Changes in Wheat Rhizosphere Carbon Pools in Response to Nitrogen and Straw Incorporation
, Swarnjeet Singh 1, Manpreet Singh 2, Arshdeep Singh 2, Hayssam M. Ali 3, Manzer H. Siddiqui 3 and Dwarika Bhattarai 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Changes in rhizosphere carbon pools in response to nitrogen and straw incorporation” evaluate the effect of N application and RS incorporation on labile C pools (WSOC, DOC, DOX, POXC, TCC, TPC, BSR, MBC) in bulk and rhizosphere soil, and evaluate the soil quality index (SQI) among the treatments combination. The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.
1.There are many type and formatting errors in the manuscript. Please correction them.
2. The missing references should be supplement, such as No.31 in line 368.
3. In the PCA of 16 variables, why the soil N, P and K contents, and soil physics properties were not considered. The reason should be explained.
Author Response
- There are many type and formatting errors in the manuscript. Please correction them.
Agreed and modified as suggested
- The missing references should be supplement, such as No.31 in line 368.
We agree with the reviewer observation, therefore we have added the complete reference in the revised manuscript
- In the PCA of 16 variables, why the soil N, P and K contents, and soil physics properties were not considered. The reason should be explained.
We understand and appreciate the view of reviewer. Unfortunately we did not determined the soil N, P and K content and physical properties as this study was more focused on soil carbon pools.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic of rice-wheat farming system is very important from an economic point of view. The burning of rice straw threatens sustainability, contributes to the deterioration of soil quality and air pollution.
The research undertaken by the authors shows the possibility of improving soil quality. The addition of rice straw will contribute to the abandonment of bad agricultural practices associated with burning. Soil, crop yield and the environment will benefit.
The "Materials and Methods" section cites item No. 31, while the "Reference" section has only the authors' names and year and lacks the publication title and source.
In the chapter "Disscussion" line 211, the sentence begins with number 66, perhaps the author's name should be cited.
Author Response
The research undertaken by the authors shows the possibility of improving soil quality. The addition of rice straw will contribute to the abandonment of bad agricultural practices associated with burning. Soil, crop yield and the environment will benefit.
The "Materials and Methods" section cites item No. 31, while the "Reference" section has only the authors' names and year and lacks the publication title and source.
We agree with the reviewer observation, therefore we have as Singh, S.; Sharma, S. Temporal changes in rhizosphere biological soil quality indicators of wheat in response to nitrogen and straw incorporation. Trop. Ecol., 2020, 61, 328–344 in the revised manuscript
In the chapter "Disscussion" line 211, the sentence begins with number 66, perhaps the author's name should be cited.
This has been modified as per the suggestions
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
This paper is a field study in which the effect of different nitrogen sources and quantities of rice straw on the rhizosphere and the carbon pool is analyzed
Major:
There are a lot of typographical errors throughout the text. Many words are joined together, I guess it might be an error created when converting the file to PDF. But that error should have been checked by the authors before accepting the PDF, makes the review process much more difficult.
English needs a complete in-depth revision, by a native speaker or better by a professional team.
The introduction is quite poor, in terms of the information it brings to the reader, it does not make a correct state-of-the-art.
The way in which the results are presented is not correct, it makes it very difficult for the reader to understand them. It needs to be completely redone. There is too much data, I would choose to put only those data that really contribute scientifically to the achievement of the objectives, and I would remove the redundant ones or unnecessary.
The discussion makes adequate reference to the available literature, but again the way in which it is written makes it difficult to understand it in detail. A good English edition would have helped its understanding.
Minor:
L50: “treatments consisted of 0, 90, 120 and 150 kg N ha-1” what kind of Nitrogen, may be NH4NO3? Please specified.
L368: “31. Singh and Sharma 2020” please complete
Author Response
There are a lot of typographical errors throughout the text. Many words are joined together, I guess it might be an error created when converting the file to PDF. But that error should have been checked by the authors before accepting the PDF, makes the review process much more difficult.
We are sorry for the typographical mistake and whole manuscript has been modified as suggested
English needs a complete in-depth revision, by a native speaker or better by a professional team.
Modified as suggested
The introduction is quite poor, in terms of the information it brings to the reader, it does not make a correct state-of-the-art.
The introduction section has been fully recast considering all these points as suggested
The way in which the results are presented is not correct, it makes it very difficult for the reader to understand them. It needs to be completely redone. There is too much data, I would choose to put only those data that really contribute scientifically to the achievement of the objectives, and I would remove the redundant ones or unnecessary.
The reviewer has very rightly pointed out that the result part is not clear. Therefore, we have revised the result part for describing the significance on the basis of contribute scientifically to the achievement of the objectives
The discussion makes adequate reference to the available literature, but again the way in which it is written makes it difficult to understand it in detail. A good English edition would have helped its understanding.
We agree with the reviewer observation, therefore we have revised discussion part
Minor:
L50: “treatments consisted of 0, 90, 120 and 150 kg N ha-1” what kind of Nitrogen, may be NH4NO3? Please specified.
The text has been modified as per the suggestions
L368: “31. Singh and Sharma 2020” please complete
We agree with the reviewer observation, therefore we have added the complete reference (Singh and Sharma 2020) in the revised manuscript
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I believe that the authors have responded favorably to most of my suggestions, I accept the paper in its current state.
