Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments can be found in the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

In fact, the effects of the addition of organic matter at 1,500 kg ha (humate) and maize straw (7,500 kg/ha) were investigated. Nota bene, the information on the kind of straw is given only in the note to the table 2 (as maize straw) and Figure 1 (as corn straw). It should be unified and given in the Methods chapter.

More information on humate should be provided. Especially that commercial humic products are usually applied in the form of a solution, the dosage of which is much lower, however stimulative for roots development. Minor corrections to the text are as follows:

 

49             correct the space bar

61             correct the “from the” for  the “from the”

63-67       too long sentence should be divided into shorter sentences

92             the explanation to the Table 1 says  “Lowercase letters represented significant differences between treatments “. However, table 21 presents only data for different layers of the same soil, and no different treatments.

105           correct the “stalks. 4 treatments” for  the “stalks. The four treatments”

109           correct the “P₂O⁵” for  the “P₂O₅”

132           correct syntax error

143-146   Only SOC is measured, while SOM is the effect of converting SOC  multiplying by the  factor. This conversion does not make sense as the SOM can differ in C contents. I propose to remove the SOM (Omi) calculations.

147           The units in which the thickness of the layer (Di) is expressed are not specified. Judging from the formula, this value must be expressed in meters.

169-187   The whole paragraph „Crop residue C input” is not clear and requires careful checking and improving

176           there is something wrong with the Formula (7)

182           according to the numbers of the formulas, BGR was not estimated according to the Formula (6), but to the Formula (7)

186           correct the “thesoil” for  the “the soil”

208           it seems that all data of SOC stock in the table should be check, because the SOC stock can be assessed, as SOC concentration given in 1 g/kg x 3. How was C Sequestration calculated?

210           correct the “I.e” for  the “i.e.”

221           this sentence is trivial, because SOC stocks is calculated from SOC concentration

227           this sentence is also trivial, because SOC stocks is calculated from SOC concentration

228           it is obvious, that the sequestration SOC was higher at 0-20 cm soil layer than in deeper layers after addition of 1,500 kg/ha humate as well as 7,500 kg/ha maize straw.

260-263   this sentence is not clear

269           to avoid misunderstanding, in methods chapter the information should be provided on how aggregate-associated C-content was determined

275           correct the “mmbut” for  the “mm but”

278           correct the “p <005)after” for  the “p <005) after”

280           table 4 is hard to read. It would be better to divide it for two tables

293           at the Figure 2 the order of variants should be the same as in 0.Figure 1, that is: blank; control; humate; straw

307           it was 0-30 cm layer or 0-20 cm layer?

316           correct the “Cstorage” for  the “C storage”

337           change “Humate affects” for “Humate and straw addition affects”

348           correct the “Fig s3)due” for  the “Fig s3) due”

357           to be consequently, correct the “Aggregate-occupied C” for  the “Aggregate-associated C”

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx