Enhanced Nitrogen Fertilizer Input Alters Soil Carbon Dynamics in Moso Bamboo Forests, Impacting Particulate Organic and Mineral-Associated Carbon Pools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

read your manuscript dealing with N fertilizer input and its impacts on soil carbon in Moso Bamboo forests -China. It is an interesting topic and the manuscript is well written and qualified. I put some comments in order to improve the quality of your paper. Please refer to the text. 

Good luck 

All the best

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the article titled “Enhanced Nitrogen Fertilizer Input Alters Soil Carbon Dynamics in Moso Bamboo Forests, Impacting Particulate Organic and Mineral-associated Carbon Pools”. It is very valuable to carry out such a study in Soil carbon and microbial Dynamics under the application of different amounts of N fertilizer. So, Fertilizer is critical for plant and soil productivity, soil health, and soil microbial activity rate. Such studies are very important. However, authors need to revise these articles again and review and correct serious errors. However, the English of the article needs to be at moderate revision. Also, I added some minor suggestions in the PDF file. The whole MS needs to be revised. So, I showed the revised highlights in the PDF file. 

Title

Can be revised? Like “Nitrogen Fertilizer Input Modifies Soil Carbon and Microbial Carbon Dynamics in Moso Bamboo Forests, Influencing Particulate Organic and Mineral-Associated Carbon Pools”. The title of the manuscript reflects its contents.

Abstract

Need to be rewritten after checking the whole paper.

Introduction

There is also some grammatical problem here. In this part, some important sentences should be cited from more recent studies. Shown in the PDF file.

Line 124-131. In this part, You need to show your hypothesis. but your findings or conclusions.

Material and Method

This section has almost described a sufficiently informative sampling method, but can you illustrate how many total soil samples were taken? How many replications? Also, It would be nice if you could provide information about how often and how long are the area's boundaries.

What is the main reason to choose this amount of the N application?

Which methods were used for SMBC and SMBN?

2.2.3. with 2.2.4. parts are mixed. You need to fix this place.

Results

This section is written clearly and sufficiently.

Line 285-287. The results are really weird. It reduces microbial carbon in low applications. It does not change in high application. So, at higher applications (for example;1000 kg/ha) the amount of SMBC may increase. Can you explain this?

Line 312. Did you measure the annual litterfall of Moso bamboo forests? If yes, you need to mention your method in the MM section.

According to the results, the data did not seem very healthy to me. Can you re-check your microbial biomass carbon values, especially in your control areas?

Discussion

I would like to reconsider after major revision. Because all revisions need to be revised after the revision of the results.

Conclusion

I would like to reconsider after major revision. Because all revisions need to be revised after the revision of the results.

The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and they are properly showing the data.

Good Luck…

I would like to reconsider after major revision in line with the recommendations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Enhanced Nitrogen Fertilizer Input Alters Soil Carbon Dynamics in Moso Bamboo Forests, Impacting Particulate Organic and Mineral-associated Carbon Pools” was reviewed. Here are some comments on it:

1. The information gap and the problem that this study aims to solve is to understand the effect of nitrogen application on bamboo forest soil quality.

2. The topic of the research is critical from the following aspects: a) Preparation of theoretical bases of knowledge about forest soil carbon reserves, b) Efforts to achieve sustainable management of nitrogen fertilizer consumption.

3. The findings of this study can be used as practical and useful recommendations for bamboo producers in the region.

4. Regarding the methodology, it is recommended that the ANOVA results be included in the manuscript.

5. Regarding the comparison of means by Duncan method, it is suggested that the letter A be assigned to the largest values, although it is the opposite in the SPSS output.

6. The discussion and conclusion sections are presented appropriately, and the main question of the research is well addressed.

7. The resolution of Figure 3 is low. It is recommended that the font of the letters be provided with more clarity.

8. In section 3.2 (line 263), the “HM treatment” should be changed to “HN treatment”.

9. In Table 1, the value of NH4⁺ for MN (4.44) may not be correct. Probably the correct value is 14.44.

10. In section 3.3 (line 286), “by, respectively, 71.6% and 70.8%” be changed to “by, 71.6% and 70.8%, respectively”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents how the Nitrogen Fertilizer Input Alters Soil Carbon Dynamics in Moso Bamboo Forests, Impacting Particulate Organic and Mineral-associated Carbon Pools.   The manuscript is half complete and reasonable, but there are still some comments to improve the quality of this paper :

Line 142 – What are (CK, LN, MN, and HN) locations?  Please explain.

Line – 153 . This is confusing - calcium superphosphate (12% P2O5) as the phosphate fertilizer and potassium chloride (60% K2O)? calcium superphosphate =  CaH6O9P2 and potassium chloride = KCL .

Line  163 . A total of 10 soil cores were collected from each plot and mixed together to form a composite soil sample. - Only 10 samples were  analyzed. Please give accurate information on how many samples were made,  N =?  

Line 179 The soil pH – in water or in CaCl2 or KCl – please add the solution.

Line - 181 2.2.3.   Determination of Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon and Nitrogen – the text after this explains – Cation Exchange Capacity and Base saturation  – but not  Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon and Nitrogen!

Row 184 Base cations in the soil are - Ca2+, Mg2+, K+,  and Na+.     The  Fe3+, and Al3+ are considered acidic cations.

Line 188 - 2.2.4. Determination of Base Cations – the text here is about  Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon and Nitrogen.

Line 444 – Why Table 1S and figure  Figure S1 are in the supplement?

Line 433 - M. acutum plantations – This is only in conclusion. What are these plantations?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been revised in line with the recommendations of the referees, and there does not seem to be any problem with acceptance. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on my work. Your professional insights and advice have been invaluable to me and have helped me improve my research. Thank you again for your support and encouragement! Wish you a happy life!