Biomass of Shoots and Roots of Multicomponent Grasslands and Their Impact on Soil Carbon Accumulation in Arenosol Rich in Stones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript for the reader of the journal. It address long-term SOC accumulation under various fertilized or non-fertilized grasses type in sandy soil (rich with stones). The manuscript needs serious revision to improve its quality. Please see annotated manuscript. 

The comments are related to Abstract (conclusion), Introduction (better streaming to formulate the objective, and it should be more specific), Material and Methods (e.g., deficit of information about plot, experimental design and statistical analysis, etc.), Result (e.g., additional table with statistical analysis), Discussion (e.g., use proper references, some part from Results should be move to Discussion) and Conclusion (be more specific with practical outcomes, not to repat the Abstract).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the manuscript "Biomass of Shoots and Roots of Multicomponent Grasslands and Their Impact on Soil Carbon Accumulation in Rich of Stones Arenosol" present a research suitable for the exploration of soil plant traits in grasslands, the impact that roots have on SOC sequestration and the analysis of future perennial plants forecasts and models.

Overall, the manuscript is well documented and organized, with sections of appropriate lengths and presented explicitly.

There are some suggestions that can improve the current form of the manuscript and the presentation of research team findings.

 The abstract is concise and present the main findings of the study, sustained by the values recorded.

The Introduction section is well organized, presenting the background of this research. The potential use of the results for future research directions is presented by the authors, and the aim + objectives are formulated accordingly. 

Materials and Methods section offers all the technical information, needed for the understanding of research development and the recording of the results. Statistical analysis should be completed with a reference to the software used.

Results section - Tables 3 and 4 should be presented in one table, their interpretation is reduced in length, and it does not sustain this current split in three tables.

A list of species in the grassland and their coverage will sustain better the results. It should be added in the manuscript, in the results section.

Tables 6 and 7 do not have a statistical analysis. This should be provided for the detection of significant changes induced by the applied treatments.

Especially for Table 7 - multiple comparison can be done between both grasslands and the moment of sampling, which will present the differences better.

Figure 1. The figure caption should be completed with a Legend of abbreviations.

For Tables related to soil depths, a multiple comparison between depth x interaction will improve the presentation of the results. In current form the differences are analyzed only in a mono-factorial way.

Figure 2. Same suggestion as for figure 1.

All the changes to the Results section can lead to a better presentation for the findings from this research. This will also modify, partially, the Discussion section by the addition of new observed trends.

The Discussion section is well organized, and only if new ideas arise from the improvement of the Results section will appear changes in it.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is very general. There are thousands of articles with similar content. Add a more specific description of the soil carbon sequestration process.

You use a decimal point somewhere and a comma elsewhere. You must use a dot in the English language.

What was the size of the experimental sites?

Lines 97-104: You only repeat the data from Table 2.

Table 2: 208±12 - put decimal place. ... 208±12.0

Line 144: I know this analyzer. However, the articles usually specify the device strictly.

Try to change the units somehow, the reader is having a hard time navigating them. Somewhere you use grams, somewhere else kilograms / square meters, hectares, etc. You can use percentages wherever possible.

The text contains a large number of numbers. Rather stick to their presentation in the form of tables.

Stick with terms like soil organic matter or soil organic carbon instead of humus or humic substantial. This terminology is tricky. Likewise, you should consider using the term sequestration.

In the Discussion, you mainly think about analysing your own results - that's not bad. However, it is necessary to include a much larger amount of professional literature in the Discussion, which will support your results (or not).

The output of the entire work is the statement of the achieved results. But what is it good for? What is the meaning of the post?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor

Authors have improved quality significantly (text, figures, tables).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing and accepting our manuscript.

Best luck,

Monika

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You write that the Introduction was supplemented with other sources. But it still looks very general to me.

Regarding SKALAR..... I meant something like: "Primacs SLC Analyzer (Skalar, Netherland)."

The discussion needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your kind suggestions and comments. 

These are the last changes required:

Comment: You write that the Introduction was supplemented with other sources. But it still looks very general to me.

Answer: we have improved the introduction

Comment: Regarding SKALAR..... I meant something like: "Primacs SLC Analyzer (Skalar, Netherland)."

Answer: Thak you, it was described wider.

Comment:The discussion needs to be improved.

Answer: the discussion was improved as much as we understand it could be improved at the moment.

Best regards,

Liudmila, Monika, Agne and Aida