Impact of Integrated Rice-Crayfish Farming on Soil Aggregates and Organic Matter Distribution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper evaluates the impact of a combined rice-crayfish farming model, which is compared with traditional paddy fields. This provides important information to improve agricultural practices in this area. However, there are major and minor points to correct in order to improve the work:

Line 97-113 : There is no idea integrated about yield of rice in the objectives presentation.

Line 150 : it is necessary to check if this is fig 1-3 or Fig 1-4

Line 162 : the fig 1-4 is not sited in the text

Line 164-165: it is noted “In late September 2022, after the rice harvest, a survey sampling was conducted in the study area”, however; the harvesting rice is noted at October in the operational process presented in the fig 1-2. To avoid confusion, more detail must be provided.

Line 174: the fig 2 is not sited in the text.

Line 210 - 216: it is necessary to check the writing of the value (0.800) and that of the unit (mol-L -1) and the chemical formulas.

For results:

You must choose the presentation of the results in the form of a table or in the form of a figure. The use of the both can induce a confusion.

The presentation of data adopted in figures (3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) does not allow a good comparison to be made between the two cultivation methods.

Line 251-266 : the comparison using the data is focused on the wet and dry saving treatment. However, it is necessary to underline the differences between paddy field (WR) and rice-crayfish (CR).

The comparison of organic matter in soils after cultivation of rice for the tow cultivation methods can’t give information about the impact of rice-crayfish farming approach if we don’t have information about the organic matter input induced by rice cultivation.

There is no data presented about rice yield for tow cultivation methods.

The results must be improved with Microscopic observations to have more information about the structure and the composition of aggregates.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please check my reply in the PDF file.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read with interest the article accepted for review,  the research carried out is interesting, but there are some small observations.

  The introduction is correctly structured and quite well dimensioned in relation to the work, although it can be a little restricted, and some bibliographic sources have also been added.

At the material and method, the elements are clearly defined, I really appreciate the figures, which are very suggestive. As for the mathematical formulas, I think they can be rewritten with a program, as if they appear as imported images and don't look very aesthetically pleasing. 

Also, on line 228, the paragraph must be improved or reformulated and also sources that have applied these methods/formulas can be cited.

The results are correctly presented and interpreted, as is the Discussion chapter.

The conclusions obtained from the research carried out are correlated quite well with the proposed objectives.

There are still some small corrections to the editing and arrangement part of the page, for example: Line 4 to the co-author Fan Huang, the affiliation is 22, probably a 2 should be deleted.

Figure 7 - centered with the text

Figure 2 -  mentions the source from which the image is taken, this is also valid for the rest of the images if they were taken from other sources.

Otherwise, the research is interesting.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please check my reply in the PDF file.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper raises interesting issues regarding increasing the size, share and/or stability of soil aggregates by increasing the content of organic matter in the soil in integrated cultivation. This is also intended to be an element of C sequestration in the soil and improvement of environmental quality. A negative element is that the soils tested come from different rice-growing regions and therefore their selection itself may influence the observed relationships.

The paper requires very careful improvement, because many comments concern both the substantive and editorial aspects. All comments are included in the manuscript. There is no need to copy the results presented in the tables in the text. Similarly, the same results should not be duplicated in tables and graphs. Authors should choose one of these forms.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript is written in a rather monotonous style. Very similarly worded sentences are repeated in the same paragraphs. The language is generally correct.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please check my reply in the PDF file.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find the attached paper with corrections.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear Authors,

Please find the attached paper with corrections.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please check my reply in the PDF file.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments.