Effects of Alfalfa–Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 1
Introduction
The first sentence seems to be grammatically incorrect. Please revise.
Page 2
Materials and Methods
Precipitation measures 150 mm annually…
…while evaporation has been recorded at 2019.9 mm on average per year.
Page 3
Experimental Design
…design was used in this experiment (please use English past tense for most instances throughout the text body)
…5 x 3 m…
The seedling cultivation was conducted artificially…..: It is not clear what the authors mean here with regard to “plowing and sowing” in a 1:1 ratio. Please clarify the sentence.
The unit hm (hectometer) is an SI unit, but for length. I am sure you meant to use “ha” (hectare). This is a non-SI unit, so you may use square meters (kg m-2)
Page 4
2.4. Indicators measured
Please use past tense throughout (….measurements were conducted…)
Edge rows in each plot were removed, resulting in an effective sample area of 6 m2
Second paragraph:
Please write everything in the past tense.
Page 5
Results
You should not repeat presentation of data in the text if it is already presented in graphic form in the figure. However, you should report on statistical differences among the treatments, unless I’ve overlooked it somewhere. Figure 2 is very useful in my mind, but please indicate what the numeric values mean (% of enzymatic activity I assume, but what exactly does that mean?).
Page 7
Seasonal variation of rhizosphere….
Again, you do not need to describe values in the text if they are visible in the graphs. In my printout, I am unable to read the values in Figure 3, however.
Page 8
Forage hay yield
I suggest not including the same information in the text if you display the data in the table. In Figure 4, please indicate the units for each graph (A-J)
Comprehensive Evaluation of…
What is the basis of this ranking? Please add a brief explanation of what this ranking means.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Page 1
Introduction
The first sentence seems to be grammatically incorrect. Please revise.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the grammatical mistake in the first sentence. (Line 39-40)
Page 2
Materials and Methods
Precipitation measures 150 mm annually…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 93-94)
…while evaporation has been recorded at 2019.9 mm on average per year.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence.
Page 3
Experimental Design
…design was used in this experiment (please use English past tense for most instances throughout the text body)
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line115-116)
…5 x 3 m…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 117)
The seedling cultivation was conducted artificially…..: It is not clear what the authors mean here with regard to “plowing and sowing” in a 1:1 ratio. Please clarify the sentence.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. It should be expressed as here. On May 1, 2022, manual trenching was conducted, and strip sowing was performed in al-ternate rows at a 1:1 ratio. It has been revised in the text. (Line118-119)
The unit hm (hectometer) is an SI unit, but for length. I am sure you meant to use “ha” (hectare). This is a non-SI unit, so you may use square meters (kg m-2)
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The unit here in the text has been revised to g/m².(Line 121,)
Page 4
2.4. Indicators measured
Please use past tense throughout (….measurements were conducted…)
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The tenses in the text have been revised to the past tense as required. (Line134-160)
Edge rows in each plot were removed, resulting in an effective sample area of 6 m2
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line136-137)
Second paragraph:
Please write everything in the past tense.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The tenses in the text have been revised to the past tense as required. (Line141-147)
Page 5
Results
You should not repeat presentation of data in the text if it is already presented in graphic form in the figure. However, you should report on statistical differences among the treatments, unless I’ve overlooked it somewhere. Figure 2 is very useful in my mind, but please indicate what the numeric values mean (% of enzymatic activity I assume, but what exactly does that mean?).
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have deleted the data that was redundantly presented both in the figure and in the result analysis. And I have indicated what the values in Figure 2 mean in the figure caption. (Line 208)
Page 7
Seasonal variation of rhizosphere….
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 209)
Again, you do not need to describe values in the text if they are visible in the graphs. In my printout, I am unable to read the values in Figure 3, however.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have deleted the data that was redundantly presented both in the figure and in the result analysis. And I have adjusted the font size in Figure 3.
Page 8
Forage hay yield
I suggest not including the same information in the text if you display the data in the table. In Figure 4, please indicate the units for each graph (A-J)
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have deleted the data that was redundantly presented both in the figure and in the result analysis. And I have marked the units of each graph in Figure 4 in the figure caption. (Line290-293)
Comprehensive Evaluation of…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 304)
What is the basis of this ranking? Please add a brief explanation of what this ranking means.
Response: The basis for the ranking in the comprehensive grey relational degree analysis method is to sort the factors according to the degree of correlation between each indicator and the reference sequence, and the degree of this correlation is determined by the magnitude of the grey relational degree. The significance of this ranking is to avoid the limitations of evaluations based on a single indicator. It synthesizes information from multiple dimensions into a comprehensive relational degree indicator, thus more comprehensively and objectively reflecting the overall performance of the mixed-sowing treatment. (Line164-173)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics“.
- The study investigates how different alfalfa-grass mixed sowing combinations affect soil nutrients and grass yield in the Hexi Corridor, China. While mixed sowing strategies have been widely studied, the focus on seasonal variations and specific legume-grass interactions in this unique environment is a relevant contribution.
- The manuscript claims to address a research gap related to biological soil characteristics under mixed sowing. However, the introduction references several studies with similar objectives (e.g., Jensen et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2010). The differentiation from previous work is not clearly stated. The authors should explicitly define how their work is distinct from past studies (e.g., novel methodology, region-specific findings, or different legume-grass combinations).
- The manuscript identifies an underexplored area—how legume-grass mixtures influence soil enzymes and microbial biomass. However, a more explicit gap statement is needed. Strengthen the justification of why these specific combinations were selected over others.
- While soil enzyme activity, microbial biomass, and nutrient content are analyzed, the paper lacks a deeper mechanistic explanation of the observed effects. The authors should better integrate their results with existing models of nutrient cycling and interspecies competition in mixed pastures.
- The introduction covers key concepts; however, some sentences are overly long and complex, reducing readability (e.g., Page 2, Line 5–12).
- The transition between general background and the study’s specific objectives needs improvement.
- Some cited studies are not critically evaluated to show how the current study builds upon them. Revise the introduction to make the research gap clearer and improve logical flow.
- The authors should clarify why GN9+BI and GN9+LC were expected to perform better than other combinations.
- The soil sampling protocol is well-described, but details on replication for enzyme assays and microbial biomass measurements are missing.
- The study lacks details on irrigation management and fertilization, which may influence soil nutrient availability. Improve the description of experimental conditions to ensure full reproducibility.
- The tables and figures are informative but somewhat dense, making it difficult to discern key patterns.
- The results section sometimes repeats numerical data that are already in tables, which reduces readability. Streamline the text and refer to figures more efficiently.
- The discussion does not sufficiently explain why certain combinations (e.g., GN9+BI) outperformed others.
- The ecological mechanisms behind plant-soil-microbe interactions in mixed sowing are underdeveloped.
- Comparisons with previous literature are descriptive rather than analytical.
- Strengthen mechanistic explanations (e.g., nitrogen fixation, root exudate interactions) and critically compare results with prior studies.
- The conclusions align with the presented results, but their practical implications are underdeveloped.
- Clarify how findings can be applied to agricultural management strategies.
- Ensure that at least 50% of references are from the last five years.
- The manuscript contains several awkward phrasings and grammatical errors.
- Page 1, Line 5: "A significant threat to the natural grasslands local ecological equilibrium of the persistent degradation…" (unclear structure)
- Page 3, Line 10: "Artificial grassland is a key component of modern animal husbandry production systems" (should be "Artificial grasslands are key components of modern animal husbandry systems").
- The manuscript requires thorough language editing to improve clarity and readability.
- The manuscript requires thorough language editing to improve clarity and readability.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-3510416). All modification tracks of the revised version were found in the supplementary Material “manuscript-track”. The response to all comments of the editor and reviewer are as follows:
Reviewer 2
1、The study investigates how different alfalfa-grass mixed sowing combinations affect soil nutrients and grass yield in the Hexi Corridor, China. While mixed sowing strategies have been widely studied, the focus on seasonal variations and specific legume-grass interactions in this unique environment is a relevant contribution.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments. We fully agree with the reviewer's perspective. While this study investigates the effects of alfalfa-grass mixed sowing combinations on soil nutrients and forage yield in the Hexi Corridor region of China, it particularly focuses on the seasonal variations in this unique environment and the interactions between legumes and grasses. This research perspective indeed provides a novel contribution to the existing literature, especially in the context of the unique ecological region of the Hexi Corridor.
2、The manuscript claims to address a research gap related to biological soil characteristics under mixed sowing. However, the introduction references several studies with similar objectives (e.g., Jensen et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2010). The differentiation from previous work is not clearly stated. The authors should explicitly define how their work is distinct from past studies (e.g., novel methodology, region-specific findings, or different legume-grass combinations).
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The introduction section has been revised and rephrased to highlight the differences between our study and previous research. (Line65-73)
3、The manuscript identifies an underexplored area—how legume-grass mixtures influence soil enzymes and microbial biomass. However, a more explicit gap statement is needed. Strengthen the justification of why these specific combinations were selected over others.
Response: The experimental materials used in this study include the main forage grass species cultivated in the Hexi irrigation area: Medicago sativa ‘Gannong No. 3′ (GN3), M. sativa ‘Gannong No.9′ (GN9), M. sativa ‘Juneng No. 7′ (JN7), Leymus chinensis ‘Longmu No. 1′ (LC), Agropyron mongolicum ‘Mengnong No. 1′ (AC), and Bromus inermis ‘Yuanye’ (BI)Alfalfa is a high-yield variety in the Hexi region, and the three grass species are also widely cultivated in the Hexi irrigation area. However, most of them are grown in monoculture, and there is limited research on the effects of mixed sowing combinations on soil properties.
4、While soil enzyme activity, microbial biomass, and nutrient content are analyzed, the paper lacks a deeper mechanistic explanation of the observed effects. The authors should better integrate their results with existing models of nutrient cycling and interspecies competition in mixed pastures.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added relevant content about nutrient cycling and inter - species competition in the discussion section.
5、The introduction covers key concepts; however, some sentences are overly long and complex, reducing readability (e.g., Page 2, Line 5–12).
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have simplified and revised the overly long sentences in this section. (Line46-51)
6、The transition between general background and the study’s specific objectives needs improvement.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have improved the transition from the general background to the specific objectives of this study.
7、Some cited studies are not critically evaluated to show how the current study builds upon them. Revise the introduction to make the research gap clearer and improve logical flow.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have replaced the cited literature in the introduction section and evaluated the differences between previous studies and this research. Additionally, I have revised the introduction to enhance the linguistic logic of the section. (Line65-73)
8、The authors should clarify why GN9+BI and GN9+LC were expected to perform better than other combinations.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on the comprehensive analysis of this study, it can be concluded that GN9+BI and GN9+LC demonstrate relatively superior overall performance. The in depth explanation and analysis of these findings have been elaborated within the text. (Line391-398)
9、The soil sampling protocol is well-described, but details on replication for enzyme assays and microbial biomass measurements are missing.
Response:Thank you for the comments provided by the expert. I have elaborated on the experimental details of the enzyme activity assay and microbial biomass measurement in the text. (Line152-160)
10、The study lacks details on irrigation management and fertilization, which may influence soil nutrient availability. Improve the description of experimental conditions to ensure full reproducibility.
Response: Grateful for the expert's suggestions, the experiment was conducted without fertilization during the trial period, with manual weeding performed three times in the year of sowing. Adequate irrigation was provided at the time of sowing and after each mowing, with consistent field management practices across all plots. I have incorporated the relevant descriptions into the article. (Line123-126)
11、The tables and figures are informative but somewhat dense, making it difficult to discern key patterns.
Response:Thank you for your comments. Since there are numerous treatments in this study and the amount of data is quite large, we can only present the data of each treatment in the form of graphs.
12、The results section sometimes repeats numerical data that are already in tables, which reduces readability. Streamline the text and refer to figures more efficiently.
Response: I am grateful for the expert's suggestions, and I have removed the redundant parts in the results and analysis section that duplicated the data presented in the tables.
13、The discussion does not sufficiently explain why certain combinations (e.g., GN9+BI) outperformed others.
Response: I would like to extend my gratitude to the expert for their valuable suggestions. I have analyzed the reasons why the performance of GN9+BI surpasses that of other combinations in the discussion section. (Line391-398)
14、The ecological mechanisms behind plant-soil-microbe interactions in mixed sowing are underdeveloped.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have elaborated on the ecological mechanisms underlying plant-soil-microorganism interactions in the discussion section. (Line438-459)
15、Comparisons with previous literature are descriptive rather than analytical.
Response:Thank you for pointing out the errors. I have reanalyzed and revised the expressions of the cited literature in both the introduction and discussion sections.
16、Strengthen mechanistic explanations (e.g., nitrogen fixation, root exudate interactions) and critically compare results with prior studies.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have elaborated on the mechanisms of nitrogen fixation and root exudate interactions in the discussion section, and critically compared the results of this experiment with prior studies. (Line330-342)
17、The conclusions align with the presented results, but their practical implications are underdeveloped.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have expanded on the practical implications of the findings from this study. (Line483-490)
18、Clarify how findings can be applied to agricultural management strategies.
Response: Thank you for the suggestions put forward by the experts. In view of the research results, the following seasonal management strategies should be adopted in the Hexi Irrigation District: strengthen the management of water and fertilizers in summer, apply fertilizers and conduct irrigation in advance in spring, and prioritize soil protection in autumn. In addition, the mixed seeding mode should be promoted in ecologically vulnerable areas (such as the Hexi Irrigation District) and incorporated into long-term agricultural plans to enhance the soil's ability to resist degradation, providing strong support for the sustainable development of regional agriculture. I have added the relevant descriptions to the article. (Line443-451)
19、Ensure that at least 50% of references are from the last five years.
Response: Thank you for the suggestions provided by the experts. I have replaced the outdated references. Please refer to the reference section of the article for details.
20、The manuscript contains several awkward phrasings and grammatical errors.
Response: Thank you for the expert's suggestions. I have revised the stiff expressions, wording issues and grammatical errors in the manuscript.
21、Page 1, Line 5: "A significant threat to the natural grasslands local ecological equilibrium of the persistent degradation…" (unclear structure)
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line39-40)
22、Page 3, Line 10: "Artificial grassland is a key component of modern animal husbandry production systems" (should be "Artificial grasslands are key components of modern animal husbandry systems").
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line40-41)
23、The manuscript requires thorough language editing to improve clarity and readability.
Response: Thank you for the expert's suggestions. I have edited the language throughout the full text.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthis manuscript on the cultivation of high-yield artificial grasslands in a unique ecological environment of the Hexi region: The Hexi Corridor, ideal location for artificial grasslands, in flat terrain and abundant sunlight in China seasons. Three varieties of leguminous forages—Medicago sativa , and three varieties of grasses—Leymus chinensis,Agropyron mongolicum and Bromus inermis ‘Yuanye’, were tested.
The manuscript is well written and presents 6 elaborated figures.
The topic is on the establishment of high-quality, high-yield artificial grasslands of high interest for forage for livestock and to combat degradation of natural grasslands. Mixed leguminous forages and grasses promotes the efficient use of soil resources, enhances grass quality, and resistance and resilience of grasslands,constituting the primary method.
--different mixed sowing combinations. The activities of SA, UA, APA, CAT, SMBC,
SMBN, SMBP, SOM, AN, AP, AK, and SWC in rhizosphere soil follow the order: summer
> spring > autumn. The soil enzyme activity, microbial biomass, and soil nutrients of each
mixed sowing were significantly higher than those of their respective monoculture in the
same season
I believe that a list of abbreviations could help reading.
--Please, indicate any control, a hypothesis and future studies.
--to check : MM:
precipitation measures is.... to replace by are?
--Also introduce the Hexi Oasis irrigation area. in the Introduction, for an international audience which doesn't know the site.
--the article has relevant information on grasslands, useful for farmers and researchers worldwide.
-- Authors notice a lack of examining the effects of various legume-gramineae mixtures combinations on the biological characteristics of the grassland soil in the region. Thus, they report this experiment conducted at the Forage Experimental Station.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-3510416). All modification tracks of the revised version were found in the supplementary Material “manuscript-track”. The response to all comments of the editor and reviewer are as follows:
Reviewer 3
This manuscript on the cultivation of high-yield artificial grasslands in a unique ecological environment of the Hexi region: The Hexi Corridor, ideal location for artificial grasslands, in flat terrain and abundant sunlight in China seasons. Three varieties of leguminous forages—Medicago sativa , and three varieties of grasses—Leymus chinensis,Agropyron mongolicum and Bromus inermis ‘Yuanye’, were tested.The manuscript is well written and presents 6 elaborated figures.
Response: We are extremely grateful for your affirmation of the manuscript! During the writing process, we focused on the content quality and the refinement of the figures. Your recognition makes us firmly believe in the correctness of our efforts. In the follow - up, we will maintain this momentum and polish the manuscript in all aspects, from data updating to language polishing, to bring readers a better reading experience and more in - depth research results.
The topic is on the establishment of high-quality, high-yield artificial grasslands of high interest for forage for livestock and to combat degradation of natural grasslands. Mixed leguminous forages and grasses promotes the efficient use of soil resources, enhances grass quality, and resistance and resilience of grasslands,constituting the primary method.
Response: Thank you for the expert's suggestions. I have revised the relevant sentences you pointed out.
--different mixed sowing combinations. The activities of SA, UA, APA, CAT, SMBC,
SMBN, SMBP, SOM, AN, AP, AK, and SWC in rhizosphere soil follow the order: summer
> spring > autumn. The soil enzyme activity, microbial biomass, and soil nutrients of each
mixed sowing were significantly higher than those of their respective monoculture in the
same season
I believe that a list of abbreviations could help reading.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added a list of abbreviations. Please refer to Table 2 in the attachment for details.
--Please, indicate any control, a hypothesis and future studies.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have elaborated on the future research directions in the article. (Line357-367)
--to check : MM:
precipitation measures is.... to replace by are?
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 93)
--Also introduce the Hexi Oasis irrigation area. in the Introduction, for an international audience which doesn't know the site.
Response: Thank you for the expert's suggestions. I have introduced the Hexi Oasis Irrigation District in the preface part. (Line32-38)
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript contains some rather interesting results from a study with alfalfa-grass mixtures, which confirmed that microbial biomass and soil nutrients were significantly higher in mixed sowing than in monoculture. What is surprising is the lower yield of alfalfa in pure sowing than in mixed sowing. How do the Authors try to explain this? How to transfer the research results obtained into practice? What problems do the Authors perceive with their dissemination?
The Materials and Methods chapter should be refined.
Comments
ORCID?
Materials and Methods
Please complete the manuscript with a figure showing the location of the study site.
Please indicate the soil type according to the IUSS Working Group WRB World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. 4th Edition 2022.
It is necessary to include a full characterisation of the soil conditions in each study year (pH, abundance, etc.). When were samples taken for testing? pH in KCl or H2O?
The manuscript does not include a characterisation of the course of weather conditions during the study period and over the multi-year period, which are critical to plant growth and development and consequently yield.
Please give a brief characterisation of the varieties tested.
No fertilisation was used in the experiment?
Which producer's statistical software was used for data analyses.
References
Please limit publications to those published after 2015, unless they are essential to characterise the methodology.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-3510416). All modification tracks of the revised version were found in the supplementary Material “manuscript-track”. The response to all comments of the editor and reviewer are as follows:
Reviewer 4
The manuscript contains some rather interesting results from a study with alfalfa-grass mixtures, which confirmed that microbial biomass and soil nutrients were significantly higher in mixed sowing than in monoculture. What is surprising is the lower yield of alfalfa in pure sowing than in mixed sowing. How do the Authors try to explain this? How to transfer the research results obtained into practice? What problems do the Authors perceive with their dissemination?
The Materials and Methods chapter should be refined.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. The lower grass yield observed in mixed sowing combinations compared to leguminous forage monoculture in this study may be due to the 1:1 legume-to-grass ratio used in the experiment, whereas the seeding rate for legume monoculture was double that of the mixed sowing combinations. Differences in growth characteristics between leguminous forage (alfalfa) and grasses led to the leguminous forage surpassing the grasses in height throughout the growing period, resulting in higher grass yield per unit area for legume monoculture compared to the corresponding mixed sowing combinations. Furthermore, the uneven distribution of precipitation in the Hexi region limited the total and effective nodule numbers of leguminous forage, causing competition for soil nitrogen between leguminous forage and grasses. This competition hindered forage growth, leading to lower hay yield in mixed sowing treatments compared to monoculture treatments.
Based on the findings of this study, we propose the following practical recommendations:
- In the Hexi Oasis irrigation area and similar ecological regions, priority should be given to promoting the GN9+BI and GN9+LC mixed sowing combinations. These combinations exhibited superior performance in soil enzyme activity, microbial biomass, and soil nutrients, significantly enhancing soil health.
- For regions requiring high hay yield, monoculture treatments such as GN3, GN9, and JN7 can be adopted, as these monoculture treatments demonstrated significantly higher hay yields than mixed sowing combinations. If the objective is to improve soil health and long-term sustainability, mixed sowing modes, particularly the GN9+BI and GN9+LC combinations, should be prioritized.
- Given the positive correlation between soil enzyme activity, microbial biomass, and soil nutrients, it is recommended to increase soil nutrient content through rational fertilization (e.g., organic and compound fertilizers), thereby further boosting soil enzyme activity and microbial activity.
- In ecologically fragile regions (e.g., the Hexi irrigation area), promoting mixed sowing modes can not only enhance grass yield but also strengthen soil resilience against degradation and improve ecosystem stability. It is advisable to incorporate mixed sowing modes into long-term agricultural planning to achieve sustainable agricultural development.
Comments
ORCID?
Response:Thank you for your feedback. I have updated the account and added a hyperlink, which can be accessed by clicking on it.
Materials and Methods
Please complete the manuscript with a figure showing the location of the study site.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have added a location map of the research site in Figure 1.
Please indicate the soil type according to the IUSS Working Group WRB World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. 4th Edition 2022.
Response:Thank you for your comments. After verification, The soil types are Calcisols and Greyzems, which has been added to the text. (Line95)
It is necessary to include a full characterisation of the soil conditions in each study year (pH, abundance, etc.). When were samples taken for testing? pH in KCl or H2O?
Response:Thank you for your comments. We apologize that we only measured the soil conditions before planting, and the soil samples in the subsequent research years were not collected and measured in a timely manner. Therefore, we are unable to provide the soil characterization data for the subsequent research years. The soil samples were collected before planting (April 2022), which has been added to the text. The pH value of the soil was determined by using a pH meter to measure the soil aqueous solution with a water:soil ratio of 2.5:1. (Line99-104)
The manuscript does not include a characterisation of the course of weather conditions during the study period and over the multi-year period, which are critical to plant growth and development and consequently yield.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have described the course of weather conditions during the multi - year period of this study.
Please give a brief characterisation of the varieties tested.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have introduced all the materials in the experiment. Please see Table 1 in the attachment.
No fertilisation was used in the experiment?
Response: Thank you for your opinion. No fertilizers were used in all the experimental fields in this experiment. (Line123-126)
Which producer's statistical software was used for data analyses.
Response:Thank you for your comments. I have added the manufacturers of various data analysis software in the text. (Line162-164)
References
Please limit publications to those published after 2015, unless they are essential to characterise the methodology.
Response:Thank you for your comments. I have replaced the relevant references.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is stated that grass and legume samples were separated, but that is the last mention of it. A primary effect on the results is the actual grass:legume ratio in each treatment. The seeding rates provide little information on the final grass:legume ratios in the stands. The actual DM ratio of grass to alfalfa in the field may explain most of the differences between treatments. Were GN9+B1 and GN9+LC the best treatments only because of the actual ratio of grass:legume?
There are 32 “respectivelys” in the paper, I have to read each sentence multiple times to figure out what the respectively refers to. Sometimes there are a set of variables followed by a different number of values, respectively.
No line numbering makes it difficult to reference anything.
P1
You say investigated various mixed combinations, but later imply that there were also monocultures? Treatments should be described better in the Abst.
We explored the season effects of…
Activities of mixtures were higher than monoculture. Grass and/or legume monocultures?
There is a significant threat to the natural grasslands local ecologic equilibrium due to degradation, desertification,…
P2
No idea what “the pursuit of civilization construction” means.
Sustainability of mixed sowing production practices is essential for achieving….
…sucrase in legume-gramineae mixtures significantly increase…
Precipitation was 150 mm, while evaporation was recorded at 2019.9 mm. There were 154 frost-free days, and the soil was a sandy loam, characteristic of….
P3
You say concentrations of 7 soil nutrients (organic carbon to K) but only 6 readings shown, 0.56 to 83.95.
A randomized block design was used…
What does “plowing and sowing occurring in a 1:1 ratio” mean?
Fig. 1. The pictures at the top are OK. The diagrams in the bottom half of the figure look more appropriate for a textbook chapter, not needed here.
P4
The first, second, and third harvests were scheduled for….
…we randomly selected five leguminous….
…we gently brushed off any soil that was tightly…
You list 7 soil components (UA to SMBP) but only list 5 procedures for determining these?
We conducted grey relational analysis….
P5
What is “mg (g d)-1? As stated it means mg per gram-days, based on the parens?
Are all the “increases” listed in this paragraph significant?
The “respectivelys” in this paragraph are difficult to follow. E.g. SA, UA, APA, and CAT activities of GN3+LC, GN3+AC, and GN3+BI increased by 14-81, 11-29, .06-25 and 1.2 -54, respectively. Does 14-81 refer to SA or to GN3+LC? I can’t follow any of these “respectively” sentences in this paragraph at all.
P7
Another paragraph of confusing “respectivelys”. E.g. “In contrast, the concentrations of grasses ranged from 437.82 to 816.55, 49.99 to 260.72, and 5.84 to 54.44 mg kg-1, respectively. Concentrations of what grasses? I can’t figure out what the respectively is referring to in most of these sentences.
Fig. 3 Lettering is too small to read.
P8
…were lower than GN3…
Table 2. What is kg hm-2?
Table 2 title. Hay yield as influenced by treatment and mowing period.
Too many significant digits in Table 2 make it hard to read. E.g. change first numbers to 6020+193.7. Same for all the rest. State what the +193.69 value is in the table note.
Sectio 3.3.2 Another large paragraph that is very difficult to follow. 6 respectivelys.
No respectively in this sentence, but I cannot follow it. “At the same time, these values increased from 27.41% to 103.80%, 18.05% to 108.01%, 62.28% to 156.10%, and 17.64% to 42.39% when compared to LC, AC, and BI.”
In general, for all these ranges e.g. 27.41% to 103.80%, no reason to repeat the percent after every number. 27.41 to 103.80%.
P11
What are the number scales in all these figures referring to?
Table 3 Put Treatments, relevance degree and Rank in the same columns, not 2 columns for each of these.
The Discussion sounds mostly like a textbook chapter on soil-microbial interactions, without much reference to the actual study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIncluded in Comments previously
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-3510416). All modification tracks of the revised version were found in the supplementary Material “manuscript-track”. The response to all comments of the editor and reviewer are as follows:
Reviewer 5
It is stated that grass and legume samples were separated, but that is the last mention of it. A primary effect on the results is the actual grass:legume ratio in each treatment. The seeding rates provide little information on the final grass:legume ratios in the stands. The actual DM ratio of grass to alfalfa in the field may explain most of the differences between treatments. Were GN9+B1 and GN9+LC the best treatments only because of the actual ratio of grass:legume?
No line numbering makes it difficult to reference anything.
Response: Thank you for your comments. First of all, in this study, all rhizosphere soil samples were taken separately for legume forages and gramineous forages, and this is added in Experimental Design 2.4. Secondly, in this experiment, the mixing ratios of all mixed sowing combinations were 1:1, which has been introduced in Experimental Design 2.3. Thirdly, in this study, it was found that GN9+B1 and GN9+LC were the best mixed sowing treatments, and we reached this conclusion through a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of all indicators such as soil nutrients, enzyme activity, microbial biomass and grass yield.
There are 32 “respectivelys” in the paper, I have to read each sentence multiple times to figure out what the respectively refers to. Sometimes there are a set of variables followed by a different number of values, respectively.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I have modified some sentences containing "respectively" in the text and added line numbers to the revised manuscript.
P1
You say investigated various mixed combinations, but later imply that there were also monocultures? Treatments should be described better in the Abst.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In this study, nine mixed sowing combinations were established, with the single sowing of six kinds of forage grasses serving as the control. I have made supplements to the abstract section. (Line13-14)
We explored the season effects of…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line14-15)
Activities of mixtures were higher than monoculture. Grass and/or legume monocultures?
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. In this article, the performance of mixed sowing is higher than that of single sowing. This conclusion is drawn by comparing the mixed sowing treatment with its corresponding single sowing treatment.
There is a significant threat to the natural grasslands local ecologic equilibrium due to degradation, desertification,…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line39-40)
P2
No idea what “the pursuit of civilization construction” means.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised this sentence.
Sustainability of mixed sowing production practices is essential for achieving….
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line54-55)
…sucrase in legume-gramineae mixtures significantly increase…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence.
Precipitation was 150 mm, while evaporation was recorded at 2019.9 mm. There were 154 frost-free days, and the soil was a sandy loam, characteristic of….
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line90-99)
P3
You say concentrations of 7 soil nutrients (organic carbon to K) but only 6 readings shown, 0.56 to 83.95.
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have checked this part and added the missing data to the text. (Line100-103)
A randomized block design was used…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 115)
What does “plowing and sowing occurring in a 1:1 ratio” mean?
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. It should be "On May 1, 2022, manual trenching was conducted, and strip sowing was performed in alternate rows at a 1:1 ratio." I have made the corresponding modification in the text. (Line118-119)
Fig. 1. The pictures at the top are OK. The diagrams in the bottom half of the figure look more appropriate for a textbook chapter, not needed here.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised Figure 1.
P4
The first, second, and third harvests were scheduled for….
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 135)
…we randomly selected five leguminous….
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 141)
…we gently brushed off any soil that was tightly…
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line143-144)
You list 7 soil components (UA to SMBP) but only list 5 procedures for determining these?
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. I have checked and revised the determination methods for all the indicators. (Line148-160)
We conducted grey relational analysis….
Response: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 305)
P5
What is “mg (g d)-1? As stated it means mg per gram-days, based on the parens?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. After consulting the literature to verify the unit of the enzyme, I have changed the unit of the enzyme to mg/g.
Are all the “increases” listed in this paragraph significant?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. All the “increases” listed in this paragraph are significant.
The “respectivelys” in this paragraph are difficult to follow. E.g. SA, UA, APA, and CAT activities of GN3+LC, GN3+AC, and GN3+BI increased by 14-81, 11-29, .06-25 and 1.2 -54, respectively. Does 14-81 refer to SA or to GN3+LC? I can’t follow any of these “respectively” sentences in this paragraph at all.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I've rephrased the results and analysis in this paragraph. (Line177-197)
P7
Another paragraph of confusing “respectivelys”. E.g. “In contrast, the concentrations of grasses ranged from 437.82 to 816.55, 49.99 to 260.72, and 5.84 to 54.44 mg kg-1, respectively. Concentrations of what grasses? I can’t figure out what the respectively is referring to in most of these sentences.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have re-explained the results and analysis.
Fig. 3 Lettering is too small to read.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have adjusted the font sizes of all the text in Figure
P8
…were lower than GN3…
Response:Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentence. (Line 243)
Table 2. What is kg hm-2?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. After consulting relevant materials, "hm²" is a metric unit of area, representing a hectare. "kg/hm²" means kilograms per hectare."hm" stands for "hectometer". "hm²" means "square hectometer", which is also a hectare.
Table 2 title. Hay yield as influenced by treatment and mowing period.
Response: Thank you for bringing these errors to my attention. I have already corrected that erroneous sentence. (Line 247)
Too many significant digits in Table 2 make it hard to read. E.g. change first numbers to 6020+193.7. Same for all the rest. State what the +193.69 value is in the table note.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have modified the number of significant digits in Table 2 as required, and added a note in the figure caption to explain the meaning of the value +193.69 (standard deviation). (Line 250-251)
Sectio 3.3.2 Another large paragraph that is very difficult to follow. 6 respectivelys.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have rewritten the sentences related to "respectively" in the text. (Line 257-274)
No respectively in this sentence, but I cannot follow it. “At the same time, these values increased from 27.41% to 103.80%, 18.05% to 108.01%, 62.28% to 156.10%, and 17.64% to 42.39% when compared to LC, AC, and BI.”
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have rewritten the sentences related to "respectively" in the text. (Line 263-268)
In general, for all these ranges e.g. 27.41% to 103.80%, no reason to repeat the percent after every number. 27.41 to 103.80%.
Response: Thank you for bringing these errors to our attention. I have corrected the erroneous sentences.
P11
What are the number scales in all these figures referring to?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the meanings represented by the numerical scales in the figures to the figure captions. (Line 207-208, Line 290-293)
Table 3 Put Treatments, relevance degree and Rank in the same columns, not 2 columns for each of these.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have already placed "Treatment Methods", "Relevance Degree", and "Rank" in the same column of Table 3 in the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more comments
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-3510416). All modification tracks of the revised version were found in the supplementary Material “manuscript-track”. The response to all comments of the editor and reviewer are as follows:
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our thesis and offer your valuable feedback. We are delighted to know that, as of now, you have no concerns regarding the content of the thesis. However, should you think of any additional suggestions or identify aspects that might benefit from further refinement in the future, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. Your insights are of great importance, and we are committed to enhancing the quality of the thesis in line with your guidance. Once again, thank you for your support throughout this process.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main issue with this study is that results are primarily dependent on the ratio of alfalfa to grass in the stands. I have sown the same rates of alfalfa and grass at different locations and over different years. The same seeding rates have ended up with mostly alfalfa in the stand, and sometimes mostly grass in the stand. This is a function of environment and also of grass species. Authors repeated that they sowed alfalfa and grass in alternate rows at 1:1 ratio, with different seeding rates for different grasses. Seeding rates may or may not have any relationship to the final mixture of alfalfa:grass in the stand. Results are totally dependent on the final mixture, not the seeding rates. Under our conditions, Bromus inermis is much more aggressive than other grasses and typically ends up with the highest ratio of grass:alfalfa in the stand.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their comments on our manuscript entitled “Effects of Alfalfa-Grass Mixed Sowing on Grass Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics” (Manuscript ID: agronomy-3510416). All modification tracks of the revised version were found in the supplementary Material “manuscript-track”. The response to all comments of the editor and reviewer are as follows:
The main issue with this study is that results are primarily dependent on the ratio of alfalfa to grass in the stands. I have sown the same rates of alfalfa and grass at different locations and over different years. The same seeding rates have ended up with mostly alfalfa in the stand, and sometimes mostly grass in the stand. This is a function of environment and also of grass species. Authors repeated that they sowed alfalfa and grass in alternate rows at 1:1 ratio, with different seeding rates for different grasses. Seeding rates may or may not have any relationship to the final mixture of alfalfa:grass in the stand. Results are totally dependent on the final mixture, not the seeding rates. Under our conditions, Bromus inermis is much more aggressive than other grasses and typically ends up with the highest ratio of grass : alfalfa in the stand.
Response:
I sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, with which I am in full agreement. This study systematically determined key parameters, including the legume-grass ratio, forage species selection, mixed sowing techniques, and seeding rates, through a comprehensive review of existing literature. The literature revealed that in legume-grass mixed communities, increased alfalfa density intensified competition for light resources between grasses and alfalfa, with interspecific competition exceeding intraspecific competition. This competitive interaction led to reduced photosynthetic efficiency and decreased accumulation of photosynthetic products in mixed grasses. Based on comprehensive consideration of forage yield, quality, and interspecies compatibility, the establishment of artificial grasslands through mixed sowing of alfalfa and awnless brome was identified as an optimal cultivation strategy. Proper management of mixed sowing methods and ratios could facilitate the development of artificial grasslands characterized by high yield, superior quality, and long-term sustainability. Regional research demonstrated variations in optimal legume-grass ratios: a 1:2 ratio in the same row fostered harmonious growth in Inner Mongolia, a 4:1 ratio proved preferable in Heilongjiang, and a 7:3 ratio significantly boosted yield in Lanzhou, Gansu. The legume-grass ratio not only has a significant impact on the yield of mixed grassland but also affects community stability. Studies indicated that a 4:6 legume-to-grass ratio tended to compromise community stability, while a 5:5 ratio enhanced it. Therefore, this study adopted a 1:1 ratio, with the examination of alternative ratios in this region designated for future research. Regarding sowing methods, empirical evidence suggested that 1:1 alternate-row mixed sowing of legumes and grasses can achieve higher forage yields compared to same-row sowing. Therefore, this study implemented the alternate-row mixed sowing method.
