Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled -" Effects of earthworms and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria on carbon sequestration in soils amended with manure and slurry:  A 4-year field study" has been critically reviewed.  Soil organic carbon is one of the most important portation of the soil which directly affects soil fertility.  In this manuscript, the impact of different organic matter amendments on carbon sequestration and soil organic matter is investigated and its significant study in the current climate change scenario. The majority of the manuscript section is well written and therefore I recommend the manuscript for further consideration in the Jornal -Agronomy with a few suggestions given below:          Abstract.  Line no 17-22:Long sentences reduce the interest of the reader and it is suggested to split long sentences into two sentences.   ​ Add quantitative findings and sentences about future recommendations.    Introduction:  Line no 45: Along with references no 7-9, recommended to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111379  also. Line no 49: Along with references no 11, recommended to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.182  also.   Methodology: It suggests improving section 2.5. Write briefly about the analysis procedure followed.         Result - Quantitative finding of the study is missing. Suggest adding the quantitative result.    ​Line no 353-359-Move this to the discussion section.    The discussion section needs to be improved with relevant studies 

Author Response

1.Comment: Abstract.  Line no 17-22:Long sentences reduce the interest of the reader and it is suggested to split long sentences into two sentences.  

Response: The long sentences has been revised into two sentences.( Line no 17-19)

2.Comment: Add quantitative findings and sentences about future recommendations.

Response: quantitative findings and sentences about future recommendations have been added.

3.Comment: Introduction: Line No 45: Along with references no 7-9, recommended to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111379  also

Response: The reference  has been revised (line 45).

4.Comment: Line No 49: Along with references No 11,recommended to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.182  also.

Response: The reference has been revised (line49).

5.Comment: Methodology: It suggests improving section 2.5. Write briefly about the analysis procedure followed.

Response: The analysis procedure has been revised (line 176).

6.Comment:   Result - Quantitative finding of the study is missing. Suggest adding the quantitative result.

Response: The quantitative result has been add.

7.Comment:  Line no 353-359-Move this to the discussion section. 

Response: The section has been moved.

8.Comment: The discussion section needs to be improved with relevant studies

Response:. The discussion section has been  revised

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is very interesting and very well writen.

I suggested some improvments in the presentation of results and in coclusions.

Please see  attachment 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

It has been modified according to the requirements, please check, thank you!