Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Relationships Between Carbon Fractions and Soil Nutrients in Organic Cassava Cultivation in the Sandy Soil of Northeastern Thailand

Agronomy 2025, 15(5), 1069; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051069

by Suphathida Aumtong^1,*, Chanitra Somyo¹, Kanokorn Kanchai¹, Thoranin Chuephudee² and Chakrit Chotamonsak^3,4

Reviewer 1:

Yanchao Bai

Reviewer 2:

Maria Regina Menino

Reviewer 3:

Jessica G. Davis

Agronomy 2025, 15(5), 1069; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051069

Submission received: 19 March 2025 / Revised: 18 April 2025 / Accepted: 27 April 2025 / Published: 28 April 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organic Amendments to Low-Fertility Soils: Current Status and Future Prospects)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the responses of soil carbon fractions to different organic amendments (namely cow manure, chicken manure, dried distilled grains and their combinations) in the sandy soil cultivated with cassava in the duration of 0-5 years. Then the relationships between carbon fractions and soil properties were analyzed. The results provided some useful information for the management of organic amendments in sandy soil cassava cultivation. However, based on the following points, the manuscript of current state is temporarily not qualified for publication in Agronomy and at least a major revision is needed for acceptance recommendation:

The Title

The current title of the manuscript can not clearly reflect your study target and contents and may change to “Responses of soil carbon fractions to organic amendments and their relationships with available nutrients in cassava-cultivated sandy soil of northeastern Thailand”.

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of 2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis. The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Language and terms

Pls check throughout the text for the verb tense. Some terms may not match the items measured in the study, for instance, pH and WSC do not belong to nutrients while soil texture (sand, silt and clay) is generally not physical property (referring to bulk density, porosity, water content of the soil).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Dear Peer #1

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Best regards

________________________________________________________________________________

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

The Title

I revised to Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand

Materials and Methods

This part was not well arranged. It is suggested to rewrite this part following the order of

2.1 study site, 2.2 the experimental design (especially the treatments or the factors of the study should be clearly defined), 2.3 Soil Sampling, 2.4 Measurements, 2.5 Statistical analysis.

I rearranged it as your suggestions and numbered the subtopics.

The contents of line 152-line 179 (at least parts of them) may belong to 2.2. It was crucial to provide more information for the DDGs used in the study, esp. their origins or sources.

I added the information of the original DDGs that used of this study

Figures and Tables

All figures in the manuscript need to be modified to improve their appearance, and table 2-4 need statistical comparisons between the means within the group.

Table 2-4 has been revised already, and some figures were removed , especially those that were not clear .

I have revised some figures as you suggested; however, I adjusted them based on the static program as best as I could, as shown in the manuscript.

Language and terms

I revised them already

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting and addresses a very pertinent and timely topic. But, the reading becomes less fluid as the paragraphs are too long and some of the text in the Material and Methods chapter is confusing, which makes reading tiring.

The values presented in the Tables 2 and 3 are not statistically analysed, I would suggest to make graphics instead.

The Material and methods chapter is very confusing and repeats information several times, which makes it a bit confusing, refering several times Table 1, for exemple. Besides that, here are some suggested corrections, namely:

Line 191 to 192 – it should be written “…were air-dried, sieved and preserved until chemical and physical analysis”;
Line 242 to 245 – rectify spaces and punctuation;
I suggest reviewing subchapter 2.4., as it seems confusing and unclear, it is too detailed in some points and less in others, without following a rule in writing each point covered;
Figure 2 seems unnecessary to me;
Line 272 –I would suggest to remove “according to water extraction”, not only is it written wrong, because we use water for extraction and not according to it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.

In the assessment of the Results chapter, the following observation are made:

Line 288 and line 289– instead of “contents” it should be used “content”, and line 289 has no reason to exist, since it repeats what is in the previous sentence, also, as soon as the nutrient contente is referred it should be referred Table 2, and not in the end of such a long paragrah;
Line 306 – the caption of the table is incorrect, for exemple, pH is not a nutriente, as well as C/N ratio, and the values presented are mean values (or not?!? It should be clear in the caption);
Line 308 – see observation made for line 272;
The reference to Table 3 should bem ade in the beggining of the sentence and the caption is wrong (see also observations made for Table 2), for instance, again pH is not a nutriente and you presente mean values and it should be in the caption;

Concerning the Conclusion chapter, the text in the paragraphs included between lines 7771 and 793 seems to me to be the conclusion of the present study and not what is written in the conclusion, which seems to me to be more of a discussion of results, so I suggest changing it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it can be improved

Author Response

Dear Peer #2

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Peer #2

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below are our point-by-point responses:

1.The values presented in the Tables 2 and 3 are not statistically analysed, I would suggest to make graphics instead.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have now included statistical analysis for Tables 2 and 3. While we acknowledge that graphs can improve visual clarity, we believe that tabular presentation is more suitable for comparing multiple treatments and variables simultaneously. We therefore chose to retain the table format.

2.The Material and methods chapter is very confusing and repeats information several times, which makes it a bit confusing, refering several times Table 1, for exemple. Besides that, here are some suggested corrections, namely:

Line 191 to 192 – it should be written “…were air-dried, sieved and preserved until chemical and physical analysis”;
Line 242 to 245 – rectify spaces and punctuation;
I suggest reviewing subchapter 2.4., as it seems confusing and unclear, it is too detailed in some points and less in others, without following a rule in writing each point covered;
Figure 2 seems unnecessary to me;
Line 272 –I would suggest to remove “according to water extraction”, not only is it written wrong, because we use water for extraction and not according to it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.

Response:
We have carefully revised the entire Materials and Methods section as per your suggestions:

The text in Lines 191–192 has been corrected.
Punctuation and spacing in Lines 242–245 have been fixed.
Section 2.4 has been restructured to ensure a consistent level of detail and a clearer flow.
Figure 2 has been removed.
The phrase “according to water extraction” has been deleted from Line 272.

3.In the assessment of the Results chapter, the following observation are made:

Line 288 and line 289– instead of “contents” it should be used “content”, and line 289 has no reason to exist, since it repeats what is in the previous sentence, also, as soon as the nutrient contente is referred it should be referred Table 2, and not in the end of such a long paragrah;
Line 306 – the caption of the table is incorrect, for exemple, pH is not a nutriente, as well as C/N ratio, and the values presented are mean values (or not?!? It should be clear in the caption);
Line 308 – see observation made for line 272;
The reference to Table 3 should be made in the beginning of the sentence and the caption is wrong (see also observations made for Table 2), for instance, again pH is not a nutrient and you present mean values and it should be in the caption;

Response:
Thank you for these precise suggestions. We have implemented the following changes:

Replaced “contents” with “content” in Lines 288–289 and removed the redundant sentence.
Moved the reference to Table 2 to the beginning of the relevant paragraph.
Corrected the title and caption of Table 2 to remove pH and C/N from the nutrient category, and clarified that values represent means.
Applied the same corrections to the caption and reference for Table 3.
Line 308 was revised following your earlier comment on Line 272.

4.Concerning the Conclusion chapter, the text in the paragraphs included between lines 771 and 793 seems to me to be the conclusion of the present study and not what is written in the conclusion, which seems to me to be more of a discussion of results, so I suggest changing it.

Response:
We agree with your observation and have revised the Conclusion section accordingly. The content between Lines 771–793 has been integrated and rewritten to form a clear and concise conclusion of the study.

The revised conclusion now reads:

Dear Peer #2

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Peer #2

1.The values presented in the Tables 2 and 3 are not statistically analysed, I would suggest to make graphics instead.

Response:

Line 191 to 192 – it should be written “…were air-dried, sieved and preserved until chemical and physical analysis”;
Line 242 to 245 – rectify spaces and punctuation;
I suggest reviewing subchapter 2.4., as it seems confusing and unclear, it is too detailed in some points and less in others, without following a rule in writing each point covered;
Figure 2 seems unnecessary to me;
Line 272 –I would suggest to remove “according to water extraction”, not only is it written wrong, because we use water for extraction and not according to it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.

Response:
We have carefully revised the entire Materials and Methods section as per your suggestions:

The text in Lines 191–192 has been corrected.
Punctuation and spacing in Lines 242–245 have been fixed.
Section 2.4 has been restructured to ensure a consistent level of detail and a clearer flow.
Figure 2 has been removed.
The phrase “according to water extraction” has been deleted from Line 272.

3.In the assessment of the Results chapter, the following observation are made:

Line 288 and line 289– instead of “contents” it should be used “content”, and line 289 has no reason to exist, since it repeats what is in the previous sentence, also, as soon as the nutrient contente is referred it should be referred Table 2, and not in the end of such a long paragrah;
Line 306 – the caption of the table is incorrect, for exemple, pH is not a nutriente, as well as C/N ratio, and the values presented are mean values (or not?!? It should be clear in the caption);
Line 308 – see observation made for line 272;
The reference to Table 3 should be made in the beginning of the sentence and the caption is wrong (see also observations made for Table 2), for instance, again pH is not a nutrient and you present mean values and it should be in the caption;

Response:
Thank you for these precise suggestions. We have implemented the following changes:

Replaced “contents” with “content” in Lines 288–289 and removed the redundant sentence.
Moved the reference to Table 2 to the beginning of the relevant paragraph.
Corrected the title and caption of Table 2 to remove pH and C/N from the nutrient category, and clarified that values represent means.
Applied the same corrections to the caption and reference for Table 3.
Line 308 was revised following your earlier comment on Line 272.

The revised conclusion now reads:

Dear Peer #2

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Peer #2

1.The values presented in the Tables 2 and 3 are not statistically analysed, I would suggest to make graphics instead.

Response:

Line 191 to 192 – it should be written “…were air-dried, sieved and preserved until chemical and physical analysis”;
Line 242 to 245 – rectify spaces and punctuation;
I suggest reviewing subchapter 2.4., as it seems confusing and unclear, it is too detailed in some points and less in others, without following a rule in writing each point covered;
Figure 2 seems unnecessary to me;
Line 272 –I would suggest to remove “according to water extraction”, not only is it written wrong, because we use water for extraction and not according to it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.

Response:
We have carefully revised the entire Materials and Methods section as per your suggestions:

The text in Lines 191–192 has been corrected.
Punctuation and spacing in Lines 242–245 have been fixed.
Section 2.4 has been restructured to ensure a consistent level of detail and a clearer flow.
Figure 2 has been removed.
The phrase “according to water extraction” has been deleted from Line 272.

3.In the assessment of the Results chapter, the following observation are made:

Line 288 and line 289– instead of “contents” it should be used “content”, and line 289 has no reason to exist, since it repeats what is in the previous sentence, also, as soon as the nutrient contente is referred it should be referred Table 2, and not in the end of such a long paragrah;
Line 306 – the caption of the table is incorrect, for exemple, pH is not a nutriente, as well as C/N ratio, and the values presented are mean values (or not?!? It should be clear in the caption);
Line 308 – see observation made for line 272;
The reference to Table 3 should be made in the beginning of the sentence and the caption is wrong (see also observations made for Table 2), for instance, again pH is not a nutrient and you present mean values and it should be in the caption;

Response:
Thank you for these precise suggestions. We have implemented the following changes:

Replaced “contents” with “content” in Lines 288–289 and removed the redundant sentence.
Moved the reference to Table 2 to the beginning of the relevant paragraph.
Corrected the title and caption of Table 2 to remove pH and C/N from the nutrient category, and clarified that values represent means.
Applied the same corrections to the caption and reference for Table 3.
Line 308 was revised following your earlier comment on Line 272.

The revised conclusion now reads:

Dear Peer #2

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Peer #2

1.The values presented in the Tables 2 and 3 are not statistically analysed, I would suggest to make graphics instead.

Response:

Line 191 to 192 – it should be written “…were air-dried, sieved and preserved until chemical and physical analysis”;
Line 242 to 245 – rectify spaces and punctuation;
I suggest reviewing subchapter 2.4., as it seems confusing and unclear, it is too detailed in some points and less in others, without following a rule in writing each point covered;
Figure 2 seems unnecessary to me;
Line 272 –I would suggest to remove “according to water extraction”, not only is it written wrong, because we use water for extraction and not according to it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.

Response:
We have carefully revised the entire Materials and Methods section as per your suggestions:

The text in Lines 191–192 has been corrected.
Punctuation and spacing in Lines 242–245 have been fixed.
Section 2.4 has been restructured to ensure a consistent level of detail and a clearer flow.
Figure 2 has been removed.
The phrase “according to water extraction” has been deleted from Line 272.

3.In the assessment of the Results chapter, the following observation are made:

Line 288 and line 289– instead of “contents” it should be used “content”, and line 289 has no reason to exist, since it repeats what is in the previous sentence, also, as soon as the nutrient contente is referred it should be referred Table 2, and not in the end of such a long paragrah;
Line 306 – the caption of the table is incorrect, for exemple, pH is not a nutriente, as well as C/N ratio, and the values presented are mean values (or not?!? It should be clear in the caption);
Line 308 – see observation made for line 272;
The reference to Table 3 should be made in the beginning of the sentence and the caption is wrong (see also observations made for Table 2), for instance, again pH is not a nutrient and you present mean values and it should be in the caption;

Response:
Thank you for these precise suggestions. We have implemented the following changes:

Replaced “contents” with “content” in Lines 288–289 and removed the redundant sentence.
Moved the reference to Table 2 to the beginning of the relevant paragraph.
Corrected the title and caption of Table 2 to remove pH and C/N from the nutrient category, and clarified that values represent means.
Applied the same corrections to the caption and reference for Table 3.
Line 308 was revised following your earlier comment on Line 272.

The revised conclusion now reads:

Dear Peer #2

We appreciate all your comments and suggestions, and for each feedback we have made corrections as follows:

We have made corrections as suggested and rewritten to provide clarity in writing and presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been addressed.

Peer #2

1.The values presented in the Tables 2 and 3 are not statistically analysed, I would suggest to make graphics instead.

Response:

Line 191 to 192 – it should be written “…were air-dried, sieved and preserved until chemical and physical analysis”;
Line 242 to 245 – rectify spaces and punctuation;
I suggest reviewing subchapter 2.4., as it seems confusing and unclear, it is too detailed in some points and less in others, without following a rule in writing each point covered;
Figure 2 seems unnecessary to me;
Line 272 –I would suggest to remove “according to water extraction”, not only is it written wrong, because we use water for extraction and not according to it, but it doesn’t seem necessary to me.

Response:
We have carefully revised the entire Materials and Methods section as per your suggestions:

The text in Lines 191–192 has been corrected.
Punctuation and spacing in Lines 242–245 have been fixed.
Section 2.4 has been restructured to ensure a consistent level of detail and a clearer flow.
Figure 2 has been removed.
The phrase “according to water extraction” has been deleted from Line 272.

3.In the assessment of the Results chapter, the following observation are made:

Line 288 and line 289– instead of “contents” it should be used “content”, and line 289 has no reason to exist, since it repeats what is in the previous sentence, also, as soon as the nutrient contente is referred it should be referred Table 2, and not in the end of such a long paragrah;
Line 306 – the caption of the table is incorrect, for exemple, pH is not a nutriente, as well as C/N ratio, and the values presented are mean values (or not?!? It should be clear in the caption);
Line 308 – see observation made for line 272;
The reference to Table 3 should be made in the beginning of the sentence and the caption is wrong (see also observations made for Table 2), for instance, again pH is not a nutrient and you present mean values and it should be in the caption;

Response:
Thank you for these precise suggestions. We have implemented the following changes:

Replaced “contents” with “content” in Lines 288–289 and removed the redundant sentence.
Moved the reference to Table 2 to the beginning of the relevant paragraph.
Corrected the title and caption of Table 2 to remove pH and C/N from the nutrient category, and clarified that values represent means.
Applied the same corrections to the caption and reference for Table 3.
Line 308 was revised following your earlier comment on Line 272.

The revised conclusion now reads:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

We have made the necessary corrections and reworked the document to provide clarity in the presentation of this paper. All suggestions have been revised, except for the presentation of the statistical contract, in which case we confirm that the original contract was used, as it contained references to the results of the analysis from the statistical program used for the analysis presented as we used it.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

1.This is an interesting paper. I appreciate the authors’ efforts to use real-world data to explore C dynamics in this system. However, there is so much variability in the dataset, that it is difficult to interpret.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Response:
We revised the title as suggested to make it clearer.
We also updated the abstract to ensure that each conclusion is supported by the data. In particular, we removed generalized claims about “mixed organic amendments” and clarified that our results are based on comparing soil properties and carbon fractions across LUAs.

Introduction

Lines 123-124 state that, “The research hypothesizes that organic fertilization will enhance SOC and sequestration.” After your thorough literature review in the Introduction, this hypothesis seems too simple. Your literature review showed that the characteristics of organic fertilizers affect C cycling. I suggest you hypothesize something more specific, for example, proposing certain characteristics of organic fertilizers that would lead to greater

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

1.Line 133—"The age of this land use was between 0 and 5 years old.” This is confusing. Do you mean it has been planted to cassava for 0-5 years? I thought cassava takes about 2 years from planting till harvest.

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

The rates of organic fertilizer application depend on the experiences from previous times that were recommended by government and non-government organizations and mainly on the budgets of their farmers. Because these organic fertilizers are necessary for cassava farmers to purchase from various sources in the area.

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

20.Why was P measured in two different ways, Bray 2 and malachite green? I believe Bray 2 is the extractant, and malachite green is the colorimetric analysis method, but this is not clear, and for some reason, there is discussion of NH4 and NO3 analyses in between the 2 sentences about P analysis. As I look at Figure 8, it is clear that I misunderstood this.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

1.The text should not repeat detailed information that is shown in the table but should focus on the most important findings. In addition, abbreviations, such as Cow or DDGs or LUAs, must be defined in each Table heading.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

10.Figure 7—Are NH4 and NO3 expressed as is or as NH4-N and NO3-N? Please verify this to be sure. This is important for comparison with other papers, since most of the time, they are expressed as the amount of N in that specific form.

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

Line 745—" the availability of P decreasing as pH increased”—This is true if the soil starts at a neutral pH, but if the soil starts out acidic and becomes more neutral, P availability will increase.

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Lines 785-788—How will you factor plant growth and agricultural productivity into your fertilization strategy? Cassava has very low nutrient requirements. How might this be different for crops with higher nutrient needs?

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of northeastern Thailand (agronomy- 3565269)

We are grateful for your thorough review and insightful suggestions. Your detailed feedback has helped improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Below are our point-by-point responses.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback. We have taken your comments into account and revised the manuscript to enhance clarity and emphasize significant patterns amidst variability.

2.The title of this manuscript is a bit confusing: “Relationships between carbon fractions and soil nutrients for organic carbon in organic cassava cultivation in the sandy soil of

northeastern Thailand.” Removing “for organic carbon” would simplify the title without losing any meaning.

Abstract—After making the changes suggested in the Results and Discussion sections, please come back to the Abstract to make sure your data supports every sentence.

Here is one example—line 36—You conclude that “mixed organic amendments are

essential,” but you didn’t evaluate any individual organic amendments in this study. So how can you conclude this?

Introduction

SOC levels and C sequestration.

Response:
We revised the hypothesis to reflect more specific expectations regarding the effects of organic fertilizer characteristics on SOC and sequestration, as informed by the literature.

Materials and Methods

Comments & Responses:

Line 133: Clarified that cassava is continuously cultivated as a monocrop across LUAs.
Land Use History: We added information on previous land use and fertilization practices before conversion to organic cassava.
DDGs: Added details on DDG origin and production process.
Application Rates: Explained that rates vary depending on local recommendations, farmer budgets, and are shown in Table 1.
Line 142: Sentence revised for clarity.
Line 152: Corrected “usages” to “usage.”
Line 162: Removed unclear phrase.
Line 173: Removed “groups of.”
Figure 1: Legend size increased.
Line 190–191: Removed redundant sentence.
Line 196: Removed irrelevant content about cassava growth.
Line 219: Replaced “demineralized water” with “deionized water.”
Line 221: Removed underline and defined variables in Equation 1.
Line 239–240: Clarified ratios and defined LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC.
Equation 4: Clarified variables.
Line 250–251: Added details on NH₄⁺ extraction and corrected extraction methods for NO₃⁻-N and phosphorus (Bray 2 and malachite green). Clarified extractant vs. detection method.

We revised

We added more information that characteristic cassava plantation.

2.Was the land rotated to other crops, as well, during this 5 year period?

That is monocrop just only cassava plantation. and we added more information.

3.Please add information on the land use and fertilization practices prior to its conversion to organic cassava. This is very important for the reader to understand the baseline situation.

I add more information at line

4.Please describe the DDGs including how they are made.

I add more information at Line

5.Do you know what the application rates were on the different fields?

Yes, I interviewed the owner site ,and some information in Table 1

6.Line 142—"Monthly precipitation in mm from January to December from 2018 to 2024.” This is an incomplete sentence.

Yes I revised already by taking out.

7.Line 152—change ‘usages” to “usage”

I revised

8.Line 162—" and the amendment of localized practices” –unclear, please clarify

Yes I revised already by taking out.

9.Line 173—remove “groups of”—it’s confusing and does not add new information

Yes I revised already by taking out.

10.Figure 1—Please increase the size of the legend, so it can be more easily read.

I revised already

Lines 190-191—"Soil samples were collected using an auger from a depth of 0–30 cm at representative sites.”—already stated—Please remove.

I revised already

12.Line 196—"to determine how to grow cassava”—did you make any measurements of cassava growth or productivity? If not, what does this paper have to do with growing cassava?

I revised by taking out.

13.Line 219—is demineralized water the same thing as deionized water? I’m not familiar with this term.

I revised to deionized water already

14.Line 221—remove underline

Define the variables in Equation 1.

15.Line 239—the ratios 2:1 and 1:0.5 are both essentially 2:1—please clarify 16.Line 240—define these abbreviations: LBC, LLBC, NLBC, and REC

17.Equation 4—what is ข

18.Line 250—how was NH4 extracted?

19.Line 251—why was K2SO4 used to extract NO3-N? Usually, KCl is used.

There are 2 different P measurements. Each of them need details about their extractant and analytical method. Please clarify.

I revised and added more information already.

21.Line 274—why kind of filter was used?

I added more information.

Results

Comments & Responses:

We revised the text to avoid repetition of tabular data and focused on key findings.
Defined all abbreviations in table headings.
Standardized significant digits across tables.
Followed convention where “a” denotes the highest value.
Removed discussion on statistically insignificant results (e.g., NH₄⁺).
Avoided overstating minor differences or implying trends not supported by statistics.
Removed repeated sub-headings and confusing phrases (e.g., “according to water extraction”).
Table 4: Clarified soil texture consistency and rationale for including it.
Figures 5 & 6: Acknowledged variability and clarified that significance was determined using appropriate statistical tests.
Figure 7: Verified units (NH₄⁺-N and NO₃⁻-N) and corrected figure legends accordingly.
Line 401: Revised to match section title content.
Figures 9 & 10: Removed as suggested; Figure 12 retained to better illustrate correlations with clear p-values.
Lines 454–456: Clarified that NO₃⁻ was directly and negatively correlated with labile C forms.
Figure 13: Clarified the statistical basis for correlation significance despite data scatter.

Table 2,3

2.Significant digits need to be consistent without excessive numbers to the right of the decimal points.

Table 2,3

3.When significant differences are shown using letters, a is usually the highest value, and the letters progress as the means decrease.

4.Do not spend time discussing insignificant data (for example, NH4).

5.Be careful not to overstate differences as trends. For example, pH in LUA2 < LUA 0. That’s all. Other treatments are not different from LUA 0.

6.Line 289 repeats the sub-heading. Please remove it.

7.Line 308—change “organic fertilizer according to water extraction” to “water extracts of organic fertilizers”

8.Table 4—was there any significant difference in soil texture? Do you expect soil texture to change when organic amendments are added?

I revised Table 4 already, this information would focus and base on LUA effect, and I would like to show this study site was sandy soil.

9.Figures 5 and 6—how can these values be negative? The variation within each LUA is enormous, but for some reason slight changes are still deemed significant. How can this be?

I revised already.

11.Line 401—the section is titled “pH and availability of N and P” but there is nothing about N in this section.

12.Figures 9 and 10 and the text describing them. You need to report p-values for these correlations. Without p-values, we don’t know if the correlations are significant.

I revised already.

13.Lines 454-456—Why does a correlation between NH4 and labile C forms suggest a trend with NO3? Was NO3 significantly correlated with the labile C forms directly?

Yes, NO3 significantly negative correlated with the labile C forms directly

14.Figure 12 is much clearer than Figures 9 and 10 and illustrates the same correlations. I suggest you remove Figures 9 and 10.

Lines 470-472—Although apparently statistically significant, these r-values are very small. Be careful in your interpretation.

Figure 13—The scatter of the data is enormous in comparison to the p-value of the correlation. This is apparently due to the high sample number.

We move out this Figure already and replace by Heatmap correlation

Discussion

Comments & Responses:

Avoided assuming causation from correlation.
Agreed that stepwise regression could be useful and noted for future research.
Lines 509–510: Removed unrelated content about cattle feeding DDGs.
Lines 518–519: Clarified treatment conditions.
Lines 553–557: Adjusted discussion to avoid conflicting with results.
Lines 563–566: Emphasized significance only in Year 3 for LBC and LLBC.
Line 566–567: Adjusted language to reflect that REC declined in only one year, without generalizing.
Line 581: Removed unsupported statement about split vs. single application.
Line 582 & 596–597: Removed or revised unsupported claims about long-term SOC accumulation.
Line 604–605: Revised to reflect NLBC trend accurately.
Line 632–634: Clarified the effect in LUA 5 and avoided overgeneralization.
Line 647 & 716–717: Corrected statements about NH₄⁺-N, NO₃⁻-N, and phosphorus levels, based on actual findings.
Line 719–720 & 731–732: Corrected interpretation of pH change, specifying changes only occurred in Year 2.
Line 745: Clarified that P availability depends on initial soil pH.
Line 772: Revised to reflect actual changes in SOC.
Figure 14: Simplified the figure to emphasize mechanisms rather than raw correlations.
Lines 785–788: Added brief discussion on crop-specific nutrient needs, noting cassava’s low demand and implications for generalization.

Be careful not to assume that correlation is proof of causation. Both factors could be caused by some other factor and only incidentally related to each other.

We revised the discussion part by carefully also.

Would multiple regressions (stepwise) be useful in determining the most important factors leading to changes in C?

Thank you so much , I hope I could work for next time.

Lines 509-510—What is the relevance of cattle feeding DDGs to land application? I suggest you remove this sentence.

I removed this sentence out.

Lines 518-519—under what conditions were these measured? Fields that received DDG applications? It’s unclear.

I added more information.

Lines 553-557 —This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant

increase in SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

We revised already

Lines 563-566—LBC and LLBC were significantly higher than time zero in Year 3. Year 1 and Year 2 were not significantly different from Year 0.

We revised already

Lines 566-567--REC in Year 4 < Year 0. Don’t overstate it. There’s no trend, just one data point different from another.

We revised

Line 581—" had fewer priming effects than adding it all at once”—how do you know since

you did not have a treatment that added it all at once?

We refer the reference, becaus our soil is sandy soil migh be happen this.

Line 582— " a trend in higher SOC compared with the pre-fertilization level”—Figure 3 does

not support this.

We revised already

Lines 596-597—" The long-term application of organic fertilizers contributes to the build-up

of both labile and recalcitrant carbon pools”—do you have data that supports this

statement? If this were true, I would expect to see a steady change over time, not one year

high, then the next year low.

I removed this sentence out and have not interfere the meaning.

Lines 604-605— Figure 6A shows that NLBC in the NUAs was never significantly different

from the baseline at time 0.

Although our study observed a small increase in non-labile carbon (NLBC) after only one year, the content then continuously decreased over 3–4 years.

Lines 632-634—" This study demonstrates that the application of organic fertilizers

significantly influences soil carbon fractions, particularly through the enhancement of

labile carbon fractions while decreasing the recalcitrant carbon fraction.”—Why wasn’t this

true in Year 5?

I revised and add more the discussion

Lines 716-717—“ There is more total organic and available P in the soil after organic

fertilization”--Figure 8 shows that neither Bray-P or Malachite-P increased after application

of organic fertilizers even after 5 years, and total P wasn’t measured. Your data does not

support this statement.

We revised

Lines 719—720 —“organic fertilizers…raise pH”, but not in your study.

We skip this phase.

Lines 731-732—"Our study demonstrates that organic fertilization leads to a decrease in

soil pH in sandy soils.”—This was only true in Year 2 (see Figure 8C).

We skip this sentence.

Line 772-- This conflicts with the Results shown above. There was no significant increase in

SOC in this study as compared to the 0 LUA (Figure 3).

The addition of organic fertilizers enhances labile carbon (LBC) but decreases non-labile carbon (NLBC).

Figure 14—I appreciate your effort to synthesize your data with a figure, but I have trouble understanding this figure. Instead of naming the correlations in this figure, proposing a

mechanism behind the correlations could be useful.

I revised this figure already

Conclusions

I suggest you focus your Conclusions on what was significantly different from the time 0 baseline and, secondly, why changes did not continue after the first few years.

We rewrite the Conclusion as your suggestion

As one example, see Lines 797-98—why would SOC decline with time in sandy soils when applications are made every year?

Based on your comments and suggestions, we have considered the rewrite of this article, with revised hypothesis, methods, results, and critiques, leading to a new conclusion and abstract.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Relationships Between Carbon Fractions and Soil Nutrients in Organic Cassava Cultivation in the Sandy Soil of Northeastern Thailand

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI