Effects of Earthworms and Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria on Carbon Sequestration in Soils Amended with Manure and Slurry: A 4-Year Field Study
, Huayi Chen 1, Jiaxin Zhang 1, Haichun Zhang 1, Genfa Zhu 2, Jinfeng Chen 2, Wenyan Li 1, Jinjin Wang 1, Hui-Juan Xu 1, Yongtao Li 1 and Yulong Zhang 1,*
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 studiesAuthor 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!
