Effect of Fertilization on Soil Fertility and Individual Stand Biomass in Strip Cut Moso Bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs the manuscript is revised according to the comments, the quality has improved.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article has been corrected according to the comments. A few more notes: In chapter 2.2. Experimental design add S, C and B if you can in L 107, L 109 and L 112: Spreading fertilization (treatment S):.... Cave fertilization (treatment C)......This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the manuscript and I have three reservations about the text.
First, there are no citations to the methods used. This whole section needs editing. The information provided here is insufficient.
Second, in the results section, the description of the results is rather terse. It would be appropriate to supplement this text.
Third, there is often a mix of results and discussion in the discussion section. This text needs to be reviewed and edited so that this section is truly a discussion.
Author Response
Thank you for your professional guidance and assistance. We have supplemented the methods, results, and modified the discussion. We have incorporated your revision suggestions into our paper. The paper is now ready, and we look forward to your review feedback.
I have read the manuscript and I have three reservations about the text.
First, there are no citations to the methods used. This whole section needs editing. The information provided here is insufficient.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made some supplements.
Second, in the results section, the description of the results is rather terse. It would be appropriate to supplement this text.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made some supplements and added some analysis.
Third, there is often a mix of results and discussion in the discussion section. This text needs to be reviewed and edited so that this section is truly a discussion.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made modifications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAttached
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing will improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your professional guidance and assistance. We have incorporated your revision suggestions into our paper. The paper is now ready, and we look forward to your review feedback.
L-18: “three fertilization rates of 40, 60, and 80 kg/mu.” -From this statement it is not clear what type of fertilizers were used to establish the treatments. As the abstract should be self-explanatory, therefore it is suggested to include the treatments clearly.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have supplemented the fertilization ratio. L-18
L-18 and other places: Fertilizer application rate is expressed as kg/mu. It is better to express the unit as kg/ha (or kg/m2) for better understanding of the most of the readers.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have supplemented that 1 kg/mu=15 kg/hm2. L-18 and L-103
Abstract: Highlight some important results (with numerical values) of the experiment in this section.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have supplemented some important results (with numerical values). L-27
L-84: “North Subtropical Monsoon Climate,”- It is better to write “north subtropical monsoon climate,”.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have changed “North Subtropical Monsoon Climate” to “north subtropical monsoon climate”. L-86
L-131: “air-drying in an oven”- Is it air drying? or firstly air dried and then oven dried in an oven? Check carefully.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. Dried in an oven, we have changed it. L-135.
L-140-152: Soil fertility status for different parameters was determined by different methods. I would like to suggest the authors to include appropriate reference for each method.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. Added a reference to the selection of experimental methods.
Figure 3: Not clear, make it visible. Figure legend for the X axis (Treatments) is not mentioned, Need necessary corrections.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made modifications.
Results: Results of different parameters are presented too briefly. It is suggested to describe the results elaborately (with necessary values and comparisons among the treatments) in the text.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made modifications. Some data without regular conclusions, we did not describe it in the results.
Figure 4: Total biomass (%) for different portions of bamboo plant (leaves, branches, culms) should be 100. But, in figure 4, sometimes it is more than 100 or sometimes it is less than 100. For instance, in CK treatment it is totally 101 % (70% + 20% + 11%). Again, in C60 treatment, the value is totally 99%. So, check it carefully and correct accordingly.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made modifications.
L-230: “nutrient enhancement post-fertilization.”- Not clear, rewrite it.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have changed the sentence to “implying there is a certain threshold for the increase in nutritional components after fertilization.”. L-261
L-243-244: “bamboo stump fertilization enhances soil fertility postharvest”- Not clear, rewrite the sentence.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have changed the sentence to: “Compared with bamboo stump fertilization, the spreading and cave methods are more suitable for implementing strip cutting and postharvest fertilization of Moso bamboo forests with gentle slopes and moderate densities.”. L-276-277
L-258-259: “The C80, S60, and S80 treatments significantly increased SOC in the 0–10 cm soil layer.”- Is there any relationship between fertilization (inorganic) and soil organic carbon content? Need explanation regarding the increased soil organic carbon content in the top soil layer (0–10 cm soil layer) due to C80, S60, and S80 treatments.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. The application of inorganic fertilizers helps to improve the activity of soil surface SOC. We have added a new reference. L-289
L-329: “to improve the quality of bamboo resources”- Is there any quality parameters of bamboo resources that are included in the manuscript? If the authors have related data, it is suggested to include in the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have changed “to improve the quality of bamboo resources” to “to improve the individual bamboo stand biomass, prevent soil fertility decline, and achieve efficient and sustainable management”. L-361
L-331: Delete the word "results".
Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have deleted it.
Overall comment: The manuscript has scientific significance. But the manuscript is not well written specially the results section. Significant effort is needed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
L 86-87: A completely unnecessary sentence. as well as references [13,14]. Please provide the meteorological conditions for all years of the study in a table or figure for each month. Also compare the average daily air temperature and precipitation with multi-year norms.
L 99: explain what kg/mu means.
L 99-101: Describe clearly the design of the experiment, how many levels each factor had. Links [10,11] are not suitable here, they are not available. Is reference 10 from this study? in the year 2000???
The experiment was done only for one year - 2022? What can a one-year experiment yield? Are the weather conditions the same all year round? If they change, with less precipitation, the mass gain will also change.
Why is the data in a two-factor experiment subjected to a one-factor ANOVA?
One year of data is not suitable for publication in this journal. The statistical evaluation of the data was also performed incorrectly.
Author Response
Thank you for your professional guidance and assistance. We have incorporated your revision suggestions into our paper. The paper is now ready, and we look forward to your review feedback.
L 86-87: A completely unnecessary sentence. as well as references [13,14]. Please provide the meteorological conditions for all years of the study in a table or figure for each month. Also compare the average daily air temperature and precipitation with multi-year norms.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have revised this sentence. Sorry for not adding the average daily air temperature and precipitation with multi-year norms. All treatments in the experiment were at the same time and in the same area, with the same rainfall and temperature.
L 99: explain what kg/mu means.
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have supplemented that 1 kg/mu=15 kg/hm2. L-18 and L-103
L 99-101: Describe clearly the design of the experiment, how many levels each factor had. Links [10,11] are not suitable here, they are not available. Is reference 10 from this study? in the year 2000???
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have made the modifications. We have removed references from the year 2000
The experiment was done only for one year - 2022? What can a one-year experiment yield? Are the weather conditions the same all year round? If they change, with less precipitation, the mass gain will also change.
Response: Thanks. Our research focuses on the recovery of newly formed bamboo after strip cutting. After strip-cutting, newly grown bamboo grows completely one year later. Exploring the biomass of newly grown bamboo and the recovery of soil nutrients one year later after strip-cut. Only requires one year of data. All treatments in the experiment were at the same time and in the same area, with the same rainfall and temperature.
Why is the data in a two-factor experiment subjected to a one-factor ANOVA?
Response: Thanks for your valuable advice. One-factor ANOVA is used to compare the differences between 9 types of fertilization and CK. And comparing the differences between soil layers at different depths. We added a two-factor analysis of variance to analyze the impact of fertilization dosages and fertilization methods on the results.
One year of data is not suitable for publication in this journal. The statistical evaluation of the data was also performed incorrectly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
