Carbon Accumulation, Soil Microbial and Enzyme Activities in Elephant Foot Yam-Based Intercropping System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: agriculture-2097016

Title: Carbon Accumulation, Soil Microbial and Enzyme Activities in Elephant
Foot Yam Based Intercropping System

 

Authors assessed the impact of intercropping short duration vegetables viz., cluster bean, radish, amaranthus, and fenugreek in elephant foot yam for two seasons (2021 and 21 2021/22). It included analysis of parameters like carbon accumulation, soil chemical, nutrient, enzyme, and microbial activities.   This manuscript provided some insightful information on the biodiversity and activity of microorganisms and chemical parameters in the intercrop soil. The authors used the correct methods typical for this type of research and received interesting results which were correctly interpreted and statistically developed. I recommend this manuscript to publication in journal Agriculture but after corrections. Some of the comments are listed as below. 

                                                              

Introduction

Page 2, lines 58-59: Please provide more information about enzymes in environmental soil. Discuss the role of individual azalyzed enzymes in the work, give examples of recent literature where they were studied and why.

 

Materials and methods

Page 4 lines 119-123 Discuss the procedure in more detail

Results

Page 7, lines 208-211 Are there significant correlations in all cases, as with mushrooms? Correct the description to more accurately present the correlations.

Figure 4. Standardize the case of letters in the description. No explanation of OC MBC abbreviations

Figure 5, 6 Explain what they mean *, **, ***, OC, MBC

Discussion

There is no discussion about the tested numbers of bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes

Please include the correlations found by the authors in the discussion

Deepen the discussion with the latest examples of other authors on this topic

Conclusions

Page 9, lines 323-325 The main reason is nitrogen and this needs to be emphasized as the authors investigated. However, root secretions were not examined, so this is only a guess.

Generally include more recent literature (Introduction, Discussion)

Author Response

Respected Sir/Madam

Please see the atachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Respected Sir/Madam

Please find the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.  In the site description, the soil type and geomorphic features of the study area should be described. The distribution of the experimental plots needs to be added to Figure 1. Whether the straws from intercropping crops were returned to the field and how to deal with that.

2.  Soil carbon accumulation, the BGB was calculated by multiplying the AGB with a factor of 0.26 which from the reference 17. But the reference 17 is about the relationship between BGB and AGB of forest. If the data can be used in the crops?

3.  All of the soil samples were collected from a depth of 15 cm that was easily affected by topdressing. So, the conclusion lacks credibility. The sampling depth should be increased.

4.  The significant difference among there treatments should be added in the figure 4.

Author Response

Respected Sir/Madam

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have two more remark:

1) You should not use the same words in keywords if they are in the subject of manuscript. Please change it.

2) Reference Soil Group (RSG) according to World Reference Base for Soil resources (WRB) must be specified for example Haplic Luvisoil, Eutrice Cambisoil e.t.c. Please complete it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This manuscript is about the carbon accumulation, soil microbial and enzyme activities in the rhizosphere region of different crops. But the research methods are unclear and the results are not feasible. My suggestions are not well modified. Such as:

1.       In my opinion, The distribution figure of treatments and repeats should be placed in fig 1. 

2.       Soil carbon accumulation, the BGB was calculated by multiplying the AGB with a factor of 0.26.  You think it can be used for crops, but the reference of Yadav and Singh, 2021 also referred to the same paper which used in your manuscript. And you can find that the ratio of belowground biomass to ground biomass of different crops varied greatly (Mazzilli, 2015, Soil Biology and Biochemistry). I think you can use the method from the reference (Hu, 2018, Agriculture, ecosystems & Environment) which given a method to estimate the root biomass.

3.       The soil sample collection method was not meticulous. From your manuscript, I can’t find the soil samples are from rhizosphere region and how do you get the samples. All of the soil samples came from the rhizosphere of Elephant foot yam or from different plants with the different treatments.

4.       In the figure 4, I suggest using a, b, c or A, B, C to indicate the significance of difference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx