Imprints of Soil Microbial Activity Accredited to Residue-Management and Tillage Practices for Boosting Rice and Wheat Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined the impacts of various tillage methods on soil microbial activity, providing valuable insights into the relationship between planting patterns and soil microorganisms. However, significant issues remain in terms of scientific problem presentation, experimental design introduction, result expression, and overall paper quality that do not meet the requirements of this journal.

 

1. In the last part of the Introduction, it is imperative to present the scientific hypothesis of this study based on existing research.

2. The presentation of the experimental design is unclear. The area of the plots mentioned in the method is the area of all plots or the area of one plot.

3. The author stated that a random block design was employed as the experimental method, and it is necessary to provide clarification regarding both the distance between the blocks and the distance between the plots.

4. The values above in Figure 1 need to be removed.

5. The quality of all drawings is subpar and it is recommended that they be remade or modified. With the exception of the first table, there is a lack of statistical analysis in the other figures.

6. The scarcity of references in the past three years suggests that the author may not be fully acquainted with the latest advancements in this research field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language should be revised further 

Author Response

Comment 1: In the last part of the Introduction, it is imperative to present the scientific hypothesis of this study based on existing research.

Response 1: Necessary information added at line 74-76

Comment 2: The presentation of the experimental design is unclear. The area of the plots mentioned in the method is the area of all plots or the area of one plot.

Response 2: Necessary information added at line 83

Comment 3: The author stated that a random block design was employed as the experimental method, and it is necessary to provide clarification regarding both the distance between the blocks and the distance between the plots.

Response 3: Distance between the blocks and the distance between the plots have been mentioned in the text at line 89-90.

Comment 4: The values above in Figure 1 need to be removed.

Response 4: Values above in Figure 1 now figure 2 have been removed (page 9)

Comment 5: The quality of all drawings is subpar and it is recommended that they be remade or modified. With the exception of the first table, there is a lack of statistical analysis in the other figures.

Response 5: Quality of all figures improved.

Comment 6: The scarcity of references in the past three years suggests that the author may not be fully acquainted with the latest advancements in this research field.

Response 6: Few latest references have been added. However, the scarcity of references in the past three years is not due to lesser acquaintance with the latest advancement in the field but because of the newer area of study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Line 42: "The rice-wheat system involves the juxtaposition of rice and wheat, each demanding distinct climatic conditions." Does the word "climatic" mean "different soil conditions"? Are you referring to soil, not climate? If so, please change.

Materials and Methods

Lines 78-83: It is not clear what the plot size was for each replicate? Were rice and wheat planted at the same time in different plots? Or did one crop grow first, then the other? Please clarify.

Line 82: Please describe conventional tillage wheat (CTW) in more detail.

Line 90: If possible, in addition to the number of seeds planted in kg seed ha-1, please provide the number of seeds or plants planted per plot (m2).

Lines 90-95: Specify the period of the study. In a separate sentence, state the time of planting of rice and wheat. List all stages of the experiment in sequence (when and what was done).

Line 96. What soil sampling method did you use?

Line 97. If possible, provide the name of the soil according to the international WRB classification.

Results

Line 149. The abbreviation "AR" appears here for the first time. It is not clear what it stands for. Please check the abbreviations. It is difficult for me to understand the results without the abbreviations.

Line 150 Provide units for 1.38

Discussion

Line 321. "the aggregation of soil organic matter" do you mean "accumulation of organic matter in the soil"?

Lines 325-327. As far as I know, burning plant material on the soil surface significantly inhibits microbial activity.

Why do you not have a "Conclusion" section?

Author Response

Comment 1: "The rice-wheat system involves the juxtaposition of rice and wheat, each demanding distinct climatic conditions." Does the word "climatic" mean "different soil conditions"? Are you referring to soil, not climate? If so, please change.

Response 1: No, we are referring to climatic conditions like daily minimum and maximum temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, etc. as rice is cultivated in summer (Kharif season), while wheat is grown in winter (Rabi season).

Comment 2: It is not clear what the plot size was for each replicate? Were rice and wheat planted at the same time in different plots? Or did one crop grow first, then the other? Please clarify.

Response 2: Plot size is for each replicate. Wheat and rice were planted during two different seasons i.e. rabi (winter) and kharif (summer), respectively.

Comment 3: Please describe conventional tillage wheat (CTW) in more detail.

Response 3: CTW described in text at line 90-91

Comment 4: If possible, in addition to the number of seeds planted in kg seed ha-1, please provide the number of seeds or plants planted per plot (m2).

Response 4: Necessary information has been added at line 101-102 and 107.

Comment 5: Specify the period of the study. In a separate sentence, state the time of planting of rice and wheat. List all stages of the experiment in sequence (when and what was done).

Response 5: Necessary information added in the text at line 85 and 101-112.

Comment 6: What soil sampling method did you use?

Response 6: Relevant information added in text at line 113-116

Comment 7: If possible, provide the name of the soil according to the international WRB classification.

Response 7: Information added at line 116.

Comment 8: The abbreviation "AR" appears here for the first time. It is not clear what it stands for. Please check the abbreviations. It is difficult for me to understand the results without the abbreviations.

Response 8: Full form has been added at line 165.

Comment 9: Provide units for 1.38

Response 9: It’s like optical density in spectrophotometry, which is not having any unit.

Comment 10: "the aggregation of soil organic matter" do you mean "accumulation of organic matter in the soil"?

Response 10: Yes, it is same along with stabilization of aggregates with the involvement retained residues.

Comment 11: As far as I know, burning plant material on the soil surface significantly inhibits microbial activity. 

Response 11: Yes, immediately after residue burning the values come down but the burnt organic matter supports microbial growth at a later stage, if the soils are deficient in organic matter. 

Comment 12: Why do you not have a "Conclusion" section?

Response 12: Abstract improved as per suggestion at line 492-506

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript introduces methods to improve the rice-wheat cropping system. The effects of different residue management and sowing practices on soil properties and rice and wheat yields were studied.

The abstract is a bit confusing because it is overcrowded with abbreviations

The introduction properly introduced the background, gap of knowledge, and aim of the study, and relevant studied were properly cited.

I would introduce a schematic diagram for the field experiment.

I would convert the text about the six groups (from 121-130) into a table

I would as well use chemometric methods, PCA, for the overall evaluation of samples

The quality of figures is insufficient

I would introduce a section for conclusion and outlook after the discussion

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract is a bit confusing because it is overcrowded with abbreviations

Response 1: Abstract improved as per suggestion by adding full form of abbreviations

Comment 2: The introduction properly introduced the background, gap of knowledge, and aim of the study, and relevant studied were properly cited.

Response 2: No comment needed

Comment 3: I would introduce a schematic diagram for the field experiment.

Response 3: Schematic diagram for field experiment has been added as figure 1 at page 4

Comment 4: I would convert the text about the six groups (from 121-130) into a table

Response 4: Table formatted and added at table 1 at page 7

Comment 5: I would as well use chemometric methods, PCA, for the overall evaluation of samples.

Response 5: As correlation analysis is straightforward and easy to interpret, so we used that. If the reviewer still feels PCA as crucial we may add it.

Comment 6: The quality of figures is insufficient

Response 6: Quality of figures has been improved

Comment 7: I would introduce a section for conclusion and outlook after the discussion

Response 7: Section for conclusion and outlook added after discussion at line 492-506

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made significant changes to the figures and language in the paper. Compared to the first version, there has been a significant improvement. I have no further suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks