Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is based on an extensive study involving three counties and several parameters. Such studies are of great importance for the development of rational and sustainable agriculture.

I miss the more concrete definition of the objectives of the study and maybe the hypothesis should be given too.

The structure of the manuscript should be revised, I suggest some reconstruction (e.g., the harmonization between the sections in terms of the studied parameters and revision of the content of each section). 

I inserted some sticky notes with my specific comments, corretions, suggestions, and questions in the pdf file of the manuscript. Please consider them.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part. The changes and revisions are using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Kening Wu, Long Kang

2023/3/21

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Soil Biological Indicators in Typical Farmland Soils

The authors have investigated the factors that affect some soil biological indicators in three regions with different farmland practices in China. They assessed a set of physical and chemical properties in 72 plots and analyzed the data using redundancy analysis and one-way ANOVA. While I found the manuscript interesting and informative regarding the impact of various farmland practices on soil biodiversity, some sections require improvement. For instance, I observed an oversimplification in the statistical analysis, and there is a lack of information regarding the experimental design and how the authors handled different sample sizes among land uses. Performing a one-way ANOVA with unequal sample sizes may lead to potential issues, such as reduced statistical power and decreased robustness to unequal variance. I urge the authors to provide more clarity on this issue. Furthermore, I encourage the authors to incorporate the concept of the farmland gradient (intensive, low, and mixed) throughout the manuscript, particularly in the results and discussion sections. This will help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of different farmland practices on soil biodiversity. Currently, some sections only compare the site names without explicitly linking them to the farmland gradient, which may be less adequate for interpreting the results. Finally, I recommend that the authors improve the conclusion section by highlighting the main findings of the study. Minor comments have also been attached.

Abstract

L18. Add p-value

Introduction

L45-49. There are six references in one sentence. Could the authors only add the most relevant?

L79, 82. Please add references

L88. Where? In China? If true, I encourage the authors to add supporting information.

L97. I suggest removing the word “metrological”

L102. Please add a reference

L108. I suggest the author adds more information about the study sites and explains why they are relevant or important to study. Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify what the authors mean by "typical agricultural production areas" and if there is an intensity gradient. Lastly, it is not clear if the experiment was conducted during a specific season or annually.

L118. What was the main hypothesis?

Materials and methods

 

L124. Is there an experimental design? What was the plot distribution among the arable lands?

L135-139. Some of this information should be brought out earlier in the text, i.e. abstract and introduction

Figure 1. Could the authors add a macro localization of study areas?

L142. Two samples of what?

L184. I think that there is an oversimplification of the statistical analysis. For example, there is no information about the experimental design. How do the authors deal with different sample sizes among land uses? For instance, there are potential issues when performing a one-way ANOVA with unequal sample sizes (reduces the statistical power, and reduces robustness to unequal variance). I encourage the authors to clarify this section.

Results

L204-205. The sentence is not clear

L207. Is there a statistical difference in soil respiration?

L210. Ok, but what about respecting Hailun?

Figure 2. I think it will more informative if instead of site names, the farming gradient is used, for example, Wen County as intensive, etc. For instance, I encourage authors to add this info along with site names across the manuscript. Panels B and F do not contain lowercase letters, why?

Table 1. Same here, the farming gradient should be indicated. Please, also add the soil type at each County. Are the authors sure that n=3, if true it is too low information to perform any statistical analysis. Is it not supposed to be 72 samples? Why there are no comparison letters for total phosphorus?

L257-258. Could the authors add the correlation values?

Figure 3. Please describe all acronyms and include a label differentiating between biological and soil indicators. Please indicate what does it mean the *

Figure 4. I wonder if similar results can be found if the redundancy analysis is done by site since overall, there are differences among sites, thus, it could be reasonable that the physicochemical variables have different explicative power within sites

Discussion

L319. Small or statistically significant?

L338. This is why it is important to highlight the farming gradient among the Figures, so for the readers, it can be easier to interpret considering the management background.

L343. Table 1?

L351. Reference [50] is not cited

L355. Could the authors divide the discussion according to the goals?

L364. According to Figure 2, the relationship is only significant for MBC and SR

L367. Is the reference [4]?

L381. Please, only add the more relevant references

L386-392. This sounds more like a generic conclusion, for instance, I encourage the authors to conclude about the role of farming practices on soil biological indicators

Conclusions

L319. Small or statistically significant?

L396. But see Figure 2 and Table 1, where some differences arise

L404. I encourage the authors to improve the conclusion which in my opinion is kind of generic and ambiguous.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part. The changes and revisions are using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript. Our responses are presented in the following.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

The identification and analysis of the factors that influence soil biodiversity is a subject of scientific importance, but especially of practical importance, since the degree of soil fertility can be appreciated at the level of farmland. In this sense, numerous physical, chemical and biological soil indicators are determined and only a correct, healthy use and management of agricultural land can increase soil biodiversity levels in farmland, thus improving soil structure and fertility.

The Materials and Methods chapter presents the study methods proposed by the authors, methods that were chosen correctly and in accordance with the purpose of the work. The obtained results are amply presented, the statistical analysis of the obtained data is well documented through numerous figures and tables. The results obtained by the researchers indicate: the biological indicators of the agricultural soil are influenced by the physical and chemical properties of the soil, the improved physical structure of the soil and its fertility levels determine higher levels of soil biodiversity. The manuscript is well scientifically documented; the Discussions chapter reports its own results to the existing data in the literature. Conclusions and recommendations established are the result of the research activity.

I recommend this paper be accepted and published in this journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Kening Wu, Long Kang

2023/03/15