Interactive Effects of Mulching Width and Irrigation Management on Cotton Growth and Dynamic Changes in Soil Factors in Arid Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

Following the evaluation of the manuscript titled “The Effects of Different Film Mulching Widths and Irrigation Quotas on Soil Moisture, Temperature, Salinity, and Rhizosphere Microbial Communities in Cotton Fields”, my decision is: Major revision.

Overview: The manuscript addresses the crucial topic of optimizing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivation practices, specifically by investigating the impacts of different film mulching widths and irrigation depths. The main objective of the study was to elucidate the responses of cotton growth and rhizosphere microbial communities to these treatment combinations, aiming to propose optimal configurations for crop development. The decision for a major revision is based on the robustness and comprehensiveness of the research, which systematically evaluated multiple indicators such as soil moisture, temperature, salinity, root growth, dry matter accumulation, and microbial communities. The results consistently demonstrate that the use of ultra-wide film, especially when combined with higher irrigation depths, significantly promotes cotton growth and improves the soil environment. The observed shortcomings are primarily related to clarity and presentation, and do not compromise the scientific integrity or value of the work.

Title: The title is overly long and detailed, combining many distinct elements such as plastic mulch width, irrigation depth, soil moisture, temperature, salinity, and rhizosphere microbial communities, which compromises its clarity and objectivity. This broad approach may hinder immediate understanding of the study’s main focus. The term “Irrigation Quotas” is awkward; in my opinion, it should be replaced with “Irrigation Depth.” Furthermore, the use of the generic term “Effects” does not help to highlight the originality or distinctive contribution of the research. Titles starting with words like “effect,” “evaluation,” or “influence” are reminiscent of papers from the 1990s and early 2000s. A more concise and focused title would be advisable, one that emphasizes the central and innovative aspects of the study, such as the microbial soil response and the interaction between plastic mulch and irrigation management.

Abstract: The abstract exceeds the journal's word limit (over 200 words) and presents structural issues and poor organization. It suffers from excessive detail, repetition of information, and a lack of logical flow, which compromises clarity and readability. The structure does not follow a clear sequence between introduction, methods, results, and conclusions, and the conclusion is vague, failing to clearly highlight the practical implications of the study.

Keywords: Do not repeat terms already used in the title. Terms from the title are automatically indexed in databases, making their repetition in the keywords redundant. The keywords should complement the title by including additional concepts to broaden the paper's visibility and reach researchers who use different descriptors in their searches.

Introduction: The introduction presents several limitations that compromise its communicative and scientific effectiveness. Firstly, the text overwhelms the reader by clustering too many topics into a single paragraph, without proper thematic separation. It is recommended that the different topics be organized into separate paragraphs with logical connections between them to improve clarity and flow. Additionally, the introduction is insufficient and does not contribute to a clear understanding of the study. The justification lacks strong arguments to convince the reader of the research's relevance. The problem is not clearly presented, making it difficult to grasp the importance and significance of this work. In short, the introduction does not provide a sufficient foundation for understanding the study. I understand that justifying this study is a significant challenge and must be done skillfully. This is because evaluating the agronomic responses of cotton to different irrigation levels and soil mulching does not constitute new information, the expected results are quite predictable, and numerous research studies on this topic have been published for decades. From this perspective, the scientific interest in the proposed subject and the potential application of the results appear to be limited. In summary, studies that test irrigation depths are typical of the 1990s, and I believe the authors would face substantial difficulty in publishing this work in high-impact journals. Moreover, I believe the authors should focus their efforts on developing a new irrigation management strategy, this would be truly relevant. Even though testing irrigation depths may still have value, the application of irrigation volumes exceeding 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is questionable. What is the real need for this, especially in scenarios of water scarcity and the pursuit of greater water use efficiency? This type of approach is not environmentally sustainable, as it involves excessive use of water, an increasingly scarce resource. Besides not being ecologically responsible, the results of applying irrigation above 100% of ETc are predictable. Studies more aligned with sustainable practices should prioritize strategies that optimize water use efficiency without exceeding the actual crop water demand. Furthermore, the introduction lacks a clear definition of the knowledge gap and the scientific relevance of the study. There is repetition of ideas, especially concerning the effects of plastic mulching, and poor articulation between the various topics addressed, such as salinity, temperature, microbiology, and root growth. Finally, the introduction does not clearly present a scientific hypothesis to be tested, which represents a significant shortcoming in terms of the logical and argumentative structure of the text.

Materials and Methods: The methodology is incomplete and requires further clarification regarding the proposed procedures. Many basic details are missing, and as currently presented, the experiment cannot be replicated by the reader. In fact, it is even difficult to determine whether the methodology properly supports the study’s objectives. For a complete characterization of the experiment, essential information about soil, atmospheric conditions, and plant material is still lacking. Regarding the soil, the authors should specify the soil type using comprehensive international classification standards (such as USDA), and provide both physical and chemical characterizations. For the physical characterization, it would be important to include the soil classification and texture, water retention parameters (field capacity and permanent wilting point), soil bulk density, porosity, infiltration rate, and penetration resistance, among others. For the chemical characterization, key macronutrients (e.g., Ca, Mg, S) and important micronutrients (e.g., B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, Mo, Cl) are missing, as well as information on soil acidity parameters (such as exchangeable aluminum), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and base saturation. In terms of meteorological data, daily values for solar radiation, air temperature (maximum, minimum, average), relative humidity, wind speed, and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) were not provided. Data on the quality of the irrigation water should also be included. Regarding the plant material, the source of the propagative material (seeds) was not specified. There is ambiguity concerning the origin of the crop coefficient (Kc) data, with no clear indication of whether they came from previous studies or were determined during the initial phase of the experiment. The description of the microbial sampling strategy by phenological stage is confusing and not properly integrated into the experimental design. Additionally, several important methodological details are missing: in the analysis of root distribution, there is no information on the instruments or procedures used for root measurement; and in the analysis of soil microorganisms, there is no description of the molecular or bioinformatic methods employed, despite the presentation of complex microbial diversity results, this seriously compromises reproducibility and scientific transparency. Minor details should also be addressed: the formatting of the text (e.g., subitem font size) needs improvement, as does the graphical quality of tables and figures.

Results: The presentation of the results has some important weaknesses. Firstly, for a study focused on water management, I noticed the absence of daily water balance data in this section. Therefore, please include tables or figures showing the water balance throughout the entire experimental period, clearly indicating all water inputs and outputs. Also, the legend in Figure 7 is unreadable and needs correction.

Discussion: There is an apparent contradiction between the Results and Discussion sections regarding soil electrical conductivity (EC). Section 3.2 states that EC was lower during the flowering stage than during the budding stage, while Section 4.1 claims that the average soil EC during the flowering and boll formation stages was higher than during the budding stage. Some points in the discussion could better explore the reasons behind the observed variations or inconsistencies compared to previous studies, rather than just mentioning them. I suggest the authors include methodological limitations, uncertainties in the results that require further investigation, and/or direct suggestions for future research directions within this section.

Conclusions: The conclusions need improvement, as in their current form, they resemble a summary of the results. The conclusion could be enriched by emphasizing the broader practical implications of the findings for cotton cultivation in different contexts.

References: Many references are outdated, and others are from sources that have not undergone peer review. Whenever possible, these should be replaced with more recent references from reputable, high-impact journals.

Given the above, several inconsistencies are evident, and my recommendation is Major Revision.

I encourage the authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript and, should they disagree or choose not to address any of the comments, I would appreciate receiving responses to each of those points.

Good work.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief Summary. This manuscript presents a field study conducted in Southern Xinjiang to examine how different film mulching widths (conventional vs. ultra-wide) and irrigation quotas (0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 ETc) influence soil properties (moisture, salinity, temperature), cotton growth, and rhizosphere microbial community structure. The study demonstrates that ultra-wide film mulching combined with higher irrigation improves soil moisture retention, decreases surface salinity, enhances microbial diversity (especially bacteria like Pseudomonas), and promotes cotton biomass accumulation. The work provides valuable agronomic insights for optimizing cotton cultivation practices in arid regions.

General Concept Comments. The research addresses an important topic in agronomic water management and soil–plant–microbe interactions, particularly under arid climate conditions. The experimental design is well-structured and allows evaluation of both independent and interactive effects of film mulching and irrigation. The inclusion of microbial diversity metrics adds novelty. However, while the methodology is robust, the discussion would benefit from greater critical reflection on limitations, scalability, and potential environmental impacts (e.g., plastic mulch residue, water use sustainability).

Scientific Content Comments. The hypothesis - that ultra-wide mulching and increased irrigation enhance cotton performance and soil microbial dynamics - is reasonable and testable. However, it is not explicitly stated in the introduction and should be clearly formulated as a testable statement.

The study uses standard and appropriate methods for measuring soil moisture, temperature, electrical conductivity, and microbial community analysis (via α/β diversity indices). However: The sampling frequency of microbial analysis is limited (only two time points). No DNA sequencing details (e.g., platform, primers, read depth, bioinformatics pipeline) are provided, which limits reproducibility.

There is no non-mulched or rainfed control, which makes it difficult to assess the baseline effects of mulching and irrigation independently.

ANOVA and LSD tests are used, but the manuscript would benefit from multivariate or interaction analysis (e.g., two-way ANOVA, MANOVA), especially for microbial data, where the influence of multiple variables is complex.

Specific Comments

The methodology section should include sequencing method details (e.g., Illumina, MiSeq), region amplified (e.g., V3 - V4 of 16S), and bioinformatics pipeline (e.g., QIIME2, DADA2). (Lines 85–100)

No statistical significance is indicated on the graphs (e.g., letters or p-values). This makes it hard to interpret treatment effects. (Figure 3)

The conclusions could be expanded with a brief note on practical implications (e.g., potential water savings or yield gains in kg/ha). (Lines 418 - 426)

Legends need to be clearer. For example, define what “others” includes in microbial genera. Also, microbial diversity indices would be more informative if confidence intervals were added. (Figure 7, 8)

Tables should include units in the column headers (e.g., cm, mm²) and indicate sample size (n = ?). (Table 3, 4)

 

Please clarify the following aspects to improve the scientific rigor and transparency of your manuscript:

For the microbial diversity data, were any measures taken to account for sequencing bias, rarefaction, or compositionality of the dataset? Please explain how diversity indices (Chao1, Shannon) were normalized across samples.

Lastly, do you have any data or observations on the potential long-term environmental impacts of ultra-wide plastic film usage, such as residue accumulation or soil degradation? Even if not addressed in this study, a brief note would be appreciated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports the field experiment that combines ultra‑wide plastic mulch with different irrigation quotas and measures a broad set of variables: soil moisture, temperature, salinity, root traits, rhizosphere‑microbial diversity, and dry‑matter accumulation. Yet these numerous parameters are merely listed one by one; causal linkages and scholarly implications are not adequately extracted, leaving the study’s originality and significance unclear.

In the Introduction the stated aim “to examine the effects of ultra‑wide mulch and irrigation quota on cotton” is too general. The reader cannot discern what new knowledge it provides. You should open by stating explicitly that, under the semi‑arid conditions of southern Xinjiang, the interactive effect of “mulch width × irrigation quota” on the structure and function of rhizosphere microbes remains unclarified, and that the present study was designed to fill this gap; this will frame the later Methods and Results sections more meaningfully.

Regarding Materials and Methods, the greatest concern is the weak external validity and statistical power that follow from a single site, a single season, and only three replicates per treatment. A brief power analysis demonstrating whether three replicates suffice would greatly strengthen credibility. Additionally, the rhizosphere‑microbiome procedures must be described in detail for reproducible. 

In the Results section, the current narrative repeats phrases such as “significantly higher/lower,” which becomes difficult to follow. Organising the findings along a causal chain- soil moisture / salinity / temperature → root traits → dry‑matter accumulation- and illustrating it with correlation or path analyses would transform what is now a collection of isolated data into a coherent story.

The Discussion should not merely note that the results “agree with previous studies.” It must delve into the functional mechanisms: for example, how the increase in Proteobacteria and Pseudomonas and the decrease in Fusarium under ultra‑wide mulch could contribute to nutrient uptake or disease resistance in cotton, citing relevant literature. In addition, long‑term issues such as plastic‑mulch residues and the water‑resource burden of high irrigation should be addressed to clarify the study’s limitations and future tasks, thereby enhancing the paper’s overall credibility.

In sum, although the data themselves have practical value, the manuscript lacks a clear statement of novelty and sufficient evidence of reproducibility. To be acceptable for publication, it will require the above information enhancements and a deeper, mechanism‑oriented discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,

After a new evaluation of the manuscript, now titled “Interactive effects of mulching width and irrigation management on cotton growth and dynamic changes of soil factors in arid regions”, my recommendation remains: Major Revision.

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the revised version of the manuscript, which presented some improvements. However, there are still many issues that need to be addressed before I can recommend the manuscript for publication. Below are my main concerns:

(i) Unaddressed comments:

Two of my most critical comments were not considered in the second version of the manuscript. I had requested the inclusion of tables or figures presenting the full water balance, i.e., both water inputs and outputs of the system throughout the entire study period. The authors only provided daily precipitation and air temperature data, which are meteorological variables. This does not constitute a complete water balance, which should also include irrigation depths applied, crop evapotranspiration, and losses due to percolation and runoff. I must reiterate that, for a study focused on water management, this information is extremely important and necessary. In addition, the authors did not address the lack of information in the Materials and Methods section, which shows disregard for my review, as it was not even mentioned in the response letter. I therefore ask the authors to revisit my initial comments regarding: full soil characterization, additional meteorological data, water quality, and planting material.

(ii) Poorly addressed comments:

I also find that some of my comments were not properly addressed. I still insist that the term “Irrigation Depth” should be used instead of “Irrigation Quotas”. Moreover, no convincing justification was provided for applying 20% more water to cotton irrigation (1.2 ETc). As previously stated, this strategy does not make sense in the context of water use efficiency and sustainability. In light of the above, it is evident that the manuscript still presents many inconsistencies, and my recommendation remains Major Revision.

I encourage the authors to submit a new version of the manuscript. If they disagree with any of the points raised or choose not to address them, I kindly ask that they clearly respond to each of these considerations.

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has achieved a minimum standard of academic structure through clarification of the introduction and the addition of methodological details. However, two fundamental issues remain unresolved: (1) the weakness of the statistical design, with only a single year and three replicates, and (2) the lack of causal analysis and multivariate testing. In its current form, the manuscript is not ready for acceptance; substantial additional analysis and a major revision of the statistical methods section are essential.

In particular, the sequential effects of soil moisture and salinity on root traits, rhizosphere microbial communities, and dry matter accumulation have not been investigated. Path analysis or, at minimum, multivariate correlation or regression analysis should be conducted to quantitatively present causal networks among these factors.

Furthermore, the English text contains redundant and repetitive expressions, and editorial details such as unit notation, figure and table numbering, captions, titles, and legend font size are not consistently formatted. Figures and tables must be understandable on their own, without requiring the reader to refer to the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,

Following a new evaluation of the manuscript, now titled “Interactive effects of mulching width and irrigation management on cotton growth and dynamic changes of soil factors in arid regions”, my recommendation is: Minor revision.

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the second revised version of the manuscript, which shows improvements. However, a few adjustments are still necessary before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. My comments are as follows:

I suggest that the authors include in the manuscript the information presented in the table attached to the response letter. According to the authors, the use of the treatment with 20% more irrigation water than required (1.2ETc) was intended to compare yield and water use efficiency (WUE) with other treatments.

Replace the term “Irrigation Quota” with “Irrigation Depth” in Tables 3 and 4.

Insert figures and tables immediately after the paragraph in which they are cited.

New results were added (Section 3.9), and they must be discussed in the Discussion section.

In light of the above, there are still some inconsistencies, and my recommendation remains Minor revision.

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please add a new, clearly defined section in the main text that explicitly describes the limitations and future challenges of this study (for example, “4.4. Limitations and future challenges”). This should include a discussion of the limitations in experimental design (such as the issue of reproducibility), the lack of causal analysis for sequential influences (e.g., “soil moisture/salinity → root traits → dry matter → microbes”), and the need for long-term and environmental impact assessments—such as the problem of plastic mulch residues, the effects of irrigation water, and salt accumulation.

In addition, improvements are needed in editorial details, such as the clarity of figure and table titles, captions, and legends. Figures and tables in a scientific paper must be understandable on their own, without requiring the reader to refer to the main text.

Figure 1: The title should explain panels (a)-(c). The location in (a) is not clear. The meaning of the experimental treatments is ambiguous.

Figure 2: The title is insufficient (it does not clarify the meaning of each element). The display of Tmax should be improved.

Figure 3: The title should explain and distinguish between (a) and (b). Units are missing.

Figure 4: Axis titles are unreadable. Abbreviations are not explained.

Table 2: The title and footnotes are inappropriate. The use of “ETc” as an abbreviation for irrigation depth is not appropriate. Does “6.7–7.1” indicate a date?

Figures 5 & 6: The titles should explain panels (a) and (b). Axis titles and legends are unreadable. Are the horizontal bars standard deviations?

Figure 7: The title should explain panels (a) and (b). Standard deviations are necessary. Would a table be more suitable?

Table 3: “Irrigation quota/(mm)” is not correct.

Table 4: The title should clarify the difference from Table 3.

Figure 8: There is no explanation of (a) and (b). The legend is unreadable and unclear.

Figure 9: Axis titles and legend are unreadable.

Figure 10: Axis titles are unclear. The difference between (a)–(d) is not explained. The multiple comparison annotation is unreadable. Are all elements marked as “a”? If there is no significant difference between groups, the annotation “a” is unnecessary.

Figure 11: Is the title appropriate? It is very difficult to read; a table would be more suitable. An explanation of PC1 and PC2 is needed.

Figure 12: It is almost unreadable. The purpose and methodology of the principal component analysis shown in Fig. 11 are not described in the Methods section. Please add a description of this analysis. In addition, in the Results section, please explain how you interpreted the extracted principal components as composite variables and what they represent. Since the scatter plot is difficult to interpret, please consider presenting a table listing the component loadings as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf