Impact of Management Practices on Soil Organic Carbon Content and Microbial Diversity Under Semi-Arid Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the dynamics of soil organic matter and microbial responses in arid region, providing valuable insights for semi-arid land management. However, the experimental methodology requires further clarification and refinement. The following specific revisions were listed as followes:

1. The study mentioned composite sampling but did not specify the number of biological replicates per treatment. This should be clearly stated to ensure reproducibility.
2. The application rates and frequency of organic amendments need to be explicitly defined.
3. The PA plot indicated a 15% increase, but Table S5 did not show statistically significant differences (p>0.05), so that a more detailed discussion on the biological relevance of these trends is needed.
4. Section 3.3 highlighted the dominance of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes, but their functional roles in organic carbon dynamics remain underexplored. Expanding this discussion would strengthen the ecological interpretation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are deeply grateful for the time and thoughtful effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate your valuable insights. In the attachment, we address your comments in detail, outlining our revisions to incorporate your suggestions. Every modification has been carefully implemented to enhance the manuscript while ensuring its scientific accuracy. All the changes have been marked in the revised version for your convenience.   "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript No. land-3621696 tilted "Impact of management practices on soil organic carbon content and microbial diversity under semi-arid conditions” aims to: i) evaluate how conventional and improved management practices affect the dynamics and accumulation of organic carbon in semi-arid soil; ii) clarify how SOC and soil properties affect the diversity and structure of soil bacteria; and iii) explore the function of bacterial communities in storing SOC. Despite the substantial quantity of information provided in this work, I questioned why the authors included all of the significant tables and figures as supplemental information. All supplementary figures and tables should be incorporated in the context. My comments are highlighted below (Major revision). 

1. In the title, please add (Algeria case study).
2. In the keywords, there are so many keywords, please reduce them to six.
3. Please provide a Table showing the experimental design in section “2.2. Description of the plots”.
4. In line 15, please check “assimilable”.
5. Please show the data in section “2.3. Sampling strategy” in a simple figure.
6. Please provide a table of abbreviations at the end of the manuscript.
7. Regarding “Figure S3” it was not provided within the context of experimental materials. Please provide it inside the context in the revised manuscript. The same tendency is seen with Table S1, Table S2, Figure S4, Table S3, Figure  S5, and Figure  S6 for the benefit of readers.
8. Please provide references for section “2.6. Biological soil analysis”.
9. The physical and chemical properties of the studied soil should be seen in the materials and methods section.
10. Section “3.1. Physicochemical characterization of soil” should be mentioned within the materials and methods section.
11. Please check the format in lines 282-284, 386, and 397 “Mg ha-¹”, and Fig. 2D.
12. In lines 300 and 301, please check “CO”.
13. In lines 318-3019, please check “annotated”.
14. In line 336, which proportions do you mean? “the proportions ranged” please clarify.
15. In line 39, please check “niches”.
16. In line 425, please check the writing format “Undisturbed”.
17. In line 428, “organic carbon (OC)” should be mentioned at the beginning of the manuscript, then you may use the abbreviation OC. The same tendency with “organic matter (OM)” in line 429.
18. Please check “destocking” in line 438.
19. At the beginning of the conclusion section, please write 2-3 lines to summarize your study.
20. In line 213, I think you mean “Figure S1” instead of “Figure S2”.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are deeply grateful for the time and thoughtful effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in improving our work, and we sincerely appreciate your valuable insights. In the attachment, we address your comments in detail, outlining our revisions to incorporate your suggestions. Every modification has been carefully implemented to enhance the manuscript while ensuring its scientific accuracy. For your convenience, all changes have been marked in the revised version. "Please see the attachment". 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision could be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into consideration all comments. Accept.