Increasing Soil Microbial Necromass Carbon Under Climate Change in Chinese Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
In general, I think that the manuscript is publishable. Besides other parts to consider changes, I have two "major" concerns, one with the introduction and one with the discussion.
The intro is a little bit too general and lacks critical evaluation of the cited references. I suggest being more specific! A better formulated intro would increase the value of the article.
Please explain abbreviations when they first appear in the text!
I marked typos with yellow. Please fix them!
Avoid citing authors or figures in between two sentences, e.g.:
Line 188 „Noticably. (Fig 2). Warming . . .”
Please provide all captions in a self-explanatory manner, meaning no abbreviations, e.g. Fig.2. caption is not self-explanatory!
In the discussion part I would avoid general statements, e.g. “Warming increased TNC in croplands . . . „. At least add that in „Chinese” or in the examined/analysed/evaluated croplands.
Some English double-check might increase the value of the manuscript.
Best regards, Reviewer X
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some little wordings might help in some parts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Manuscript (ID: agronomy-3808980 & Increasing soil microbial necromass carbon under climate change in Chinese terrestrial ecosystems) is well structured and progressing from the knowledge gap → methods → key findings → implications. The abstract presents a timely and relevant study on soil necromass carbon (C) sequestration under climate change and nitrogen deposition. This is an important contribution, as necromass C is often overlooked compared to plant biomass or soil organic carbon pools. There are some specific comments to improve the quality of MS, like:
- Title needs improvement.
- The conclusion is not very impressive in the abstract. Consider adding a sentence that links findings to broader climate mitigation or soil management strategies.
- The meta-analysis and statistical analysis section needs refinement to increase the readability and applicability of MS.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors< !--StartFragment -->
Congratulations—the article addresses an important and necessary topic, with few existing publications offering such a comprehensive overview of these conditions across different regions. I offer the following suggestions to improve the text and align it more closely with the standards and scope of Agronomy journal.
< !--EndFragment -->
The abstract should present the key challenges and future trends related to land use and management scenarios, as well as those concerning data acquisition and environmental model development. It is important to include the mean values and standard deviations for each evaluated scenario to enhance the clarity and scientific rigor of the findings. To improve indexing and searchability, avoid repeating keywords from the title and keyword list; instead, diversify terminology to broaden the scope of recovery in databases. When using the term “warming,” it is essential to specify whether it refers to soil warming, global warming, or both. This concept appears frequently throughout the abstract, keywords, and introduction, and must be clearly contextualized to prevent ambiguity and ensure scientific accuracy.
The discussion primarily applies to natural or semi-natural ecosystems, where pedogenetic processes and carbon dynamics occur spontaneously and in equilibrium, governed largely by natural factors. However, in contexts involving human intervention—such as agriculture, deforestation, or urbanization—management becomes the dominant influence, significantly altering soil properties and carbon fluxes. It is crucial to specify which condition is being addressed in each case. Additionally, clarify whether the data represent only native vegetation or if agricultural land-use data are also included. If both are present, they should be evaluated separately, as ecological impacts, land-use patterns, and biogeochemical processes differ substantially between these systems.
It must also be stated whether the studies are based solely on laboratory experiments. To ensure methodological transparency and allow for proper assessment of data representativeness, it is recommended to include tables and/or graphs that characterize the dataset—such as sample size, variables analyzed, and geographic or temporal distribution. Many acronyms appear without definition and should be corrected for clarity. The figure should also be revised, as transparency effects cause three colors to appear on the map, despite only two being indicated in the legend.
To support reproducibility and transparency, it is recommended to include the R scripts and the spreadsheet used in the systematic review as supplementary material. Notably, the issue of land use and management is not adequately addressed, despite its relevance. This topic should be explored in greater depth, with emphasis on human impacts on the biogeochemical cycle. Finally, the conclusion is overly general and should specify the conditions that influence carbon gain, provide quantitative values, and outline both advantages and disadvantages. A section discussing the limitations of the current study should be added, along with future directions focused on improving data acquisition and refining environmental and climate models.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations on the article. The data is interesting, and the assessment reflects careful analysis and relevance.
