Influence of Different Soil Types on Dissolved Organic Matter Spectral Characteristics of Soil Leachate After Green Manure Tilling in Saline Soils

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank the distinguished reviewer for their valuable time and expertise invested in our manuscript. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback and appreciate your constructive comments on this manuscript, as they provide us with important insights, especially your suggestions on the title and results of the manuscript have made our manuscript look brand ne.
In the resubmitted document, the corresponding changes are highlighted in yellow for your review, and the point-by-point response document details the specific changes we made for each comment. If any adjustments are still required, we remain fully committed to further refining the exercise under your guidance.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Consider changing the title of the manuscript. Soil material from two soil types was analyzed.

Yes

Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed the title to “Influence of different soil types soil materials on Dissolved Organic Matter spectral characteristics of soil leachate after green manure tilling in saline soils” highlighting the expression of different soil materials.

Additionally, please include the full name of the DOM abbreviation in the title

Yes

Dear Reviewer: Thanks for the suggestion, we've changed the title to “Influence of different soil types soil materials on Dissolved Organic Matter spectral characteristics of soil leachate after green manure tilling in saline soils”, where DOM is indicated by its full name

The authors analyzed disturbed soil material from successive horizons of two soil types. Therefore, please do not use the phrase that two soil types were analyzed throughout the manuscript.

Yes

Dear Reviewer: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your suggestion, we have changed the phrase “two soil types were analyzed” to “soil materials of different textures” in our latest manuscript as a way to avoid possible misunderstandings due to soil disturbance factors

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Abstract: Line 15..DOM..Please also enter the full name using the abbreviation for the first time.]

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for giving your valuable suggestions, we sincerely accept your suggestions and have updated the full name of the DOM to "dissolved organic matte (DOM) "on page 1, line 16 and updated it with yellow labeling in the manuscript.

Comments 2: [Introduction: A research hypothesis must be added.]

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestions, we sincerely accept your suggestions. A research hypothesis of "Taken together, due to the change of soil structure and physicochemical properties by the application of green manure, it may affect the spectral characteristics of soil leaching solution DOM and change the composition and distribution of soil DOM" was added to the introduction section on page 2, line 64 in the manuscript.

Comments 3: [Materials and Methods: Subsection 2.1. Please provide the classification of the two soil types that were tested according to IUSS Working Group WRB 2022. Please add a description of the results presented in Table 1.]

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion. We also realized the existence of this problem and added the soil classification results of IUSS Working Group WRB 2022 to the manuscript , which reads “According to the classification criteria of the International Soil Classification System (WRB 2022), where fluvo-aquic soils belong to Cambisols and coastal saline soils belong to Solonchaks."

Comments 4: [Results: The studies performed are interesting but the description of the results is extensive and very monotonous. The subsequent subsections are presented as copies of the previous ones. Only the names of the analyses in the subsection titles have been changed. The main remark is the lack of statistical analysis of the studies performed.]

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you for pointing out the problem of our extensive and homogeneous analysis results, in the latest manuscript we have reanalyzed all the results, including the addition of some statistics and the enrichment of the presentation. The changes are described in the Results section on pages 159-373, and the corresponding subheadings have been highlighted in yellow for your perusal.

Comments 5: Discussion: The Discussion section is well written. The authors showed that the application of residual green manure affects soil DOM, depending on soil texture and type of green manure. In particular, the incorporation of rapeseed green manure into saline coastal soils and ryegrass green manure into fluvo-aquic soils are effective measures to reduce soil DOM loss.]

Response 5: Dear reviewer, it is a great honor to obtain that your approval of the discussion section, we will certainly accept your other suggestions with great care and improve this manuscript seriously.

Comments 6: [Conclusions: The conclusions were presented correctly based on the research performed. Please add detailed information below line 509 regarding the need for continued research.]

Response 6: Dear reviewer, Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a discussion on the need to continue the study on page 13, lines 461-468: “Although this study has provided... therefore, further in ...“We are not sure if the placement is justified, and we would appreciate criticism.

Comments 7: [References: The References section should be adapted to editorial requirements.]

Response 7: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion, we will surely revise the reference section carefully according to the editor's request.

Comments 7: [Line 146 It should be: (Figure 2 Figure 3)……]

Response 7: Dear reviewer, we have realized this obvious error and have corrected it by correcting the error of mistakenly writing Figure 3 as Figure 2. However, due to the change in the content of the article, we are unable to accurately provide the corresponding location of the change in the original manuscript, and we provide the approximate location for your review: page 4 line 163.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1: Dear reviewer, although you did not suggest the quality of the English language, we will still continue to improve the English presentation to make this manuscript scientifically sound.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments on this manuscript, I believe that after adopting your comments, this manuscript will be more scientific and standardized, and I look forward to your more valuable comments. I would like to explain to you that although we have marked the position in the article-by-article reply and marked it with a yellow color in the manuscript, but due to the modification of some contents of the manuscript, it may lead to the situation that some of the columns are not in line with the marking. This may cause difficulties in your work, for which we apologize.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for your careful review of this manuscript. Your 2 Observations and 5 Minor corrections are constructive and helpful to our manuscript. We value your comments and have revised our latest manuscript according to your comments, and look forward to your comments again.

In the resubmitted manuscript, we have marked the corresponding changes in green for your review, and have detailed the specific changes we have made in response to each comment in our point-by-point response document. If any adjustments are still needed, we will continue to make every effort to further improve this work under your guidance!

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

The chapter Materials and Methods should be completed with the apparatus (spectrophotometer) used to register the spectra of leaching solutions and the apparatus used to investigate the fluorescence of the solutions. Also, the method for the Biogenic index BIX measurement was not shown.

Yes

Dear reviewers, Thank you for your suggestions, which we sincerely accept and have made careful revisions. We have added a statement about the instrumentation for spectrometry and fluorimetry in the Materials and Methods section, page 4, lines 143-146: The aromaticity and conjugate structure of DOM were determined by an Agilent 8453 UV-Visible Absorption Spectrometer manufactured by Agilent, USA, and the three-dimensional fluorescence index of DOM was determined by a Hitachi F-7000 Fluorescence Spectrophotometer manufactured by Hitachi, Japan.. Also, we have added the measurement of the biogenic index (BIX) on page 4, lines 150-154: Where FI, HIX and BIX were obtained by calculating the fluorescence intensity ratios at excitation wavelengths Ex = 370 nm , emission wavelengths of 450 nm and 500 nm, Ex = 255 nm, emission wavelengths of 435 - 480 nm and 300 - 345 nm, and Ex = 310 nm, emission wavelengths of 380 nm and 430 nm, respectively.

The reasons for which were chosen Dongmu70 rye, and T3: tilling Rapeseed green manure must be given.

Yes

Dear reviewer, we accept your suggestion in good faith and have added a statement of the reasons for the selection of the two green manures on page 4, lines 121-124 in the manuscript:Ryegrass and rapeseed green manure, which are suitable for the local environment and widely used in agricultural production in the Yellow River Delta region, were selected as green manure materials.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Page 1, lines 15-19The phrases should be revised and corrected. “To investigate the changes in composition and structure of DOM of the lysate solution of different types of soil after green manure tilling treatment. We set up two soil (fluvo-aquic soil; coastal saline soil) and three green manure tilling treatments (T1: CK, 17 T2: tilling Dongmu70 rye, and T3: tilling Rapeseed green manure), and used the soil column simulation to determine the DOM spectral characteristics of the soil lysate solution after freshwater leaching.”]

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestion, we accept it sincerely, and the revised statement is: “To investigate the changes in composition and structure of dissolved organic matte (DOM) of the lysate solution of different types of soil after green manure tilling treatment. We set up two types of soil materialsl (fluvo-aquic soil; coastal saline soil) and three green manure tilling treatments (T1: CK - without green manure, T2: tilling Dongmu70 rye, and T3: tilling Rapeseed green manure), then, the soil leachate was obtained by a soil column simulation test and its DOM spectral properties were determined." The detailed location of the revision is on page 1, lines 16-20 of the Abstract section, please check it.

Comments 2: [Some of the abbreviations were not defined at their first use. Examples: CK (page 1, line 17); HIX (page 1, line 23) etc.]

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestion and we have recognized this shortcoming and have fully described in the text the first occurrence of acronyms, e.g., DOM in line 16 on page 1 has been changed to “dissolved organic matte (DOM)”; T1: CK in line 19 on page 1 has been changed to “T1: CK - without green manure”; on page 1, line 23, FI was changed to ‘Fluorescence Index (FI)’; on page 1, line 23, HIX was changed to ‘Humification Index (HIX)’; on page 1, line 27, BIX was changed to ‘Biological Index (BIX).”

Comments 3: [The authors used the term “fluvo-aquicl” soils (page 2, line 58) and aquicl soil (page 2, line 65). I recommend the correction of the term.]

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion. We realized the inconsistency of the term “fluvo-aquicl soils” and have standardized it to “fluvo-aquicl soil” throughout the text . Please review the changes on page 1, line 18 and page 1, line 34.

Comments 4: [Page 3, Table 1. The measuring units for EC should be written as mS∙cm^-1 instead of ms/cm]

Response 4: Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments, we apologize for the error and have changed the units of EC values to “ms∙cm^-1” in the latest manuscript , please refer to the details of the changes in Table 1 on line 103.

Comments 5: [page 4 lines 144-146. The following phrase must be corrected:

“The UV254 values of soil drench solution DOM of different soil layers with different soil textures before and after different treatments of freshwater drenching are shown in ( Figure 2 Figure 2).”]

Response 5: Dear reviewer, we have realized this obvious error and have corrected it by correcting the error of mistakenly writing Figure 3 as Figure 2. However, due to the change in the content of the article, we are unable to accurately provide the corresponding location of the change in the original manuscript, and we provide the approximate location for your review: page 4 line 163.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1: Dear reviewer, although you did not provide valuable comments on the linguistic part of this manuscript, we will continue to pay more attention to the logic and expression of the language and continue to improve the quality of the language.

5. Additional clarifications

Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable suggestions and your very professional review, we have carefully referred to these suggestions and actively made changes, and we are very much looking forward to your continued and more valuable comments. In addition, we need to explain to you that, due to the change of some contents of the original manuscript, there may be sentences in some line distribution different from the version you see, we have marked the corresponding position in our reply to you and highlighted the revised part in the latest manuscript in green, so that it is easier for you to review.