Fertilization and Residue Management Improved Soil Quality of Eucalyptus Plantations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study evaluated the use of fertilization, residue management and their interaction had significant effects on soil quality index of Eucalyptus plantation. Overall, manuscript contains useful data and can be a good contribution to literature. However, the presentation of manuscript and the data is not ideal and needs thorough revision. There is a huge of work in this study and the results are interesting. I think a minor revision is needed. The specific comments are as below:
1. The genus name requires italics，please check it thorough the manuscript.
2. Please provide a satellite image of the area in the study.
3. At the beginning of the experiment, the soil properties should be provided.
4. The applied fertilizer is not known in this study making it difficult to identify the amount of nutrients that needs to be supplied.
5. Also, the nutrients of Residue should be provided in 2.2.
6. The pattern of “Total fertilization mass” in table 1 needs to be unified.
7. The data in Table 3 shows that the values of these indicators in group In-O were relatively higher than those in group O and group M. This is quite odd, as organic fertilizers, combined inorganic and organic fertilization results in higher yield, and better soil quality, e.g. better soil fertility, mitigated soil acidification, and better soil physical properties.
8. After Table 5 and Table 8, please explain the meaning of data and the symbol *,** used in the table.
9. Last but not the least, there are grammatical error, which needs to be considered and corrected throughout the manuscript to ensure readability.
There are grammatical error, which needs to be considered and corrected throughout the manuscript to ensure readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer (Professor),
Thanks for your insightful comments. We are impressed by your reviews extremely. Your suggestions are extremely valuable for improving this paper. We read your comments one by one and revised in the manuscript. The following is the process of modification.
Point 1: The genus name requires italics, please check it thorough the manuscript.
Response 1: According to your suggestion, we checked the whole text and all the genus names were changed to italics.
Point 2: Please provide a satellite image of the area in the study.
Response 2: We regret that no satellite image that meet the requirements of this journal is provided.
Point 3: At the beginning of the experiment, the soil properties should be provided.
Response 3: According to your suggestion, we provide some soil properties before the experiment, these data have large standard deviations and do not take into account the differences between different plots. We are considering whether they should be placed in this paper (e.g., Table 1).
Point 4: The applied fertilizer is not known in this study making it difficult to identify the amount of nutrients that needs to be supplied.
Response 4: According to your suggestion, we provide the composition of inorganic fertilizers and the source of organic fertilizers. (e.g., L123-125).
Point 5: Also, the nutrients of Residue should be provided in 2.2.
Response 5: Although we did not measure the residues nutrient in this study, their carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents have been measured in our previous studies. (e.g., Table 3).
Point 6: The pattern of “Total fertilization mass” in table 1 needs to be unified.
Response 6: According to your suggestion, this table has been revised (e.g., Table 2).
Point 7: The data in Table 3 shows that the values of these indicators in group In-O were relatively higher than those in group O and group M. This is quite odd, as organic fertilizers, combined inorganic and organic fertilization results in higher yield, and better soil quality, e.g. better soil fertility, mitigated soil acidification, and better soil physical properties.
Response 7: Your view is very constructive. One explanation for this problem is that inorganic fertilizers provide higher total nutrients than other fertilizers, but the improvement of soil structure and the promotion of biochemical reactions are worse. In the analysis and conclusion, we also have this view.
Point 8: After Table 5 and Table 8, please explain the meaning of data and the symbol *,** used in the table.
Response 8: These tables have been revised according to your suggestion.
Point 9: Last but not the least, there are grammatical error, which needs to be considered and corrected throughout the manuscript to ensure readability.
Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the grammar errors in this manuscript as much as possible.
Thanks again for your help sincerely, it is your comments that make this research more valuable.
Manuscript ID: forests- 2461247.
Kind regards,
Lichao Wu, Zhiyuan Zhu.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study investigates the effects of fertilization and residue management on soil quality in Chinese eucalyptus plantations. It provides new management approaches to improve soil quality and tree productivity in these plantations. The research reveals that inorganic fertilizers significantly enhance soil nutrient content (such as N, P, and K), while organic fertilizers significantly increase soil enzyme activity. The retention of crop residues improves soil pore structure and promotes soil biochemical reactions. The study concludes that the interaction between residue management and fertilization significantly affects the soil quality index, with residue management being a key factor in improving soil quality. The study utilizes principal component analysis and minimum data set approaches to assess soil quality, offering scientifically and methodologically sound methodologies. The research holds practical significance by providing management strategies for eucalyptus plantations to enhance soil quality and tree productivity. The reviewer acknowledges the contributions of the paper but raises several concerns as following:
1. It is suggested to include a more comprehensive review of previous research in the introduction section.
2. The novelty and contribution of this paper should be more highlighted.
3. In Figure 3, the reviewer recommends providing clear definitions for the different region instead of using labels like "a, b, c." in the figure.
4. Regarding the utilization of Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the reviewer advises stating the results more explicitly. Specifically, it would be beneficial to clarify the impact of PCA on data dimensionality reduction and noise reduction in a more precise manner.
5. Furthermore, in the conclusion section, while the effects of different factors on the SQI were mentioned, the reviewer suggests providing a quantitative description to further strengthen the conclusions and highlight the significance of these factors.
6. Lastly, improving the language throughout the paper is recommended to enhance clarity and readability.
The writing needs to be further polished
Author Response
Dear Reviewer (Professor),
Thanks for your insightful comments. We are impressed by your reviews extremely. Your suggestions are extremely valuable for improving this paper. We read your comments one by one and revised in the manuscript. The following is the process of modification.
Point 1: It is suggested to include a more comprehensive review of previous research in the introduction section.
Response 1: We have added new literature in the introduction department (e.g., L45-52, L69-72).
Point 2: The novelty and contribution of this paper should be more highlighted.
Response 2: According to your suggestion, we emphasize the innovativeness and importance of this work in the introduction section (e.g., L79-80, L91-93).
Point 3: In Figure 3, the reviewer recommends providing clear definitions for the different region instead of using labels like "a, b, c." in the figure.
Response 3: According to your suggestion, this Figure has been revised (e.g., Figure 3).
Point 4: Regarding the utilization of Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the reviewer advises stating the results more explicitly. Specifically, it would be beneficial to clarify the impact of PCA on data dimensionality reduction and noise reduction in a more precise manner.
Response 4: According to your suggestion, the role of principal component analysis is emphasized. (e.g., L252-254, L361-364).
Point 5: Furthermore, in the conclusion section, while the effects of different factors on the SQI were mentioned, the reviewer suggests providing a quantitative description to further strengthen the conclusions and highlight the significance of these factors.
Response 5: Your suggestion is very constructive. We add data in the conclusion section to emphasize the correctness of the conclusion. (e.g., L385-390).
Point 6: Lastly, improving the language throughout the paper is recommended to enhance clarity and readability.
Response 6: We modify the grammar and wording of the full text as much as possible to increase readability.
Thanks again for your help sincerely, it is your comments that make this research more valuable.
Manuscript ID: forests- 2461247.
Kind regards,
Lichao Wu, Zhiyuan Zhu.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Report on the Manuscript Number: forests-2461247 Title: Fertilization and residue management improved soil quality of Eucalyptus plantations
1. I have finished my review on the Manuscript. There are some issues that need to be improved.
2. Keywords: Please make a change in keywords. For the residue, principal component analysis and Eucalyptus.
3. Abstract: Line 29, Please add your effective management measures for the restoration of Eucalyptus plantation soil fertility.
4. Line 39-40, it is needed to explain for readers what the problem of soil erosion is. Please explain about soil erosion rates and soil erosion process and types.
5. Line 45-47, It is better to use these references in order to write more information about management models developed by soil properties in forests for improving soil quality, decreasing soil loss and increasing forest productivity:
Vidal Legaz, D. Maia De Souza….. Soil quality, properties, and functions in life cycle assessment: an evaluation of models. Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 140, Part 2, 1 January 2017, Pages 502-515.
Misagh Parhizkar, Mahmood Shabanpour, …. Effects of length and application rate of rice straw mulch on surface runoff and soil loss under laboratory simulated rainfall. International Journal of Sediment Research 36 (2021) 468e478.
Raiesi and Beheshti… Evaluating forest soil quality after deforestation and loss of ecosystem services using network analysis and factor analysis techniques. CATENA. Volume 208, January 2022, 105778.
6. Line 74, please add your hypothesis in this paragraph.
7. Materials and Methods: Line 78, Readers may like to see geographical location and pictures of your study area.
8. Line 280 to 286, you could discuss this part further and compare your results with other papers.
9. Line 301 to 305, Similar to the previous comment, authors must rewrite this section and compare your results with other papers. It would be better if you could report the comparable results, so that your readers can see similar findings, if the experimental conditions were comparable to your study.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer (Professor),
Thanks for your insightful comments. We are impressed by your reviews extremely. Your suggestions are extremely valuable for improving this paper. We read your comments one by one and revised in the manuscript. The following is the process of modification.
Point 1: Keywords: Please make a change in keywords. For the residue, principal component analysis and Eucalyptus.
Response 1: Unfortunately, we have not been able to understand what you mean and we will focus on your further advice.
Point 2: Abstract: Line 29, Please add your effective management measures for the restoration of Eucalyptus plantation soil fertility.
Response 2: Based on your suggestion, we have revised the abstract section. (e.g., L32-33).
Point 3: Line 39-40, it is needed to explain for readers what the problem of soil erosion is. Please explain about soil erosion rates and soil erosion process and types.
Response 3: Based on your suggestion, we cited literature to explain the main reasons for soil loss in Eucalyptus plantations (e.g., L45-47). As for the type of soil erosion, we cannot understand your point of view.
Point 4: 5. Line 45-47, It is better to use these references in order to write more information about management models developed by soil properties in forests for improving soil quality, decreasing soil loss and increasing forest productivity:
Vidal Legaz, D. Maia De Souza….. Soil quality, properties, and functions in life cycle assessment: an evaluation of models. Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 140, Part 2, 1 January 2017, Pages 502-515.
Misagh Parhizkar, Mahmood Shabanpour, …. Effects of length and application rate of rice straw mulch on surface runoff and soil loss under laboratory simulated rainfall. International Journal of Sediment Research 36 (2021) 468e478.
Raiesi and Beheshti… Evaluating forest soil quality after deforestation and loss of ecosystem services using network analysis and factor analysis techniques. CATENA. Volume 208, January 2022, 105778.
Response 4: We carefully read the literatures you provided, and cited two of them, and put them in the appropriate position in the manuscript. (e.g., L69-72, L352-353).
Point 5: Line 74, please add your hypothesis in this paragraph.
Response 5: According to your suggestions, we summarize the full text. In order to correspond to the conclusion part one by one, we put forward three hypotheses. (e.g., L87-91).
Point 6: Materials and Methods: Line 78, Readers may like to see geographical location and pictures of your study area.
Response 6: We regret that no geographical location image that meet the requirements of this journal is provided.
Point 7: Line 280 to 286, you could discuss this part further and compare your results with other papers.
Response 7: According to your suggestion, we added new references and discussed the results of this paper (e.g., L319-323).
Point 8: Line 301 to 305, Similar to the previous comment, authors must rewrite this section and compare your results with other papers. It would be better if you could report the comparable results, so that your readers can see similar findings, if the experimental conditions were comparable to your study.
Response 8: We want to find references that the residues are similar to inorganic fertilizers, but we did not find them.
Thanks again for your help sincerely, it is your comments that make this research more valuable.
Manuscript ID: forests- 2461247.
Kind regards,
Lichao Wu, Zhiyuan Zhu.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
