Long-Term Nitrogen Addition Promotes Microbial Mineralization of Organic Phosphorus Supporting Phosphorus Uptake in Spring Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

Kindly discuss the following points clearly in your paper and highlight your comments:

1 - According to Mulders chart for soil nutrients relationships, there were no direct relation between nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of antagonistic and synergism relations.  Is your current paper will pave the route to address this relation? How? Can you provide a clear scientific fact for this relationship?

 

2- Which form of soil nitrogen you detected, and in which amounts in case of bacteria and fungi communities addressing? Usually, ammonium is highly correlated with acid fungi-based soils. Do you have any experimental proofs for this.

 

3- All scientific names of bacteria and fungi should be written in italization even in figures.

 

Regards 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Seems good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Title: Long-Term Nitrogen Addition Promotes Microbial Mineralization of
Organic Phosphorus to Support Crop Phosphorus Uptake

 

Dear Authors and Editors

The topic of the manuscript is original and relevant to the field of agricultural sciences.

The content of the manuscript falls within the publishing profile of Agronomy journal.

The conducted research indicates that the continuous application of mineral nitrogen increases the decomposition of unstable organic phosphorus fractions. The climatic conditions of the study site and the specific soil properties may lead to phosphorus depletion from the soil over longer periods of time.The research focused on local soil conditions (Loess Plateau) and specific chemical properties (pH 8.4). At an alkaline pH (pH 8.4), available phosphorus will undergo retrogradation to forms unavailable to plants. These research results are of significant importance for local soil phosphorus resources.

Multifaceted research findings are presented clearly and well-described. The research hypothesis should be improved and clarified. Conclusions section should be improved. Thematic references were used appropriately. Please include the test plant in the title of your manuscript. In my opinion, the research results presented in the supplementary materials should be included in the main article.

It is a pity that the authors omitted the effect of the test plant on the mineralization of organic phosphorus in the soil.

In order to increase the usefulness of the article, Authors must refer to the following points. Additions should be made to increase the scientific value of the manuscript.

 

Remarks:

• Abstract: Why didn't subsequent N fertilization levels increase proportionally? Lines 25-26 Was only nitrogen fertilization used? Line 29 - Which plants?
• Introduction: Line 55 – Fe³⁺ and Al³⁺ ions are not associated with alkaline soils. Line 89 and 92 - The research hypothesis needs to be revised. Nitrogen was only used in 2019 and not on a long-term basis.
• Materials and Methods: Subsection 2.1. - Please provide the soil type according to IUSS Working Group WRB 2014, 2022. Subsection 2.2. – Line 108 Please clearly indicate N and P fertilization levels (separately). Please indicate which fertilization plots were used in the study. This note also applies to the Abstract section. Subsection 2.3. – Line 121 Why was there a break in research (2021 and 2022)? Why were soil samples only collected after spring wheat harvest?
• Results: Figure 1n - TP content should be given in g kg^-1.
• Conclusions: Lines 500-505 can be deleted.

Specific remarks:

• Supplementary materials: The numbering of figures should be corrected. Table S2 - The units should be corrected: it should be - phosphorus content in g kg^-1, grain and biomass yield in t ha^-1.
• Line 245 – it should be: 3.3…….

Best regards

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The suggested corrections are described in the attached file.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Can be published