methods should be explained even briefly with their references especially for the basic parameters in the experiment
The information of gas chromatographic should be added (model and manufacturing country)
Devid figure 3 into two sections a: microbial residual C and b: B residual
In all figures (and even supplementary figures) delete the letter d and add "day" under the X-axis
Move table 1 and table 2 in the beginning of the result section under a title of characterization of soil and straw and explain their most important results in the text. As well, provide their methods in material and method section
In the last sentence of the conclusion, please don't generalize the results and use the probability to express the contribution of your results to the field because of the result may differ under different conditions
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comment
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Plesase see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper as well as the results are very interesting. The studies of carbon cycle are getiting very popular lately. However, the Authors must improve the methodology description and language.
General comments:
1. The Authors use a soil classification system that has been out of use for a long time.
2. The “Materials and methods’ section should be described in more detail. The details of the experiment are scarce.
3. English editing is required.
4. The discussion section is very well written.
5. The literature is up-to-date.
Specific comments:
6. Line 41: You have introduced here abbreviation of ‘C’ so please use it throughout the text, e.g. Line 56
7. Line 66: to deepen the process or the knowledge on this process?
8. Lines 72-73: Please be more specific about the weather. Do you have snow cover? What are the air temperatures during winter and during summer? What is the mean annual air temperature amplitude?
9. Lines74-76: You should cite here the source of soil classification. FAO/UNESCO classification was replaced by WRB in 1998, therefore, there is no Calcareous cinnamon soil nor medium loam soil. The latest version of WRB was released in 2022.
10. Lines 76-78: How thick was the layer of gangue? How big is the area of the landfill?
11. You should describe parameters of the gangue. Some basic information.
12. You should add a map of the study area, maybe some photos? Especially of the experiment.
13. Lines 79-81: In what month maize and wheat were sown?
14. Lines 83-99: What was sawn on this fields during the experiment? What cultivation treatments have been used? What was the sum of precipitation during the experiment? What was the air temperature? Water content and temperature can greatly influence the decomposition processes. So you should add weather data from this period.
15. How big was the area of the experiment? How far apart the bas were buried?
16. You should add information on the other soil and straw analysis (methods).
17. Line 111-112: Please rephrase the last sentence.
18. Line 113: You have already introduced the soil organic carbon abbreviation.
19. Lines 145-146: According to Fig. 1 not after 218 but only on the period around 218th day. On days 285, 365 and 500 the values for MS and WS treatments are higher than for S. Sentence in this form suggests that after the 218th day AS values remained lower than for S. Generally you should improve the translation, it’s hard to get what you mean.
20. Fig. 1, 2, 3: Please add the description of vertical axes to all charts. Are the black lines error bars?
21. Lines 152-153, 173-174 etc.: Please add information that S is a control.
22. Line 155: What do you mean by ‘218 days ago’?
23. Fig. S1: Are the black lines error bars? Please add information that S is a control.
24. Line 182: “Slightly equal’ is not a correct phrase.
25. Fig. 4, caption: Instead of “and Fresidue–C / Bresidue–C content” please use “and Fresidue–C and Bresidue–C content”.
26. Fig. 4: What do you mean by capital letters A and B?
27. Table 2 should be placed in “Materials and methods’ or in the “Results’ section.
28. Table S1: You should explain the abbreviations used.
29. You didn’t cite table S1 (or at least I didn’t find the citation).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome parts of the text are difficult to understand due to poor translation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe GEE statistical analysis was cited as made, but it was not run as mentioned or was made in a wrong way.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks so much
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comment
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors did a great job in such a short time. They've added a lot of useful information, new graphics look very good, the data is presented clearly. The research is very valuable. I recommend publishing it.
Small remark: Please add a citation of WRB in the reference list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
