Soil Organic Matter, Aggregates, and Microbial Characteristics of Intercropping Soybean under Straw Incorporation and N Input
, Feng Yang 1,2,3, Taiwen Yong 1,2,3,* and Wenyu Yang 1,2,3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research questions examined in this study are important and within the scope of the Agriculture journal. In general, the manuscript is worthy to be published if proper revision is done. I have the following points for revision.
1. From the conclusions, straw incorporation combined with 30 kg N ha-1 provides an approach to reducing inorganic N fertilizer input and maintaining soil fertility in wheat-maize-soybean relay strip intercropping. Therefore, what is the effect of SI + N30 treatment on soybean yield relative to other treatments? After all, no matter how good the soil fertility is, it still needs to be reflected in the yield of crops.
2. Line 23, ha-1, superscript.
3. The labels in Figure 2 and 10 are too small for readers to read.
4. Line 714 missing word.
Author Response
Point 1: From the conclusions, straw incorporation combined with 30 kg N ha provides an approach to reducing inorganic N fertilizer input and maintaining soil fertility in wheat-maize-soybean relay strip intercropping. Therefore, what is the effect of SI + N30 treatment on soybean yield relative to other treatments? After all, no matter how good the soil fertility is, it still needs to be reflected in the yield of crops.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. In the current manuscript, we focus on the relationship between soil properties and soil microbes. Actually, the grain yield of soybean in SI was greater than that in SR, especially, N60 and N30 treatments achieved higher grain yield than the other (as the following figure showed). Another manuscript evaluates the effects of straw incorporation and N input on grain yield.
Point 2: Line 23, ha-1, superscript.
Response 2: Thanks. We have modified it. “0 (N0) kg N ha-1” revised to “0 (N0) kg N ha-1”
Point 3: The labels in Figure 2 and 10 are too small for readers to read.
Response 3: We have revised it. As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 10.
Point 4: Line 714 missing word.
Response 4: We have revised it. “European Journal of Soil ence” revised to “European Journal of Soil science”
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor,
The study focused on the effects of straw incorporation coupled with N input on the soil organic matter, soil organic matter fractions, soil aggregation stability, and soil microbial. The general idea of the manuscript is potential interest and the study was well designed but the authors should modify some corrections as follows:
Abstract
- Underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
- Please add the highest values of mentioned traits in abstract.
- Based on the obtained results, what is the best recommendation?
Introduction
- The linkage between paragraphs is missed.
- This section is too long.
- Justify novelty in Introduction and Discussion.
- Please subject the manuscript to review made by English Native speaker.
- Lines 59-61: The sentence is not clear.
- The hypothesis is good.
Materials and methods
This section is good.
- Lines 118-119: Please add the soil physical and chemical properties in table.
- Lines 117-119: How many repetitions was used for determining soil physical and chemical properties and the characteristics was measured from what depth?
- Why the field experiment was arranged as a split-plot design?
- Line 170: Given that the study presents a long list of abbreviations, I suggest adding a “glossary” table at the end of the paper as it will aid the readers to learn about the concepts/terms that they are about to study.
- Do you measure the oil quantity and quality of soybean?
Results
- Why the data for two growing years was reported separately? Do you perform combined analysis? Do you consider growing year as a separate factor? The growing years was significant on the measured traits?
- Please delete the ‘NS’, ‘*’ and ‘**’ in all figures.
- Please add the increasing or decreasing percentage for measured traits.
- I suggest to authors for adding the oil quantity and quality of soybean if measured.
Discussion
- Line 432: Given that the study presents a long list of abbreviations, I suggest adding a “glossary” table at the end of the paper as it will aid the readers to learn about the concepts/terms that they are about to study.
- Lines 460-461: Why the authors report the results in separate growing years? The growing years was significant on the measured traits.
Conclusion
- This section is repetitive and should be rewritten.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.
Author Response
Abstract
Point 1:
- Underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article.
- Please add the highest values of mentioned traits in abstract.
- Based on the obtained results, what is the best recommendation?
Response 1: Thanks, we have modified the introduction Section.
Introduction
Point 2:
- The linkage between paragraphs is missed.
- This section is too long.
- Justify novelty in Introduction and Discussion.
- Please subject the manuscript to review made by English Native speaker.
- Lines 59-61: The sentence is not clear.
Response 2: We have revised the Introduction Section.
Materials and methods
Point 3: Lines 118-119: Please add the soil physical and chemical properties in table.
Response 3: We add the soil properties in Table 1.
Point 4: Lines 117-119: How many repetitions was used for determining soil physical and chemical properties and the characteristics was measured from what depth?
Response 4: A total of three replications were collected. Each treatment has three replicates. In each plot, the soil sample was collected from three sites (red diamond in Figure 2), then the sample was fully mixed and sieved through a mesh to remove rocks and plant tissues.
Point 5: Why the field experiment was arranged as a split-plot design?
Response 5: Because it is convenient to return wheat straw to the field by the rotary tiller. We mainly focus on the influences of nitrogen levels on straw incorporation, and a split-plot design experiment help to evaluate the influence.
Point 6: Given that the study presents a long list of abbreviations, I suggest adding a “glossary” table at the end of the paper as it will aid the readers to learn about the concepts/terms that they are about to study.
Response 6: We agree with you. All the abbreviations were added in Table 2.
Point 7: Do you measure the oil quantity and quality of soybean?
Response 7: Thanks for your comments. The oil quantity and quality of soybean were not measured in our study.
Results
Point 8: Why the data for two growing years was reported separately? Do you perform combined analysis? Do you consider growing year as a separate factor? The growing years was significant on the measured traits?
Response 8: Thanks for your comments. The change in soil organic matter is difficult to detect. As we introduced in the Introduction Section, …The short and medium changes of SOM are difficult to detect because of its high temporal and spatial variability [7]. The labile SOM fractions, e.g., dissolved or-ganic matter (DOM), light fraction organic matter (LFOM), and microbial biomass [7, 8], can be considered as fine indicators of soil quality that influence soil function in specific ways and that is much more sensitive to changes in soil management practice [9, 10]. Although similar trends were observed between the two cropping seasons, the gap between treatments was different. Firstly, we consider the cropping season as a random factor. Results indicated that the effects of cropping season on soil properties can not be ignored. Then, we do not consider the cropping season as a random factor.
Point 9: Please delete the ‘NS’, ‘*’ and ‘**’ in all figures.
Response 9：We have modified all the figures according to your suggestions.
Point 10: Please add the increasing or decreasing percentage for measured traits.
Response 10：Thanks for your comments, we have revised it (Results section).
Point 11: I suggest to authors for adding the oil quantity and quality of soybean if measured.
Response 11：What a pity that we didn’t measure the oil quantity and quality of soybean. We will investigate it in future studies.
Discussion
Point 12: Line 432: Given that the study presents a long list of abbreviations, I suggest adding a “glossary” table at the end of the paper as it will aid the readers to learn about the concepts/terms that they are about to study.
Response 12：All the abbreviations were added in Table 2.
Point 13: Lines 460-461: Why the authors report the results in separate growing years? The growing years was significant on the measured traits.
Response 13：Although similar trends were observed in both cropping seasons, the gap between treatments was different. Then cropping season was not considered as a random factor. For example, the effects of straw incorporation treatments on HFOC and HFN were not significant in 2019, but the treatments notably affected HFOC and HFN in 2020. That’s why we report results in separate cropping seasons. Considering cropping season as a random factor will cover up the critical information.
Point 14: I suggest to authors for adding the oil quantity and quality of soybean if measured.
Response 14：We didn’t investigated it, it will investigate it in future studies.
Conclusion
Point 15:
- This section is repetitive and should be rewritten.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.
Response 15：Thanks for your comments, we have revised it.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor,
In the revised version, the authors have appropriately edited and revised this earlier version according to the comments and suggestions from the reviewers, and have reasonably addressed most of the concerns and issues in the review reports. The current version could be accepted for publication in agriculture journal.
Best regards
