Review Reports - Optimized Straw Strip Mulching Enhances Soil Water–Heat–Carbon Synergy and Stabilizes Winter Wheat Yield in Semi-Arid Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment:
This manuscript presents a valuable two-year field study investigating the effects of different row configurations of maize straw strip mulching on soil hydrothermal conditions, labile carbon fractions, and winter wheat yield in semi-arid Northwest China. The research addresses an important topic—finding sustainable alternatives to plastic film mulching—and provides useful empirical data. However, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Below are thirteen critical points organized by section, followed by responses to the specific recommendation questions.

Title and Abstract

Issue: The title mentions "Maize Straw" but the study area and discussion refer to "corn straw" interchangeably. The abstract lacks specific quantitative results (e.g., exact percentage increases with confidence intervals) and does not mention the statistical significance levels.

Improvement: Standardize terminology throughout (use "maize straw" consistently). Revise the abstract to include key numerical findings with statistical significance (e.g., "S5 increased grain yield by 15.88% compared to CK, P < 0.05").

Literature Review Integration

Issue: Section 2 ("Related Works") reads as a list of previous studies rather than a critical synthesis that identifies research gaps and justifies the current study.

Improvement: Restructure this section to highlight controversies, methodological limitations of previous work, and how this study addresses those gaps. Connect each subsection explicitly to your research questions.

Experimental Design Clarification

Issue: The single-factor randomized block design is described, but there is no mention of blocking criteria, randomization procedure, or how spatial variability was controlled. The treatment codes (S3, S4, S5) are introduced but not clearly linked to mulching row numbers in the text.

Improvement: Add details on blocking factors (e.g., based on soil heterogeneity or slope). Clearly explain that S3 = three rows mulched, S4 = four rows, S5 = five rows. Justify why these specific row numbers were chosen.

Statistical Analysis Inadequacy

Issue: While ANOVA is mentioned, there is no description of model assumptions testing (normality, homogeneity of variance), post-hoc test details (LSD is mentioned but not justified), or handling of repeated measures over two years.

Improvement: Add a subsection in Methods detailing: (1) tests for ANOVA assumptions, (2) justification for using LSD vs. other post-hoc tests, (3) how year-to-year variability was analyzed (e.g., combined ANOVA with year as a fixed or random effect).

Soil Sampling Methodology

Issue: For straw strip mulching treatments, soil samples were collected separately from planting and mulching belts and then weighted-averaged. However, the weighting calculation formula is not provided, nor is there discussion of how many subsamples were taken per belt.

Improvement: Provide the weighting formula in the Methods. Specify the number of subsamples per plot and how spatial variability within belts was addressed.

Soil Temperature Data Presentation

Issue: Figure 5 and 6 present soil temperature and cumulative temperature, but the Y-axis scales are inconsistent between years, making visual comparison difficult. The text describes "buffering effect" without quantitative metrics (e.g., diurnal temperature range, temperature fluctuation amplitude).

Improvement: Standardize Y-axis scales across years for direct comparison. Calculate and report quantitative indices of temperature buffering (e.g., standard deviation of daily temperatures, diurnal temperature range).

Carbon Fractions Data Interpretation

Issue: Section 4.3 presents DOC and MBC data but lacks discussion of the C:N ratio of straw, decomposition rates, or how these might explain the observed patterns. The claim that "S3 showed significantly higher DOC than S5 during grain-filling" (page 23) is not clearly supported by the figures.

Improvement: Add analysis of straw decomposition rates or C:N dynamics. Ensure figure legends clearly indicate significant differences (e.g., with letters or asterisks) to support text claims.

Yield Component Analysis

Issue: Table 2 presents yield components but lacks statistical comparison of interactions (treatment × year). The text states "S5 showed best yield increase" but does not discuss why S5 outperformed S3 and S4 in terms of the physiological mechanisms (e.g., tiller survival, grain filling).

Improvement: Perform a two-way ANOVA to test treatment × year interactions. Discuss the physiological basis for yield differences—e.g., did S5 improve spike fertility or grain filling rate?

Correlation Analysis Interpretation

Issue: Figure 9 shows correlation matrices, but the text overinterprets correlations as causal (e.g., "soil moisture is the absolute limiting factor"). The reversal of correlations between years is noted but not explained mechanistically.

Improvement: Clarify that correlations do not imply causation. Discuss possible reasons for interannual differences (e.g., precipitation timing, temperature extremes) and consider partial correlation analysis to disentangle confounding factors.

Discussion Section Weaknesses

Issue: The discussion is largely a restatement of results rather than a critical synthesis with the literature. There is overuse of phrases like "our results show" without comparing effect sizes or mechanisms to previous studies. The section lacks a clear subsection on limitations of the study.

Improvement: Restructure the discussion to: (1) compare findings quantitatively with previous studies (e.g., "our 15.88% yield increase is comparable to the 13-19% range reported by Huang et al. [3]"), (2) explain unexpected findings (e.g., why S3 had higher DOC in year 2), and (3) add a "Limitations and Future Research" subsection.

Conclusions and Practical Recommendations

Issue: The conclusions are overly long and repeat results. The practical recommendation for farmers (which row number to use) is buried in the text and not clearly stated.

Improvement: Condense the conclusions to 3-4 bullet points highlighting the main findings. End with a clear, actionable recommendation: "Based on two years of data, the S5 (five-row mulching) treatment is recommended for optimizing yield and soil carbon in semi-arid winter wheat production."

Language and Formatting Errors

Issue: The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, inconsistent terminology ("corn" vs. "maize"), formatting issues (duplicate introduction, incorrect page numbering), and unclear figure legends. The English quality is noted as needing improvement.

Improvement: Thorough proofreading by a native English speaker or professional editing service is required. Standardize terminology throughout. Ensure all figures have clear, self-explanatory legends with statistical significance indicated.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper. We have revised the paper by following your suggestions, and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Mainly all corrections to be made and comments are marked in paper;
Some typos in paper have been noticed but they are easy to correct;
In "Materials and Methods", for each analytical method, the literary source(s) should be provided; the abbreviations in Figure 9 should be added to your existing list of abbreviations along with their detailed description;
Please write references in complete form and not only „Author et al., since I believe that all the authors who contributed to the writing of the paper cited here should be listed; also, you should write references in accordance with the instructions for authors (Microsoft Word template); you should re-read the list of references and correct the mistakes.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR MANUSCRIPT ID: AGRONOMY-4218325
- What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main question addressed by the research is whether there is a possibility of replacing plastic film mulching with strips of plant (maize) straw from the aspect of the impact on soil hydrothermal conditions, activated carbon composition and winter wheat yield in the open field.
- Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not

the case.

In my opinion the topic is original and relevant to the field addressing a specific gap in this field of study. Research on this topic in this field of agriculture can be carried out on different types of soil and in different climatic environments, which is why different results can be obtained, compared with other published papers. This research shows that it is possible to replace plastic soil mulching with maize straw strip mulching in the environment characteristic of the investigated locality and on loam type soil, which is considered one of the best types of soil.
- What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology?

I think that the paper contains a lot of good and useful information related to the potential application of plant mulching instead of traditional plastic mulching, at different row distances in agricultural production. It would be significant in future research to intensively study the same in the production of other field crops of different sowing times in addition to winter wheat, as well as in other agricultural plant productions, such as, for example, vegetable growing.
- Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this

is/is not the case.

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question posed. U kratkim crtama zaključci iznose sve što je rađeno u radu i na kraju svode konačni zaključak da maize straw strip mulching može predstavljati a green alternative for plastic mulching application in winter wheat production na ispitivanom tipu zemljišta u klimatskim uslovima karakterističnim za ispitivani lokalitet i državu.

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question posed. In a nutshell, the conclusions of authors present everything that was done in the work and at the end they draw the final conclusion that maize straw strip mulching can represent a green alternative for plastic mulching application in winter wheat production on the examined type of soil in climatic conditions characteristic of the examined locality and country.
- Are the references appropriate?
Used references are appropriate for the research topic, only the method of writing them in the list of references is wrong, and it is not in accordance with the instructions for authors.
- Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
No additional comments on the tables and figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language could be improved .

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper. We have revised the paper by following your suggestions, and please see the attachment.