Sole and Combined Application of Phosphorus and Glucose and Its Influence on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Microbial Biomass in Paddy Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors and Editors,

Thanks for the corrections, the manuscript has gone through significant improvements. I received proper responses to my comments, and corrections were made accordingly in the manuscript. I thank the authors for their efforts.

I found only one small error, namely, in Figure 4, Microbial biomass carbon plot, the letters above the bars for QY1 soil are (from left to right): bc, c, b. They should be rewritten to letters: ab, b, a.

Otherwise, I think the manuscript is ready to publish.

Author Response

/c/v

Reviewer 1

Comment

I found only one small error, namely, in Figure 4, Microbial biomass carbon plot, the letters above the bars for QY1 soil are (from left to right): bc, c, b. They should be rewritten to letters: ab, b, a.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. I check your comment about the figure 4 but in statistical analysis the lettering include a, b, bc and c. I also highlighted in red arrow in the below figure. I recheck and find that our analysis is correct and the current figure is according to statically analysis. For figure detail see the PDF attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The article actually has a balance sheet and the totals are presented as bar charts. Little has been written about energy efficiency, for example. This is important in order to lay the foundations for research on energy efficiency. This shows how the emission of emission gases is balanced. I recommend that the authors read the article https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175574

There is no in-depth statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was not sufficiently discussed. The entire manuscript looks like an excerpt from a report from some major work. Without statistics and research, the article does not contribute to any knowledge development. An expansion of literature, conclusions, and discussions is required.

Author Response

Comment

The article actually has a balance sheet and the totals are presented as bar charts. Little has been written about energy efficiency, for example. This is important in order to lay the foundations for research on energy efficiency. This shows how the emission of emission gases is balanced. I recommend that the authors read the article https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175574.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. I read the manuscript which you suggest for me. Our experiment is incubation study not field study and our focus is on greenhouse gas emissions from paddy soil under different amendments. The reviewer suggestion is very precious but our focus is not on energy efficiency. In this study I want first to find how much GHG emission is emitted from soil without any crop. First we find that how much CH₄ &NO₂ emission is emitted then we think how to balance it. The manuscript which is recommended for me is related to GHG and NH3 Emissions vs. Energy Efficiency. 

Comment

There is no in-depth statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was not sufficiently discussed. The entire manuscript looks like an excerpt from a report from some major work. Without statistics and research, the article does not contribute to any knowledge development. An expansion of literature, conclusions, and discussions is required.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. About statistical analysis from line 216-224, page 5, I explain all the statistical analysis I done in this manuscript. Many authors used SPSS, Two-way or One way ANNOVA for statistical analysis. All these author use such statistical analysis. The below manuscript link use such statistical analysis in the study.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.042.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.10.030.

https://doi.org/ 10.3390/molecules24030423.

https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-017-0131-y.

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112676

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111879

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. In the 3 time revision i improve the introduction part and make flow in the story. In the first paragraph page 2 from line 48 to 73, in this paragraph we the major GHG and its contribution in agriculture land and in this paragraph we discuss about the factor which influence these gases and also explain the main causes. In the second and third paragraph of page 2, line 74-102, we discuss the factor affection N₂O emission and microbial activities which produce nitrous oxide emissions in the soil include the nitrate and ammonium concentrations. I also explain the process involve in the N₂O emission. I also explain that how phosphorus and glucose affect N₂O emission. Then from line 104-117 page 3, I explain the methane emission, its involve process and its influencing due to phosphorus and glucose shortly. Form line 118-136, paragraph 4, page 3, I discuss the contribution of P & C on soil properties and microbial biomass activity. From line 137-144, paragraph 5, page 3 I discuss the aims and objective of my research and then I write the hypothesis of the current study. This is the whole story of the introduction part.

In the discussion part page 12, line 347-365, the author discuss about the N₂O and phosphorus addition, it also explain what is the effect of phosphorus on N₂O and which process take part in N₂O emission due to phosphorus addition. Then the author compares other results with its own results. From page 12, line 366-375, the author explains that how glucose addition influence N₂O and the process involve in N₂O emission and then the author compares other results with its own results. On page 13, line 414-419 I delete the sentence due to repeated in the text. On page 13, line 376-386, the author explains the emission process of CH₄ influence due to the addition of G and P. then the author compares other results with its own results. On page 13-14, line 411-431, the author discuss that due to addition of G & P how it influence the physiochemical properties. The author try to link all the discussion part also corrects all grammatical mistakes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors tried to improve the manuscript. However, unfortunately, the manuscript still needs correction.

 1. Please decipher WFPS in the manuscript, not in the response to the Reviewer.

2. The same with TOC-VCPN. Please include a model and a manufacturer for the used TOC-VCPN in the manuscript, rather than in the response to the Reviewer.

3. The question about RDA was not a suggestion to include it in the manuscript. This was a hint that in the Materials and Methods section there is a description of the method, the results of which are not presented in the manuscript. In other words, it was a polite suggestion to remove the description of RDA method from the Materials and Methods section.

4. Figure 5. Answer: Figure 5. show Structural equation modeling (SEM) showing direct and indirect relation between Phosphorus and glucose and its relation with CH4 and N2O and other physiochemical properties. We use R software to draw such kind of relationship. It also shows negative direct and indirect and positive direct and indirect relationship.

Comment: I recommend to change visualization of the correlation analysis results. For example, you can demonstrate (with arrows) only statistically significant relationships or, at least, specify the critical value of r for the analyzed data set (you can include this information in the Figure caption). In other words, the reader of the manuscript should be informed about significance / insignificance of the correlation coefficients. Besides, you should indicate what are the numbers (are they correlation coefficients?) are shown next to the arrows (this information should be also placed in the Figure caption).

5. Abbreviation QF. Answer: QF is the site in the previous study

Comment: No one is required to know all the previous works of the authors in order to understand what they are writing about in the current manuscript. Therefore, the use of abbreviations from previous articles is unacceptable. It is necessary to explain in the manuscript what it is about.

6. Figure 6. Answer: I try to best to make the quality of the picture good. Kindly zoom it. It looking clearly and meaningful.

Comment: unfortunately, the quality of the picture still extremely low. I have tried to zoom it, but even at 400% some of the inscription are unreadable.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments

1. Please decipher WFPS in the manuscript, not in the response to the Reviewer.
2. The same with TOC-VCPN. Please include a model and a manufacturer for the used TOC-VCPN in the manuscript, rather than in the response to the Reviewer.
3. The question about RDA was not a suggestion to include it in the manuscript. This was a hint that in the Materials and Methods section there is a description of the method, the results of which are not presented in the manuscript. In other words, it was a polite suggestion to remove the description of RDA method from the Materials and Methods section.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. WFPS mean water-filled pore spaces. I include it in the manuscript. Kindly read line 165, page 4. Model of TOC-VCPN instrument is Multi N/C3100, Analytik jena, AG, Germany. I also write the model in the manuscript. Kindly see on page 208-209, page 5. I also exclude the description of RDA method from the Materials and Methods section. Kindly see line  224-227 on page 5.

Comment

4. Figure 5. Answer: Figure 5. show Structural equation modeling (SEM) showing direct and indirect relation between Phosphorus and glucose and its relation with CH4 and N2O and other physiochemical properties. We use R software to draw such kind of relationship. It also shows negative direct and indirect and positive direct and indirect relationship.

Comment: I recommend changing visualization of the correlation analysis results. For example, you can demonstrate (with arrows) only statistically significant relationships or, at least, specify the critical value of r for the analyzed data set (you can include this information in the Figure caption). In other words, the reader of the manuscript should be informed about significance / insignificance of the correlation coefficients. Besides, you should indicate what are the numbers (are they correlation coefficients?) are shown next to the arrows (this information should be also placed in the Figure caption).

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. I modify the SEM model on figure 4. Structural equation model (SEM) showing direct and direct positive (red arrows) direct negative (brown double arrow) and indirect and indirect positive (black arrows) and indirect negative (blue double arrows). The significance and non-significance can be determined by R² values. 

Comment

5. Abbreviation QF. Answer: QF is the site in the previous study

Comment: No one is required to know all the previous works of the authors in order to understand what they are writing about in the current manuscript. Therefore, the use of abbreviations from previous articles is unacceptable. It is necessary to explain in the manuscript what it is about.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper. QF soil site located in south of china in Hunan province. Kindly see the text line 406, page13.

Comment

6. Figure 6. Answer: I try to best to make the quality of the picture good. Kindly zoom it. It looking clearly and meaningful.

Comment: unfortunately, the quality of the picture still extremely low. I have tried to zoom it, but even at 400% some of the inscription are unreadable.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. I modify the picture and now check that after zooming the entire inscription are readable. (see figure in PDF).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The article was well-prepared by the comments. I recommend this document to publish.

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

Dear Authors and Editors,

The manuscript basically is well-elaborated. Please find the comments  below.

Lines 218-220: To measure the available phosphorus, the “sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3; 0.5 M) extraction” is defined, which is commonly referred to as “Olsen extractant”. “Ammonium acetate (NH4-OAc; 0.5 M) extraction” is another possible method to measure the available phosphorus. So it is not clear exactly which method was used.

Lines 235-238: N2O, CH4 and soil microbial biomass activity were evaluated by Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Describe in detail, exactly what these two factors are (1: addition of P and glucose; 2: soil P supply?).

In Figures 3-4, the letters indicating significant differences are inconsistent. If the two-way ANOVA refers to treatment and soil P supply, a significant difference, or its lack must be demonstrated between any of the treatments on all the three soils. In this case, however, the use of letters is not appropriate because in the left graph of Fig. 3, for example, there is a mark “a” between two marks “b”, and the graph on the right is a mark “a” between “b” and “d”. If the data are evaluated for the different soils separately, then do not use “b” and “d” for one group, but start with “a” and mark the different groups with “b”, etc.

Author Response

Comment = 1

Lines 218-220: To measure the available phosphorus, the “sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3; 0.5 M) extraction” is defined, which is commonly referred to as “Olsen extractant”. “Ammonium acetate (NH4-OAc; 0.5 M) extraction” is another possible method to measure the available phosphorus. So it is not clear exactly which method was used.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. Actually, we use sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃; 0.5 M) extraction, with Mo–Sb spectrophotometry to measure the Soil available phosphorus (AP). See on line 206-207, page 5.

Comment = 2

Lines 235-238: N2O, CH4 and soil microbial biomass activity were evaluated by Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Describe in detail, exactly what these two factors are (1: addition of P and glucose; 2: soil P supply?).

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. In N₂O, CH₄ and soil microbial biomass activity were evaluated by Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The factors which involve in this are 1) Glucose and 2) Phosphorus. We discuss the two figures in this study and also elaborate the factor in the statistical analysis of this study. I also write one sentences in method and material section, include one sentence in 2.2. Incubation and Treatment Details in line no 166-167 and page no 4 and add another sentence in statistical analysis (2.5) on line no 224-226, page no 5 to clarify this issue.

Comment = 3

In Figures 3-4, the letters indicating significant differences are inconsistent. If the two-way ANOVA refers to treatment and soil P supply, a significant difference, or its lack must be demonstrated between any of the treatments on all the three soils. In this case, however, the use of letters is not appropriate because in the left graph of Fig. 3, for example, there is a mark “a” between two marks “b”, and the graph on the right is a mark “a” between “b” and “d”. If the data are evaluated for the different soils separately, then do not use “b” and “d” for one group, but start with “a” and mark the different groups with “b”, etc.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. I again check its letters and statistic. In the figure 3 page 8 and figure 4 page 9, we apply separate statistic on every soil and the make a combine figure because every soil show separate effect on greenhouse gases and microbial biomass. Therefore it may be confusing. I also add one sentence more in figure 3 page 8 and figure 4 page 9 to clarify the confusion which is that Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments of each soil type. Find the above sentences figure 3 pages 8 line276-277 and figure 4 page 9 line 331-332.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describes "Sole and combine application of phosphorous and glucose and its influence on greenhouse gas emissions and microbial biomass in paddy soils". In the descriptive section of the material, I recommend that the authors read and supplement the manuscript with a discussion with research about more chemical, physical or energetic aspects. I recommend reading the article: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113270

In these articles, you can also find information about correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. Similar studies, in particular the division into homogeneous groups, were also missing in the article. You can find information about a fractional breakdown or CHONS analysis as well as correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. It will certainly enrich the manuscript.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

Comment 

The authors describes "Sole and combine application of phosphorous and glucose and its influence on greenhouse gas emissions and microbial biomass in paddy soils". In the descriptive section of the material, I recommend that the authors read and supplement the manuscript with a discussion with research about more chemical, physical or energetic aspects. I recommend reading the article: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113270.

In these articles, you can also find information about correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. Similar studies, in particular the division into homogeneous groups, were also missing in the article. You can find information about a fractional breakdown or CHONS analysis as well as correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. It will certainly enrich the manuscript.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript. Reading the recommended article: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113270 in physical parameters, the methodology assumed the compression in the prototype compacting tube in three repeats for every sample variation. The number of repetitions was sufficient to observe the statistical repeatability of the course of the pressure function over time. The research material was characterized by its irregular composition, which included shredded particles of pine needles, small twigs, and bark. The non-uniformity of the composition completely distinguished the analyzed raw material from the materials currently used in the commercial production of briquettes, such as sawmill chips. The obtained results were compared with the values available in the subject letter, some of which were described for the first time. The authors also try to apply using ANOVA with the Duncan test but did not have good command on Duncan test. So I would thankful if we continue with LSD.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A manuscript is devoted to the estimation of shift in N2O and CH4 emission due to available carbon and phosphorous introduction into the soils differing in initial P level. In addition data on alteration on some soil properties resulted from carbon and phosphorous introduction is also presented. The data presented may be of interest for a broad spectrum of the scientists involved in climatic change studies.

Some comments

Line 165. Please decipher WFPS

Line 167. A repetition of the line 161

Line 209. Please delete (Brookes et al. 1982, 1985).

Line 212. Please specify a model and a manufacturer for the used TOC-VCPN instrument.

Lines 224-226. Seems to be a replication of 220-223

Lines 229-231. Where are the results of the redundancy analysis presented in the manuscript?

Lines 234-240. The text describes N2O, and the following Figure is about methane. It is necessary to bring the text and the corresponding Figures into line

Line 282. Table 2 should be placed immediately after its mention. i.e. within 3.2 section

Line 293. Fig6? Here and further there is some confusion with the numbering of the Figures. Please check. Figure 6 cannot possibly go ahead of Figure 4.

Line 379-380. This statement does not corresponds to the data in the Fig3

Figure 5. From the text it is unclear how this Figure was produced and what is the meaning of the figures at the arrows. In addition, some of the presented R2 are insignificant. Seems that the Figure can be excluded from the manuscript.

Line 406. What is QF? Please decipher

Line 420. Please delete (Wang et al. 2017)

Figure 6. The quality is poor due to extremely low size of the inscriptions and figures. In addition, data presented in the manuscript show the commonality of greenhouse gas emission trends during the introduction of carbon and phosphorus in all soils. I think it is possible to depict the general scheme of the observed shifts

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We have submitted online the revised manuscript entitled "Sole and Combine Application of Phosphorus and Glucose and Its Influence on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Microbial Biomass in Paddy Soils". We would like to thanks to editor and reviewers for the valuable suggestions for improving the current manuscript. We considered all of the comments and suggestions in our revision. The specific responses to the comments are written below. We, therefore, put forward our request to kindly consider our revised manuscript and give us a chance to publish our work in your prestigious journal. Below are our detailed responses to Reviewer’s comments (the line numbers refer to our revised manuscript).

Sincerely,

Professor Zhang Huimin

Reviewer 1

Comment

Line 165. Please decipher WFPS. Line 167.  A repetition of the line 161. Line 209. Please delete (Brookes et al. 1982, 1985). Line 212. Please specify a model and a manufacturer for the used TOC-VCPN instrument. Lines 224-226. Seems to be a replication of 220-223.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript.  In line 165 we discuss about moisture, so WFPS mean water-filled pore spaces. Yes line 161 and 167 was the same meaning therefore I delete line 161 because line 167 give more detail sentence and clearly mention the meaning therefore I modify it and reviewer can read it on same line 167 on page 4. line 209 I delete (Brookes et al. 1982, 1985) according to your suggestion.

Model of TOC-VCPN instrument is Multi N/C3100, Analytik jena, AG, Germany.

In method and material the statistical part page 5, I modify this part and delete the sentence having same meaning or repetition.

Comment

Lines 229-231. Where are the results of the redundancy analysis presented in the manuscript?

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper. In the previous revision, one of the reviewer suggest me that RDA isn't fit for this work, so I follow his suggestion and exclude it from my manuscript. If you suggest me to include so I again add the results and figure. The Redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed to investigate relationships between soil properties (pH, SOC, AP, MBC, MBP, ammonia and nitrate) and GHG emissions (CH4 and N2O) but according to reviewer suggestion we delete this figure (Fig).

Figure 5. Redundancy analysis correlation between phosphorus deficient and phosphorus adequate soil properties and greenhouse gases emission under with and without glucose and phosphorus (P) addition during 60 days of incubation period.

Comment

Lines 234-240. The text describes N2O, and the following Figure is about methane. It is necessary to bring the text and the corresponding Figures into line. Line 282. Table 2 should be placed immediately after its mention. i.e. within 3.2 section.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our Manuscript. I recheck all the text and figure or table and arrange it in line with the text. Figure 1 on page 6 and figure 2 on page 8 I replace these figure and arrange it with text.

According to your suggestion I replaced table 2 page 10 and 11 and placed immediately after section 3.2. Effects of Phosphorus and Glucose Addition on Soil Chemical Properties.

Comment

Line 293. Fig6? Here and further there is some confusion with the numbering of the Figures. Please check.

Line 379-380. This statement does not corresponds to the data in the Fig3

Figure 5. From the text it is unclear how this Figure was produced and what is the meaning of the figures at the arrows. In addition, some of the presented R2 are insignificant. Seems that the Figure can be excluded from the manuscript.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our Manuscript. I recheck all the figure and tables. Line 400-401 page 15 the author discuss about cumulative nitrous oxide emission which is drawn on figure 3 and also in conceptual figure I also summarize the cumulative emission therefore I write figure 3 and 6. In my opinion its correspond to the data in figure 3 and 6.

Figure 5. show Structural equation modeling (SEM) showing direct and indirect relation between Phosphorus and glucose and its relation with CH₄ and N₂O and other physiochemical properties. We use R software to draw such kind of relationship. It also shows negative direct and indirect and positive direct and indirect relationship.

Comment

Line 406. What is QF? Please decipher. Line 420. Please delete (Wang et al. 2017)

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our Manuscript. QF is the site in the previous study. I delete (Wang et al. 2017) according to your suggestion.

Comments

Figure 6. The quality is poor due to extremely low size of the inscriptions and figures. In addition, data presented in the manuscript show the commonality of greenhouse gas emission trends during the introduction of carbon and phosphorus in all soils. I think it is possible to depict the general scheme of the observed shifts.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our Manuscript. I try to best to make the quality of the picture good. Kindly zoom it. It looking clearly and meaningful.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the article has not been corrected following the reviewer's comments. There are many unfinished points throughout the manuscript. 

The methodology needs to be supplemented, as does the literature review.

The article contains statistical data, but they are at the primary level. The statistical analysis of the factors was not supported by any post-hoc test (eg Duncan), which would allow any more advanced conclusions to be drawn. The manuscript has very mediocre results.

Author Response

Comment

The article contains statistical data, but they are at the primary level. The statistical analysis of the factors was not supported by any post-hoc test (eg Duncan), which would allow any more advanced conclusions to be drawn. The manuscript has very mediocre results.

Response

Thanks for your kind evaluation and suggestions for our paper, which will help to improve the manuscript.  The author apply Duncan test to all the data and write the correction according to the reviewer comments. Table 2 page 10 and 11 I apply Duncan test and highlight the changes red and also changes in results section. Also on page 10 figure 4 the MBC figure there is so changes in letters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf