Evaluation of Changes in Glomalin-Related Soil Proteins (GRSP) Content, Microbial Diversity and Physical Properties Depending on the Type of Soil as the Important Biotic Determinants of Soil Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I hope this email finds you well and safe.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your extremely valuable review of our research. Responses to the reviewer's comments have been included in the text. In my opinion, they contributed to the improvement and value of this publication. The authors agree with all reviewer’s comments. All changes are marked in the text on blue. We tried to answer all comments in great detail and precisely.
I hope that the manuscript in its current form will receive a positive feedback from the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
You have payed careful attention to most of my recommendations and the manuscript is now telling a more coherent and well explained story. I appreciate you have had English proofing but there are some minor issues remain. I have marked these up in the pdf and I think you can address them easily enough.
Line 117-121 the aim of the paper is written in a confusing way. I would suggest you separate out he key message and the implications of the outcome of the paper so easier to focus on the research results and then their significance.
I note all figures and tables have been revised as suggested but the titles of each are in some cases still less than satisfactory, lacking the detail that is required to easily interpret them. Please make sure the new order of soil types according to soil quality is made in title, as well as when examined.
Line 295 PCA is still not adequately explained. Were the data transformed before analysis etc.
I see you have expanded on the results and discussion, but the soil of greatest soil quality is only 2% of land area in Poland. It would be good if you could clarify what % of arable land is covered by this soil type rather than Poland. I know where I live only 8% of land is used for cropping so it is an important distinction to make. I would also say if it is prime agricultural land that needs to be protected from degradation or encroachment. I think clarifying how widely a soil is used for agriculture would be better way of assessing the significance of your results. So the analysis requires to consider how much of each soil type studied is under arable agriculture and therefore with those soils more vulnerable to degradation or alternatively being prime agricultural land due to better soil quality what is their distribution? I think the point you want to make requires further thought. Line 555-560. I have made other suggestions in Discussion which require your attention.
Conclusion could be kept as dot points but needs a lead in sentence. Also the 3rd dot point on line 608 requires some clarification as "good" soil biological activity is unclear as where it fits between high and low soil biological activity. It is also in results at line 438 where it is also stated as "good" biological activity. I think you may mean "moderate" or if it is fungi alone that characterises these soils then say that. Avoid terms like "good" for biological activity as it is high or low.
I think these improvements are achievable and would encourage the authors to make those changes and the paper will be much improved. You have already made some substantial improvements to date.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your extremely valuable review of our research. Responses to the reviewer's comments have been included in the text. In my opinion, they contributed to the improvement and value of this publication. The authors agree with all reviewer’s comments. All changes are marked in the text on blue. We tried to answer all comments in great detail and precisely.
I hope that the manuscript in its current form will receive a positive feedback from the reviewer. Detailed answers to the reviewer's questions and comments are presented below.
Reviewer 2. Line 117-121 the aim of the paper is written in a confusing way. I would suggest you separate out he key message and the implications of the outcome of the paper so easier to focus on the research results and then their significance.
Response: The aim of the study has been rewritten.
Reviewer 2. I note all figures and tables have been revised as suggested but the titles of each are in some cases still less than satisfactory, lacking the detail that is required to easily interpret them. Please make sure the new order of soil types according to soil quality is made in title, as well as when examined.
Response: Descriptions of tables and figures were changed according to the sequence of soil types used
Reviewer 2. Line 295 PCA is still not adequately explained. Were the data transformed before analysis etc.
Response: All soil quality parameters tested in this study were used as variables in the PCA analysis. The PCA analysis was performed using the packet STATISTICA.PL (10), the data were standardized.
Reviewer 2. I see you have expanded on the results and discussion, but the soil of greatest soil quality is only 2% of land area in Poland. It would be good if you could clarify what % of arable land is covered by this soil type rather than Poland. I know where I live only 8% of land is used for cropping so it is an important distinction to make. I would also say if it is prime agricultural land that needs to be protected from degradation or encroachment. I think clarifying how widely a soil is used for agriculture would be better way of assessing the significance of your results. So the analysis requires to consider how much of each soil type studied is under arable agriculture and therefore with those soils more vulnerable to degradation or alternatively being prime agricultural land due to better soil quality what is their distribution? I think the point you want to make requires further thought. Line 555-560. I have made other suggestions in Discussion which require your attention.
Response: The soil with the highest agricultural productivity in Poland constitutes only about 26% of all arable land, which covers about 60% of the country's area. This group also includes Gleyic Phaeozems, which in Poland are predominantly over 90% agricultural land. Haplic Cambisols– developed from loess, some Fluvisols and Rendzic Leptosols are also highly productive. Hence the greatest care to maintain these soils of the best quality. These are the most productive soils, where the highest yields are obtained. Moreover, these are soils characterized by high water retention and high resistance to chemical degradation. For these reasons, in Poland, first of all, soils with the highest productivity should be protected against non-agricultural use and against degradation [3]. The remaining soil types are low productivity soils and account for more than 70% of the agricultural land area. The majority of them are sandy soils with low water retention and low organic carbon content [3, 4].
Reviewer 2. Conclusion could be kept as dot points but needs a lead in sentence. Also the 3rd dot point on line 608 requires some clarification as "good" soil biological activity is unclear as where it fits between high and low soil biological activity. It is also in results at line 438 where it is also stated as "good" biological activity. I think you may mean "moderate" or if it is fungi alone that characterises these soils then say that. Avoid terms like "good" for biological activity as it is high or low.
Response: The conclusion has been rewritten. All changes are marked in the text on blue. The authors believe that presenting the conclusions in points will make it easier for the reader to summarize the entire work. In our opinion, the summary contains all the most important research results and there is no need to extend them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
This is an interesting manuscript about the evaluation of changes in glomalin-related soil proteins (GRSP) 15 content, microbial diversity and soil physical quality depending on the type of soil as the effect of 16 improving soil properties and health.
The authors conclude that a specific edaphone of soil microorganisms and GRSP content may be of great importance when 33 assessing a soil’s potential resistance to degradation and improvements in soil health. This effect is 34 particularly important for agricultural soils.
Over all, this study is well designed and the results are interesting.
However, the manuscript need an editing of the English.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Thank you very much for your extremely valuable review of our research. Responses to the reviewer's comments have been included in the text. In my opinion, they contributed to the improvement and value of this publication. The authors agree with all reviewer’s comments. All changes are marked in the text on green. New figures and a new tables were also introduced in line with the reviewer's comments.
Thank you for your valuable comments and comments. We tried to answer all comments in great detail and precisely.
The language and style of the text were performed. The paper was also included in the English correction to Proof-Reeeading-Service.com Ltd, Devonshire Business Centre, Work Road, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 1GJ, United Kingdom.
I hope that the manuscript in its current form will receive a positive feedback from the reviewer. Detailed answers to the reviewer's questions and comments are presented below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The paper can be improved but it will require careful editing, improved English expression, clearer presentation of results, and a more nuanced discussion. The soil analysis seems to be sound but the results are presented poorly. I have made detailed comments on the pdf of manuscript for your guidance, and suggest you refer to that. My summary below is drawing on areas of improvement with some egs but there needs to be comprehensive editing undertaken for paper to be publishable.
Abstract
Needs to be clearer and rewritten
Introduction
The narrative of the paper is not clear and it concludes on line 113 with the objectives which need to be written in a more direct and less convoluted manner. Importantly if they are clearly addressed then I think the discussion will be easier to frame around the revised objectives. The introduction should highlight what are the unknowns and what this research will do to address those unknowns and be phrased in a very direct and targeted manner. I think you address what are the GRSP levels in soils, and whether they can be related to soil quality, but not HOW they can be improved.
Methods
I think the "relocation" of the soils to the research station as intact soils 100 years ago needs to be explained in plain English as I think this is critical to the integrity of the work. If I misunderstood then I would like to appreciate how 8 very different soils can be located in such close proximity if they were not re-located at some point. Table 1 describes the 8 soils and the Tables and figures through out need to be reconstructed based on the Soil type being ranked from poorest to highest soil quality on the S-index as shown in Table 1. If this is done then it will be easier for the reader who knows that the soils are organised this way from poorer to higher soil quality and can see if other soil properties portray a similar classification. The first column needs to be soil type and the plot number in 2nd column. Describe PCA in more detail as not adequate at present.
Results
For all tables and figures the soil type and its associated soil quality needs to be clear. All titles of figures and tables are lacking the level of detail on the research study, and need to be expanded and applied to all. I have also suggested in all Tables and figures the soil types be organised from poorer to higher quality soils based on known characteristics and the order kept consistent throughout, regardless of results that way the results will be easier to examine, and will be consistently presented. An example on line 395 is one instance (but there others I have marked up) that only use plot code and not soil type. Soil type and its quality should be prominent. Also you merely re-describe the figure rather than pull out the significant results. I think the point was to highlight where soils of similar quality were grouped together or not based on the soil property examined.
Discussion
It is too short and marred by very general statements that are not grounded in the results just presented.
Line 432 It is important to refer back to original objectives but I think the framing of them needs improvement to have a coherent narrative for this paper. I am left confused as to the intention of the paper and what it hoped to achieve. Mke sure the introduction and discussion emphasise the same points.
Line 439 This seems like an important finding but were there other soil properties too that were correlated with soil quality?
Line 517 you raise an important issue here about the soils under threat but do not highlight which of the eight soils is more vulnerable then, and were you able to identify them from the soil properties measured?
Line 539 I think you need to establish of any of the soil properties you examined are likely contenders or this and could soil testing be useful. I am not sure how the citation you used reflect the point you make here?
Conclusion
Do not use dot points and make sure the conclusion is well grounded in the preceding results and discussion. It is not clear to me how this approach of measuring glomulin will improve soil and prevent it from degradation unless you change land management practices based on that feedback.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your extremely valuable review of our research. Responses to the reviewer's comments have been included in the text. In my opinion, they contributed to the improvement and value of this publication. The authors agree with all reviewer’s comments. All changes are marked in the text on green. New figures and a new tables were also introduced in line with the reviewer's comments.
Thank you for your valuable comments and comments. We tried to answer all comments in great detail and precisely.
The language and style of the text were performed. The paper was also included in the English correction to Proof-Reeeading-Service.com Ltd, Devonshire Business Centre, Work Road, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 1GJ, United Kingdom.
I hope that the manuscript in its current form will receive a positive feedback from the reviewer. Detailed answers to the reviewer's questions and comments are presented below.
Reviewer 2. The paper can be improved but it will require careful editing, improved English expression, clearer presentation of results, and a more nuanced discussion. The soil analysis seems to be sound but the results are presented poorly. I have made detailed comments on the pdf of manuscript for your guidance, and suggest you refer to that. My summary below is drawing on areas of improvement with some egs but there needs to be comprehensive editing undertaken for paper to be publishable.
Response: The language and style of the text were performed. The paper was also included in the English correction to Proof-Reeeading-Service.com Ltd, Devonshire Business Centre, Work Road, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 1GJ, United Kingdom. All tables and figures were corrected in line with the reviewer's comments and included in the publication. The discussion was edited to take account of the reviewer's comments. The description of the results was also expanded. All comments marked in pdf by the reviewer were included in the correction.
Reviewer 2. Abstract Needs to be clearer and rewritten
Response: The abstract has been rewritten.
Reviewer 2. Introduction. The narrative of the paper is not clear and it concludes on line 113 with the objectives which need to be written in a more direct and less convoluted manner. Importantly if they are clearly addressed then I think the discussion will be easier to frame around the revised objectives. The introduction should highlight what are the unknowns and what this research will do to address those unknowns and be phrased in a very direct and targeted manner. I think you address what are the GRSP levels in soils, and whether they can be related to soil quality, but not HOW they can be improved.
Response: The Introduction has been rewritten. The aim and research hypothesis were changed in accordance with the comments of the reviewer.
Reviewer 2. Methods. I think the "relocation" of the soils to the research station as intact soils 100 years ago needs to be explained in plain English as I think this is critical to the integrity of the work. If I misunderstood then I would like to appreciate how 8 very different soils can be located in such close proximity if they were not re-located at some point. Table 1 describes the 8 soils and the Tables and figures through out need to be reconstructed based on the Soil type being ranked from poorest to highest soil quality on the S-index as shown in Table 1. If this is done then it will be easier for the reader who knows that the soils are organised this way from poorer to higher soil quality and can see if other soil properties portray a similar classification. The first column needs to be soil type and the plot number in 2nd column. Describe PCA in more detail as not adequate at present.
Response: The methods has been rewritten. The tables and figures were changed in accordance with the comments of the reviewer. The description of the microplots was clarified. Plots of 12 m2 and 1 m deep were separated with concrete walls and filled with soil. The soil was placed in microplots in accordance with the natural profile systems. The soil profiles came from the surrounding area of Pulawy, Poland [19]. Soil horizons were placed in accordance their natural arrangement, to specially prepared concreted micro-parcels. Microplots do not have a concrete bottom in order to ensure contact of the soil with the natural substrate.
Reviewer 2. Results. For all tables and figures the soil type and its associated soil quality needs to be clear. All titles of figures and tables are lacking the level of detail on the research study, and need to be expanded and applied to all. I have also suggested in all Tables and figures the soil types be organised from poorer to higher quality soils based on known characteristics and the order kept consistent throughout, regardless of results that way the results will be easier to examine, and will be consistently presented. An example on line 395 is one instance (but there others I have marked up) that only use plot code and not soil type. Soil type and its quality should be prominent. Also you merely re-describe the figure rather than pull out the significant results. I think the point was to highlight where soils of similar quality were grouped together or not based on the soil property examined.
Response: The methods has been rewritten. New figures and a new tables were also introduced. All tables and figures have the same sample order. All tables and figures give the type of soil instead of the plot number. The description of the results has been supplemented.
Reviewer 2. Discussion. It is too short and marred by very general statements that are not grounded in the results just presented.
Line 432 It is important to refer back to original objectives but I think the framing of them needs improvement to have a coherent narrative for this paper. I am left confused as to the intention of the paper and what it hoped to achieve. Mke sure the introduction and discussion emphasise the same points.
Line 439 This seems like an important finding but were there other soil properties too that were correlated with soil quality?
Line 517 you raise an important issue here about the soils under threat but do not highlight which of the eight soils is more vulnerable then, and were you able to identify them from the soil properties measured?
Line 539 I think you need to establish of any of the soil properties you examined are likely contenders or this and could soil testing be useful. I am not sure how the citation you used reflect the point you make here?
Response: The discussion has been rewritten. All changes are marked in the text on green. New citations attached.
Reviewer 2 Conclusion. Do not use dot points and make sure the conclusion is well grounded in the preceding results and discussion. It is not clear to me how this approach of measuring glomulin will improve soil and prevent it from degradation unless you change land management practices based on that feedback
Response: The conclusion has been rewritten. All changes are marked in the text on green. The authors believe that presenting the conclusions in points will make it easier for the reader to summarize the entire work.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
