Rice Straw Composting Improves the Microbial Diversity of Paddy Soils to Stimulate the Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality of Rice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: sustainability-2065932, entitled “Straw composting stimulates rice growth and affects the diversity of microbial in paddy soils”.
In this paper, the author based on the four experimental treatments: local conventional fertilization as a control (CK) and compost substituting chemical fertilizer at 10% (T1), 20% (T2) and 30% (T3) to investigate their effects on rice growth and development, rice yield, quality and soil microbial diversity. It is suggested that compost instead of 10% chemical fertilizer can increase rice yield. In addition, the compost replacing 10% of the chemical fertilizer treatment, whether in regard to bacteria or archaea, increases relatively the number of Gemmatimonadetes, Sideroxydans, and Methanoregula, as well as the proportion of some beneficial bacteria. This manuscript is well-written and needs to be published. I recommend it to be accepted for publication after minor revision.
My suggestions for revisions are listed as below:
1) The research questions and significance of this paper are vague. I suggest the author reorganize the introduction to clarify the research questions and significance.
2) There should be a paragraph in the introduction to explain what methods to study and what research problems this paper will adopt.
3) The second part (4.2) of the discussion part is too simple, and the comparative discussion is too little. It is suggested to add some other people's research for comparative discussion.
4) The English of the article needs to be improved. It is suggested to let the native speaker modify and polish it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
File attach
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of the manuscript can be revised as: Straw composting stimulates rice growth and affects the microbial diversity in paddy soils
The manuscript does not implement a scientific research methodology and has many flaws in the structural framework and content. This is a one-year study. The effect of organic manure should increase with each increase in its use rate. Authors have stated that only 10% replacement of commercial fertilizer was helpful for increasing rice growth and yield along with soil microbial diversity. We all know that organic manure is a slow-release fertilizer and long-term studies are required to validate these findings.
In line, Section 2.2. Test treatment and methods were explained in tabular form. What is the constituent of compound fertilizer? How do 5 t/hm2, 10 t/hm2, and 15 t/hm2 compost amounts correspond to 10%, 20%, and 30%, respectively replacement of purified fertilizer? Moreover, was it calibrated only for nitrogen or all major primary nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium)? Preferably, use a hectare unit in place of a hectometre.
Authors need to divulge more about the methodology. How compost was prepared from rice straw and cow manure? What is the nutrient composition of the compost, if it’s given in 94-96, and then write that sentence with proper reference to compost.
Line No. 91 (plots were based on the amount of nitrogen that could release 148.5 kg.hm2) is not clear. Rewrite the sentence by elaborating on the relationship between plot size and the release of nitrogen.
Lines No. 92-93, (The released nitrogen was calculated at 29.7% of the total nitrogen) is not clear. What is this release and how this value was validated for this research?
In Lines No. 99-100, (The management of the paddy field was the same as usual), the author has explained the methodology in this statement which is not true. How readers can know the ‘usual’ management methods practiced by the author?
In line 102, Section 2.3. Measurement items and methods, method of determination of different growth (Figures 1 & 2), yield attributes (Table 2), and quality (Table 3) parameters need to be discussed. The methodology section needs a major revamping.
Further, rather than testing only the microbial diversity, activities of dehydrogenase, cellulose, amylase, and invertase enzymes may add to the correct estimation of soil biological life.
In Table 2, please check the data/headings in columns 3 and column 4. In Table 3, check the data/headings in columns 8 and column 9.
In section 3.2, the authors should give the importance of the estimation of chalkiness and light transmittance. In lines 153-154, (The specific treatments with more prominent effects were T1, T2, and T3, which decreased by 25.77%, 17.28%, and 21.24%, respectively) authors need to clarify whether these percent values are for chalkiness or for chalky grain rate (lines 151-153)?
In Figures 1 & 2, X-axis should be crop age or GDD instead of dates. Is Figure 2 deal with above-ground data? Also, dry weight data is sufficient for drawing valid conclusions.
Section 4, Discussion section needs major improvement. There is no discussion about the reasons or implications of the observed results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, the research presented is interesting and the overall manuscript is well written.
As a suggestion, for a better presentation of your aim and objectives, make a separate paragraph with this information at the end of the Introduction section. This will help the readers to be prepared for the information in the manuscript.
I appreciate the effort of the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I am sorry to say that v2 of the manuscript has many discrepancies (as marked earlier) and the replies are not acceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted in the present form for publication
