Soil Aggregates and Aggregate-Associated Carbon and Nitrogen in Farmland in Relation to Long-Term Fertilization on the Loess Plateau, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
please find my comments on attached file. this work is not publishable.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
L31-32. The keywords are almost the same as the title – it is improper!
L39. „Soil aggregates and SOC are closely correlated.” – A reference is missing,
L51. What do you mean under „heavy mineral fertilizers”?
L120-124. In these lines you wrote an average numbers for the 0-20 cm, and later you measure more horizons? Could you give a detailed table from the basic parameters of EVERY layer? What is the particle size distribution? The texture? Does it contain calcium carbonate? What is the parent materials? pH is measured in H2O or?
L138-139. Rotary tillage is done in every year?
L154. put “space” between 100 g!
L180-199.Could you explain clearly what do you mean under „mechanical stability aggregates” AND what is the difference between them and the water-stable aggregates? Explain every letters mentioned in the equations! How many repetition were done?
Table 1. The second column with ** - where does it belong? To N-WSAs? If there is no any signs in some columns (e.g. WSAs, PN-MSAs), why do report them??
Table 2. The title: do you mean Anova?
L244-263-. Maybe a table would be more transparent.
Figure 1. A very interesting figure, but a little bit crowded.
L457. – Table 4!
L571-574. This is a very important sentence, it should be written with more details (and references)!
L582-583. Please rephrase it!
L618-620. From and how can we see?
Conclusions has many-many repetition!
The Reference list is improper! Please write down all authors, the name of the journal, volume and/or issue number, pages; or the whole book title, publisher, etc.!
L766. Do you read this book? Are you sure about the author?
Please, write 1) clear hypothesis; 2) what did you found; 3) how your hypothesis and your findings match and why?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study was very well s carried out and the results are properly presented and discussed. We will not make suggestions for changes in the text of the manuscript, as this could harm the content. We have only two suggestions: (1) in the "Material and Methods", despite having a detailed description of the methodologies used, they could be added to references consulted for some analyses; (2) Conclusion is too long. It could be more objective, responding to the hypotheses of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
