Soil-Improving Effect of Sesbania–Sorghum Rotation in a Heavily Saline–Alkaline Coastal Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Firstly, in the abstract, a background should be shown to prove the novelty and necessity of the current study. Then, a proper objective statement should be delivered. The current version of the abstract fails to do that. The abstract is too details
2. In line 16, “were analyzed” by what? The abstract lacks methodology. Thus, the results are extremely difficult to follow.
3. In line 17, it should be “obviously”. Moreover, at first glance, the writing and the language of the manuscript should be improved. The language quality of the manuscript is inadequate.
4. How to calculate the data in line 28.
5. Lines 29-32, please do not add details, the authors can use the next sentence due to the rules of results
6. Numbering each sentence in the abstract is unnecessary.
7. At the end of the abstract, the contribution and possible application of the study to the current situation should be raised.
8. Please limit the number of keywords.
9. The first three sentences of the introduction should be cited.
10. More literatures should be added to the introduction to strengthen the points of the study.
11. Before the third paragraph of the introduction, there should be deeper introduction of the sesbania and sorghum individually.
12. The materials and methods are well documented.
13. The Table 1 is a bit confused. It should be rearranged by placing data that are compared next to each other.
14. What is the unit in Table 1?
15. Please bear in mind that when presenting the current results, past tense is more preferable. Moreover, punctuation should also be checked.
16. The figures and tables should be better explained. For example, in Figure 6, the differences were between initial and after or among lands?
17. As the problems in the introduction, the discussion lacks literatures. Perhaps, the authors should compare the current results with the previous ones or deeper and broader explanations should be made.
18. The limitations or further research of the study should be raised in the conclusion. Moreover, the conclusions should be more concise. Please remove lines 397-399. Line 416, the results showed, please remind that this is a conclusion, not a result section. Please emphasize and summarize significant findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
- Firstly, in the abstract, a background should be shown to prove the novelty and necessity of the current study. Then, a proper objective statement should be delivered. The current version of the abstract fails to do that. The abstract is too details
Reply: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten the entire abstract section, added background, methods, and opinions etc., streamlined the results, and modified the description of microbial nomenclature. Please refer to the revised version for details.
- In line 16, “were analyzed” by what? The abstract lacks methodology. Thus, the results are extremely difficult to follow.
Reply: we have supplemented the descriptions of methodology
- In line 17, it should be “obviously”. Moreover, at first glance, the writing and the language of the manuscript should be improved. The language quality of the manuscript is inadequate.
Reply: We have revised the writing of the whole manuscript, seen in the revised version
- How to calculate the data in line 28.
Reply: Total content of soil organic matter in plow layer was calculated according to Soil bulk density of plow layer, volume and the unit content of soil organic matter. Determination methods of unit content of soil organic matter as well as soil bulk density are mature. We have added the necessary details in method section.
- Lines 29-32, please do not add details, the authors can use the next sentence due to the rules of results
Reply: we have simplified the description of microorganisms and re-checked the bacteria names, seen in the revised version.
- Numbering each sentence in the abstract is unnecessary.
Reply: we have simplified the description of results, seen in the revised version.
- At the end of the abstract, the contribution and possible application of the study to the current situation should be raised.
Reply: we have added the necessary opinions in the end of abstract, seen in the revised version.
- Please limit the number of keywords.
Reply: we have deleted some unnecessary keywords, seen in the revised version.
- The first three sentences of the introduction should be cited.
Reply: we have added related citations, seen in the revised version.
- More literatures should be added to the introduction to strengthen the points of the study.
Reply: we have added necessary citations, seen in the revised version.
- Before the third paragraph of the introduction, there should be deeper introduction of the sesbania and sorghum individually.
Reply: we have supplemented necessary introductions for sesbania and sorghum individually, seen in the revised version.
- The materials and methods are well documented.
Reply: we have supplemented some necessary details for determination method, Please refer to the revised version for details.
- The Table 1 is a bit confused. It should be rearranged by placing data that are compared next to each other.
Reply: Thanks for your suggestions, we have rearranged Table1.
- What is the unit in Table 1?
Reply: we have added the unit (μm) in Table1.
- Please bear in mind that when presenting the current results, past tense is more preferable. Moreover, punctuation should also be checked.
Reply: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, we have revised the whole manuscript.
- The figures and tables should be better explained. For example, in Figure 6, the differences were between initial and after or among lands?
Reply: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, we have given annotations for all related figures or tables.
- As the problems in the introduction, the discussion lacks literatures. Perhaps, the authors should compare the current results with the previous ones or deeper and broader explanations should be made.
Reply: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, we have added the necessary comparison with other study.
- The limitations or further research of the study should be raised in the conclusion. Moreover, the conclusions should be more concise. Please remove lines 397-399. Line 416, the results showed, please remind that this is a conclusion, not a result section. Please emphasize and summarize significant findings.
Reply: Thanks for your suggestions, we have rewritten this section, pleased check it from the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract:
Line 23: add 3.3 times … what (higher/lower) than bare land
The abstract is very lengthy. I'm missing a passage about methodology here. The results of the study should be significantly shorter. Since the methodology is not given, it is difficult to understand the results of the total desalination.
In my opinion, it is not necessary to name individual microorganisms. Moreover, this way of describing microorganisms seems inappropriate to me. It is better to write, for example, bacteria of the genus Bacillus etc.
Introduction:
Line 54: „Report showed“ - This is the first time you are writing about this study here, please state it specifically - E.g. The results of the study by Sun et al. showed...
Lines 57 - 58: Delete this sentence or add citation.
Line 89: replace „people“ with „researchers“ (similarly line 46 – e.g. farmers)
Lines 91 – 95: rephrase this sentence, the same phrases are repeated
Materials and Methods:
Figure 1: I would remove this image. It will suffice to briefly describe in words how 2023 was different.
Line 112: replace „in local“ with e.g. „ in study locality“
Line 121: How deep were the tanks? How much soil had to be transpoted into one tank? Was 1 mixed sample created and filled into 4 tanks? Soil handling can mix individual soil layers.
Figure 2: This Figure is too small.
The experimental design is not described clearly enough. I would revise Figure 2.
Line 156: replace „in reference“ with e.g. „by Asad et al.“
Line 157: „plants“ – you analyzed more plants
Results
Line 172: „Soils are“ or „Soil is“
Line 175: prioritize „results“ over „result“
Figure 3: I would highlight a significant differences. The stars are too small (the same applies to Figure 4B, 6)
Table 1: column Dx(9O) – number 110±5.2 – there is no difference? I suggest using numbers instead of stars.
Lines 206 – 218: Better text formulation is necessary.
Figure 6: Change the red bar to white (as in previous bar charts). In Figure 6 I have only one image (total soil salt content), the second image (total soil organic matter) is missing in my version.
Lines 255 – 280: This chapter is very confusing. It does not provide any meaningful information for uninitiated readers. So which microorganisms are classified as beneficial, indigenous and which are harmful? From my point of view, a definite classification is very difficult in case of fungi. Moreover, there can be significant differences between individual species of the same genus. Additionally, Cladosporium, Alternaria, Aspergillus and others are also Ascomycota as well as unclassified Ascomycota. However, it does not appear this way in the text. These information is presented only in Figure S2. Please edit the name of the microorganisms, the full names generated from the system are not suitable to use. State the taxonomic classification of microorganisms and add their role in soil (maybe in new Table).
Figure 7: Adjust the colors, shades of the same color are difficult to distinguishline. Edit „Abandance“ to „Abundance“
Discussion
Line 291 – 292: Concrete „report“
Line 333: Which report? You refer to two.
Revise chapter 4.4: Make the text clearer. Use abbreviations, for example.
In the text, desalination and salt-leaching ability are repeated over and over. What exactly is meant by this? Leaching into the lower layers of soil or groundwater?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome sentences are comprehensive, difficult to understand. I definitely recommend revising long sentences. There are a number of minor grammatical errors in the text.
Author Response
1. Line 23: add 3.3 times … what (higher/lower) than bare land
The abstract is very lengthy. I'm missing a passage about methodology here. The results of the study should be significantly shorter. Since the methodology is not given, it is difficult to understand the results of the total desalination.
In my opinion, it is not necessary to name individual microorganisms. Moreover, this way of describing microorganisms seems inappropriate to me. It is better to write, for example, bacteria of the genus Bacillus etc.
Reply: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten the entire abstract section, added background, methods, and necessary opinions etc., streamlined the results, and modified the description of microbial nomenclature. Please refer to the revised version for details.
2. Line 54: „Report showed“ - This is the first time you are writing about this study here, please state it specifically - E.g. The results of the study by Sun et al. showed...
Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. We have edited all related issues.
3. Lines 57 - 58: Delete this sentence or add citation.
Reply: We have deleted this repeated sentence.
4. Line 89: replace „people“ with „researchers“ (similarly line 46 – e.g. farmers)
Reply: We have edited all related issues.
5. Lines 91 – 95: rephrase this sentence, the same phrases are repeated
Reply: We have edited these expressions.
6. Figure 1: I would remove this image. It will suffice to briefly describe in words how 2023 was different.
Reply: We have given brief description of weather; however, we still think this image is suitable. Because this image is easy to explain and discuss the results. e.g. we usually don’t give water in August, because there used to be enough rainfall this month. We hope to investigate the effect of plants on soil improvement and salt reduction under natural conditions. But we had to supplement necessary water in August due to severe drought. This may affect the soil improving effect. When explain or discuss these results, it needs this image.
7. Line 112: replace „in local“ with e.g. „ in study locality“
Reply: We have corrected all related issues.
8. Line 121: How deep were the tanks? How much soil had to be transpoted into one tank? Was 1 mixed sample created and filled into 4 tanks? Soil handling can mix individual soil layers.
Reply: We have supplemented details for soil preparation. Please refer to the revised version for details. Here gives the brief description:
(1) Select a typical coastal saline-alkali area, with each 20 cm as a soil layer, and test soil bulk density of the native soil by layer.
(2) Retrieve the negative soil and mix it mechanically as tested soil.
(3) Built 4 bottomless cement tanks with waterproof layer on the wall. The length*width*depth of each cement tank was 6m*3m*1m.
(4) According to soil bulk density and soil water content of the tested soil, the amount of tested soil used was calculated based on soil bulk density of the native soil in every 20cm soil layer, and then layered and stacked to four cement tanks.
(5) In order to better simulate the natural state of the native soil, the tested soils in cement tanks were undergone a season of natural settlement.
9. Figure 2: This Figure is too small.
Reply: we have enlarged this figure.
10. The experimental design is not described clearly enough. I would revise Figure 2.
Reply: We have added sufficient details about soil preparation, field management etc., including the figure, please refer to the revised version for details.
11. Line 156: replace „in reference“ with e.g. „by Asad et al.“
Reply: We have corrected the related issues.
12. Line 157: „plants“ – you analyzed more plants
Reply: We have added the specific descriptions for measuring salt content in plant.
13. Line 172: „Soils are“ or „Soil is“
Reply: we have corrected this grammar error.
14. Line 175: prioritize „results“ over „result“
Reply: Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised all related expressions.
15. Figure 3: I would highlight a significant differences. The stars are too small (the same applies to Figure 4B, 6)
Reply: We have rearranged Table1, and edited all related figures.
16. Table 1: column Dx(9O) – number 110±5.2 – there is no difference? I suggest using numbers instead of stars.
Reply: Thank you for the suggestions. Table 1 is a bit confused due to the data arrangement. We have rearranged Table1, also re-calculated the difference analysis.
17. Lines 206 – 218: Better text formulation is necessary.
Reply: we have revised this section. Please check them in revised version.
18. Figure 6: Change the red bar to white (as in previous bar charts). In Figure 6 I have only one image (total soil salt content), the second image (total soil organic matter) is missing in my version.
Reply: Thank you for the suggestions. We have edited the color and given annotations for this figure. Please find it from the revised version.
19. Lines 255 – 280: This chapter is very confusing. It does not provide any meaningful information for uninitiated readers. So which microorganisms are classified as beneficial, indigenous and which are harmful? From my point of view, a definite classification is very difficult in case of fungi. Moreover, there can be significant differences between individual species of the same genus. Additionally, Cladosporium, Alternaria, Aspergillus and others are also Ascomycota as well as unclassified Ascomycota. However, it does not appear this way in the text. These information is presented only in Figure S2. Please edit the name of the microorganisms, the full names generated from the system are not suitable to use. State the taxonomic classification of microorganisms and add their role in soil (maybe in new Table).
Reply: We totally agree with your opinions, and very appreciate your valuable suggestions. Your opinion is correct, there can be significant differences between individual species of the same genus. Our simple classification (beneficial, indigenous, harmful) was based on some literature descriptions and this conclusion was arbitrary. Actually, we would like to express the opinion that due to the improvement of soil quality, the quantity of some common microorganisms in normal (or healthy) soils significantly increased, while some microorganisms in coastal saline soils decreased. This microorganism changes reflected to some extent that sorghum-sorghum rotation had effect of improving soil quality and reducing salt. So, we edited this section, and added some necessary discussions and supplementary Tables. Please refer to the revised version for details.
20. Figure 7: Adjust the colors, shades of the same color are difficult to distinguishline. Edit „Abandance“ to „Abundance“
Reply: We have edited colors and corrected the errors.
21. Line 291 – 292: Concrete „report“
Reply: We have edited the expression.
22. Line 333: Which report? You refer to two.
Reply: Same as previous issues, we have edited the expression and specified the report.
23. Revise chapter 4.4: Make the text clearer. Use abbreviations, for example.
In the text, desalination and salt-leaching ability are repeated over and over. What exactly is meant by this? Leaching into the lower layers of soil or groundwater?
Reply: Thanks very much for the valuable suggestions. We didn’t clearly express the conceptions. We have revised this section, here “leaching” refers to the “water leaching into the lower layers.
24. Some sentences are comprehensive, difficult to understand. I definitely recommend revising long sentences. There are a number of minor grammatical errors in the text.
Reply: we have revised the writing and grammar, please check them in revised version.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAgronomy MDPI
Review – Agronomy-3166322
Line 19: “... soil porosity increased than that of bare land…” – Please review this.
Line 118: “Subsequently, the coastal saline-alkali soil was filled in cement tank with waterproof structure based on the actual bulk density of each layer of soil…” – More detailed information on the assembly of cement tanks is required. For example: What are the dimensions of the tanks? How deep is each layer of material placed below the soil sample? Was the soil packed all at once, or in the form of layers? … These and other information must be entered so that the experiment can be understood.
Line 122: “…soil sensors were embedded in each soil 122 layers to monitor the dynamic changes of soil electrical conductivity…” – How was this done?
Line 123: “…The experiment 123 design and arrangement were seen in Figure 2.” – Please review this.
From line 129 onwards: information on planting and conducting the experiment, species and variety of plant used, how many plants per tank...
Line 153: “Content of cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+ were quantified…” – Soluble or exchangeable cations?
Line 155: “anions content of HCO3-, SO42- and Cl- were determined by laboratory method as described in reference [18]…” – Does reference [18] correspond to a methods manual, or an article that cited this method?
Line 156: “Total salt contents in plant were estimated by the sum of above cations and anions.” – How was this done? It is necessary to clarify the details, from the collection of plant samples, their preparation, digestion and determination of the elements!
Line 159: Reference [7] does not describe a method for analyzing organic matter. What method was adopted?
I suggest that a complete review be made of "Material and methods", as many details need to be clarified.
Line 174: “… the texture of topsoil (0-40 cm) was significantly improved (Figure 3 and Table 1).” – Has the soil texture been improved? Do Figure 3 and Table 1 show soil texture data?
Line 202: It was not clear how the cumulative infiltration was obtained.
Line 218: Figure 5 presents salinity data as a function of months and distance from the plant. How and when was the soil sampling done? This needs to be clarified in the Material and Methods section!
The manuscript was not completely revised due to the lack of information strictly necessary for its understanding. I ask that a complete review be made of the text so that the revision can be completed.
Author Response
1. Line 19: “... soil porosity increased than that of bare land…” – Please review this.
Reply：We have rewritten the entire abstract section including this sentence. Please refer to the revised version for details.
2. Line 118: “Subsequently, the coastal saline-alkali soil was filled in cement tank with waterproof structure based on the actual bulk density of each layer of soil…” – More detailed information on the assembly of cement tanks is required. For example: What are the dimensions of the tanks? How deep is each layer of material placed below the soil sample? Was the soil packed all at once, or in the form of layers? … These and other information must be entered so that the experiment can be understood.
Reply: We have supplemented details for soil preparation. Please refer to the revised version for details. Here give the brief description:
(1) Select a typical coastal saline-alkali area, with each 20 cm as a soil layer, and test soil bulk density of the native soil by layer.
(2) Retrieve the negative soil and mix it mechanically as tested soil.
(3) Built 4 bottomless cement tanks with waterproof layer on the wall. The length*width*depth of each cement tank was 6m*3m*1m.
(4) According to soil bulk density and soil water content of the tested soil, the amount of tested soil used was calculated based on soil bulk density of the native soil in every 20cm soil layer, and then layered and stacked to four cement tanks.
(5) In order to better simulate the natural state of the native soil, the tested soils in cement tanks were undergone a season of natural settlement.
3. Line 122: “…soil sensors were embedded in each soil 122 layers to monitor the dynamic changes of soil electrical conductivity…” – How was this done?
Reply: The soil sensor can monitor the change of soil electrical conductivity. When filling the saline soil in layers, the electrodes are buried along the way, and finally these electrodes are connected to the main controller through wires.
4. Line 123: “…The experiment 123 design and arrangement were seen in Figure 2.” – Please review this.
Reply: We have revised this sentence.
5. From line 129 onwards: information on planting and conducting the experiment, species and variety of plant used, how many plants per tank...
Reply: we have added sufficient details about planting details including plant varieties, Please refer to the revised version for details.
6. Line 153: “Content of cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+ were quantified…” – Soluble or exchangeable cations?
Reply: we have revised them. They are soluble cations.
7. Line 155: “anions content of HCO3-, SO42- and Cl- were determined by laboratory method as described in reference [18]…” – Does reference [18] correspond to a methods manual, or an article that cited this method?
Reply: this reference “Asad, M.; Zuhra, N.; Murtaza, G.; Shahzad, F.; Akhtar, T.; Naghman, N.; Shahbaz, U. Influence of Salinity with Different Cl -: SO42-Ratios on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Growth. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 2022, 34, 126-139. 476” has given details of determination methods. Please refer to this reference for details. Actually, determination of ions content including soil organic matter was a mature method in lab.
8. Line 156: “Total salt contents in plant were estimated by the sum of above cations and anions.” – How was this done? It is necessary to clarify the details, from the collection of plant samples, their preparation, digestion and determination of the elements!
Reply: we have given details of how to prepare samples and determinations. Please refer to the revised version for details.
9. Line 159: Reference [7] does not describe a method for analyzing organic matter. What method was adopted?
Reply: Thank you very much for your check. Soil organic matter was measured according to standard method of “Chinese National Standard (GB 9834-1988) ”(updated by NY/T 85-1988). The reference [7] didn’t directly give the details. So we directly cited this technical standard to replace this reference.
10. I suggest that a complete review be made of "Material and methods", as many details need to be clarified.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestions, we have supplemented necessary details for "Material and methods", Please refer to the revised version for details.
11. Line 174: “… the texture of topsoil (0-40 cm) was significantly improved (Figure 3 and Table 1).” – Has the soil texture been improved? Do Figure 3 and Table 1 show soil texture data?
Reply: Thanks for your questions, here our expressions were not exactly. Now we have corrected them. Figure 3 and Table 1 showed soil bulk density, porosity, and soil particle size. According to these parameters change, soil structure after growing plants was improved than bare land.
12. Line 202: It was not clear how the cumulative infiltration was obtained.
Reply: we have added the measurement method in Materials and Method section. It was a common method and here we used a double-ring infiltrometer to record the water infiltration within 180 min.
13. Line 218: Figure 5 presents salinity data as a function of months and distance from the plant. How and when was the soil sampling done? This needs to be clarified in the Material and Methods section!
Reply: Thanks for your suggestions, we have supplemented details in Material and Methods section. Please refer to the revised version for details.
14. The manuscript was not completely revised due to the lack of information strictly necessary for its understanding. I ask that a complete review be made of the text so that the revision can be completed.
Reply: thank you your valuable suggestions. We have added necessary details for methods. Please refer to the revised version.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The title should be changes due to the words soil and land, land should be changed ‘area’ or ‘region’
Other comments were solved in revised version
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
1. The title should be changes due to the words soil and land, land should be changed ‘area’ or ‘region’
Other comments were solved in revised version
Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have changed the title as suggested.
2. Minor editing of English language required.
Reply: We have checked again the writing and edited some errors.
Last, we would like to express our appreciation again for your valuable suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract:
Line 18: „etc.“ is not suitable to use in the abstract
Line 30: „transition of poor-quality soil to normal soil“ - misleading statement, I suggest wording it like this „improvement of soil quality“. It is difficult to define what normal soil is. You could use „common soil microorganisms“
Line 28: „And meanwhile,“ it is not standard formulation
Line 31: Replace "was" with another tense - your results are important for the further use of growing these plants
Introduction:
Line 41: „At present“ does not fit into this sentence
Line 68: „better effects“ - if you use "better", it is necessary to write „better than what“
In the current version, the introduction is rather short, and it would certainly be advisable to expand it at least to include the issue of microorganisms, since you also deal with them in the study. Some passages from the discussion could be inserted here (not only about microorganisms) eg Lines 321-329.
Materials and Methods:
Line 106: „whis is shown“
Line 115: „Soil“
Chapter 2.2 Experimental design: It would be more appropriate to change "tested soil" to "soil sample/s".
Line 133: Change „could be reffered“ to „are shown“
Results:
Line 222: I would change „was“ to „is“
Line 224: Results shown
I would use the present tense to describe Figures and Tables, because they show data in the present (not they showed in the past).
Line 240: I would leave out the "While"
Table 2: Use the same font
· change „removel“ to „removal“
· it would be appropriate to state total removal in g/kg soil
Lines 283- 284: biomass, sorghum
Line 297: delete „bacteria of“
Line 297 – 307: Within this chapter you present various taxonomic divisions (genus - Actinomarinales, family - Nitriliruptoraceae...). I suggest you to use some neutral wording eg „the quantity of various bacterial groups such as Actinomarinales…“
So, „Microascaceae“ is not genus. You must follow the name ending – ceae (=family)
Line 316: various bacterial and fungal groups
Discussion:
Line 416: no bacteria but fungi – various fungal group (not only genus); Ascomycota is a huge group of fungi, it include hundreds of thousands of species (including Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus…).
Line 420: No adverse – These common fungal groups are worldwide widespread
Supplementary Materials:
Lines 475-476: no genus
References:
Unify the format of all citations and edit the citation number: 8, 10, 21, 26, 30, 36 (journal abbreviations)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language requires proofreading.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have improved the quality of this research work. We have made modifications to all issues, please refer to the revised version.
1. Line 18: „etc.“ is not suitable to use in the abstract
Reply：we have delete it. It's a redundant word.
2. Line 30: „transition of poor-quality soil to normal soil“ - misleading statement, I suggest wording it like this „improvement of soil quality“. It is difficult to define what normal soil is. You could use „common soil microorganisms“
Reply：Thank you for your kind suggestions. Indeed, it is difficult to define “normal” soil. We have edited all related expressions. Please refer to revised version.
3. Line 28: „And meanwhile,“ it is not standard formulation
Reply：we also deleted these redundant words.
4. Line 31: Replace "was" with another tense - your results are important for the further use of growing these plants
Reply：we revised this grammar. We also checked others grammar or spelling errors.
5. Line 41: „At present“ does not fit into this sentence
Reply：we revised this grammar.
6. Line 68: „better effects“ - if you use "better", it is necessary to write „better than what“
Reply：we have revised this writing.
7. In the current version, the introduction is rather short, and it would certainly be advisable to expand it at least to include the issue of microorganisms, since you also deal with them in the study. Some passages from the discussion could be inserted here (not only about microorganisms) eg Lines 321-329.
Reply：Thank you for your kind suggestions. We have supplemented necessary introductions for the relation of soil quality and soil microorganisms. Please refer to this section in revised version.
Materials and Methods:
8. Line 106: „whis is shown“
Reply：we have corrected this grammar.
9. Line 115: „Soil“
Reply：we have deleted the repeated words.
10. Chapter 2.2 Experimental design: It would be more appropriate to change "tested soil" to "soil sample/s".
Reply：Thank you your suggestions, we have edited all related issues. Please check this chapter in revised version.
11. Line 133: Change „could be reffered“ to „are shown“
Reply：we have corrected this sentence .
12. Line 222: I would change „was“ to „is“
Reply：we have corrected this word.
13. Line 224: Results shown
I would use the present tense to describe Figures and Tables, because they show data in the present (not they showed in the past).
Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have learned a lot of grammar knowledge. Thank you again. We have checked all related issues. Please check them in revised version.
14. Line 240: I would leave out the "While"
Reply：we have edited this word.
15. Table 2: Use the same font
- change „removel“ to „removal“
- it would be appropriate to state total removal in g/kg soil
Reply：we have corrected the related expression in Table 2. In addition, We would like to demonstrate to readers the effect of salt absorption and reduction by plants on saline-alkali land, and express the opinion that salt-tolerant plant have the ability to improve saline-alkali land, so we select this unit of kg/ha.
16. Lines 283- 284: biomass, sorghum
Reply：we have added necessary descriptions for Table 2, as the previous reply.
17. Line 297: delete „bacteria of“
Reply：we have revised this sentence.
18. Line 297 – 307: Within this chapter you present various taxonomic divisions (genus - Actinomarinales, family - Nitriliruptoraceae...). I suggest you to use some neutral wording eg „the quantity of various bacterial groups such as Actinomarinales…“
So, „Microascaceae“ is not genus. You must follow the name ending – ceae (=family)
Reply：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Due to various taxonomic divisions, we have carefully revised these names following your suggestions. Also we edited them in discussion section.
19. Line 316: various bacterial and fungal groups
Reply：We have revised these expressions, as previous reply.
20. Line 416: no bacteria but fungi – various fungal group (not only genus); Ascomycota is a huge group of fungi, it include hundreds of thousands of species (including Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus…).
Reply：Thank you again for your reminder. We have revised these expressions, as previous reply.
21. Line 420: No adverse – These common fungal groups are worldwide widespread
Reply：Thank you again for your reminder. We have deleted it.
22. Lines 475-476: no genus
Reply：Thank you, we have revised it.
23. Unify the format of all citations and edit the citation number: 8, 10, 21, 26, 30, 36 (journal abbreviations)
Reply：we have checked all references again.
Last，we would like to express our gratitude once again for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAgronomy MDPI
Review-2 – Agronomy-3166322
Author Response
Thank you again for your appreciations.
