Seasonal Dynamics of Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in Biomasses of Microorganisms in Arable Mollisols Affected by Different Tillage Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments.

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

1. Please be sure that the abstract and the conclusions section not only summarize the key findings of the work but also explain the specific ways in which this work fundamentally advances the field relative to prior literature.
2. I think the relevance, importance and innovative aspects of the paper should be more evident.
3. Indicate the possible risks of such research. Add your recommendations for future research.
4. Words used in the title should not be repeated in the keywords.
5. The discussion section should be supplemented with more recent publications on the research subject.
6. Please indicate the significance of the differences between the values of the Pearson's linear correlation coefficients.
7. A very large number of editing errors throughout the paper (font size, commas instead of points, incorrect spaces, subscripts).
8. Please update your references.
9. The language correctness should be verified by a native speaker.
10. Research carried out by the author seems to be important to the development and enhancement of existing information on this subject. The paper can be accepted for publication after the aforementioned corrections have been made.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is devoted to an important problem - the study of the seasonal dynamics of organic carbon and nitrogen in the biomass of soil microorganisms in soils with different uses.

General remarks:

1. Have the authors studied the spatial variation of the considered properties? May be paper`s conclusions a reflection of spatial variation?
2. Are parametric statistical methods suitable for such a small sample size?
3. It is necessary to indicate the contribution of the authors to the preparation of the paper. Fresh samples were used for analyzes, but the authors have different affiliations.
4. It would be good to indicate the change in soil moisture during the experiment.
5. Use dots, not commas, to separate characters of numbers.
6. Very long and unnecessarily detailed Abstracts. They need to be reduced.

 

Specific remarks:

Line 26 - in the formula of a chemical compound, lower letters must be made.

Line 62 - why "Strong" and "High"? Is it new classification?

Line 71 - mass, not weight.

Lines 71-73 - The meaning of the sentence is not clear. 35% of bacteria live for 7 months, and 65% for 14 years? Lines 79-80 below show data for several days / weeks.

Line 107. The statements about the dominance of fungi do not quite agree with the classical point of view. Moreover, it is said below that this may be a feature of the method.

Line 134 - strange sentence construction.

Line 168 - extra dot after the link to the source.

Figure 2 and Figure 3. The figures have Cyrillic letters. The significance of the differences is indicated in very small letters.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes the seasonal dynamics of organic carbon and nitrogen in biomasses of microorganisms affected by different tillage systems.

 

The text is generally very well-written. Some points are raised below.

 

1. Abstract: to be considerably shortened about 200 words according to the Journal instructions.
2. 76: not well-written.
3. 86: CO₂ instead of CO2.
4. 98: Explanation for OPR is needed.
5. 112-6: not clear. Please, rephrase.
6. 158: “Dry burning” and all the text: Is this a different process than usual? Please, explain. The “air-dry” is not what we call “dry”. Please, explain.
7. 251: does the sentence continue?
8. 11, l.6: “cenoses”.
9. 12, ls.79-81: Is there any experimental evidence for the humic substances behavior?
10. 12, ls.91-98: Is there any physical meaning/explanation/conclusion for the Pearson correlations?
11. 14, l.115: Please, compare results with literature.
12. Conclusions: Please, compare results with literature.