Bio-Regulatory Mechanisms of Straw Incorporation in Haplic Phaeozem Region: Soil Ecosystem Responses Driven by Multi-Factor Interactions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses the significant topic of straw incorporation in haplic phaeozem soil. Your findings have important implications for sustainable agricultural practices and soil health.
I have attached my comments and questions into your copy paper PDF. These suggestions aim to enhance the clarity and impact of your discussion, as well as to strengthen the overall paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. Comment:This study addresses the significant topic of straw incorporation in haplic phaeozem soil. Your findings have important implications for sustainable agricultural practices and soil health.

I have attached my comments and questions into your copy paper PDF. These suggestions aim to enhance the clarity and impact of your discussion, as well as to strengthen the overall paper.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. At the same time, thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which would help us in depth to improve the quality of this manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we have made detailed and careful revisions.

2. Comment:Line 13: Phaeozem.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have made revisions as suggested. Line 15.

3. Comment:Line 19: the  study found evidence of a strong synergistic relationship...........

Response: Thank you for your comments. the “a ‘synergistic effect’” has changed to the “evidence of a strong synergistic relationship”. Line 21

4. Comment:Line 31: Phaeozem.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have made revisions as suggested. Line 34. And, in Line 28, the “phaeozem” has also changed to the “Phaeozem”.

5. Comment:Line 45-49: it lacks a clear articulation of the specific research gap your study addresses..... please re-make statement regarding what is currently lacking in the literature would strengthen the rationale for your research.....

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten this section (Line 47-50).

6. Comment:Line 70-74: could be stated more clearly. Explicitly outlining the main objectives and hypotheses would provide a clearer direction for the researcher...... please . 

Response: Thank you for your comments. We realize that the description in the previous version was inappropriate. In the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the description of this section (Line 66-77).

7. Comment:Line 89: is well-described.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript.

8. Comment:Line 247: please, provide more information about statistical significance as  p-values, and confidence intervals would strengthen robustness of your  findings.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We are very sorry for the missing annotation of the p-value. In the revised manuscript, on the one hand, we have made unified annotations in the Figure 2; On the other hand, relevant descriptions have also been added to the manuscript in Line 254.

9. Comment:Figure 2: Drastically simplify Figs 2, the complex web of lines and small text makes it impossible to decipher the specific values...., pathways being described in the text. It does not effectively serve its purpose as a visual aid.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explanation of the path in Fugure 2 to present it more clearly. 

10. Comment:Figure 3: Please ensure the final version has clear, axis-labeled graphs showing which two factors are being plotted while the third is held constant.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explanation for Figure 3. 

11. Comment:Line 332: A significant strength of this study is its multi-factor orthogonal design, yet the discussion barely mentions the three straw return factors ;amount, length, depth,. were the core of experiment. The results section 3.2 and Figure 3 show these factors significantly impact the ecological response, but the discussion fails to synthesize these findings into practical, actionable insights for farmers or agronomists.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript of Line 346-Line 350, we have added a description of the coding values for straw returning factors to enhance the practicality and operability of the results. 

12. Comment:Line 459: What limitations do you believe may have influenced in your results, and how might these be addressed in future research?.... please make section interested in Limitations and future research. 

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added ideas for future research in Lines 479 to 482. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors address the issue of returning straw to the field, i.e. its use for fertilisation purposes. In my opinion, this topic has been very well and thoroughly described in the global literature for a long time, which the authors of the paper do not cite. For example, as early as 1931, Waksman and Gerretsen stated that the decomposition of straw at a temperature of 37°C proceeded twice as fast as at 7°C (Waksman S.A., Gerretsen F.C.: Ecology, 12, 33–60, 1931).

 

 

 

According to Schröder, temperature is particularly important in the initial stage of decomposition. At that time, even small temperature differences cause significant changes in the rate of the process (Schröder D.: Z. Acker-u. Pflan., 141, 240–248, 1975).

A third example: the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio in straw is 55–100:1, while decomposition without inhibition can occur in material where the C/N ratio is 20–30:1. The paper lacks such information in the characterization of the research material.

Moreover, the bag method provides an opportunity to obtain direct information on the dynamics of straw decomposition, but on the other hand, it isolates the straw from soil mesofauna and does not sufficiently isolate it from the mineral soil material. In the first case, this slows down the decomposition process, and in the second, it makes it extremely difficult to determine the mass of the residue.

It is also known that under field conditions, the factors inhibiting decomposition are primarily temperature and moisture. Optimal straw decomposition occurs at soil moisture of 60–70% and a temperature of at least 15°C.

It is also known that cereal and maize straw intended for fertilization should be well chopped (the shorter the pieces, the better it decomposes in the soil), as microbiological and chemical transformations then occur faster.

It is assumed that 80% of the organic matter in straw decomposes in the soil only after 180 days from the time of plowing it in. Under experimental conditions, this was 105 days.

It has also been proven that when using straw for fertilization purposes, it is necessary to prevent nitrogen immobilization in the soil and apply appropriate adjustments in fertilization.

2. The paper is dedicated: it is intended for the Haplic Phaeozem Region, a region with a very specific climate. Scientific knowledge should be universal.

3. I believe that the pursuit of creating a model of straw decomposition in soil has overshadowed the substantive essence of the analyzed problem.

4. Considering the above, I believe that the paper should not be published in the journal Agriculture; it could be published in a journal of national significance.

Author Response

1. Comment: The authors address the issue of returning straw to the field, i.e. its use for fertilisation purposes. In my opinion, this topic has been very well and thoroughly described in the global literature for a long time, which the authors of the paper do not cite. For example, as early as 1931, Waksman and Gerretsen stated that the decomposition of straw at a temperature of 37°C proceeded twice as fast as at 7°C (Waksman S.A., Gerretsen F.C.: Ecology, 12, 33–60, 1931).

According to Schröder, temperature is particularly important in the initial stage of decomposition. At that time, even small temperature differences cause significant changes in the rate of the process (Schröder D.: Z. Acker-u. Pflan., 141, 240–248, 1975).

A third example: the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio in straw is 55–100:1, while decomposition without inhibition can occur in material where the C/N ratio is 20–30:1. The paper lacks such information in the characterization of the research material.

Moreover, the bag method provides an opportunity to obtain direct information on the dynamics of straw decomposition, but on the other hand, it isolates the straw from soil mesofauna and does not sufficiently isolate it from the mineral soil material. In the first case, this slows down the decomposition process, and in the second, it makes it extremely difficult to determine the mass of the residue.

It is also known that under field conditions, the factors inhibiting decomposition are primarily temperature and moisture. Optimal straw decomposition occurs at soil moisture of 60–70% and a temperature of at least 15°C.

It is also known that cereal and maize straw intended for fertilization should be well chopped (the shorter the pieces, the better it decomposes in the soil), as microbiological and chemical transformations then occur faster.

It is assumed that 80% of the organic matter in straw decomposes in the soil only after 180 days from the time of plowing it in. Under experimental conditions, this was 105 days.

It has also been proven that when using straw for fertilization purposes, it is necessary to prevent nitrogen immobilization in the soil and apply appropriate adjustments in fertilization.

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. Firstly, regarding the references provided by the reviewing expert, we acknowledge that it is indeed a study describing straw decomposition, but due to its long publication time, it is no longer applicable to the current research topic. Especially the research background of this manuscript is the simulation of modern large-scale agricultural machinery operations. Rather than the influencing factors of straw decomposition, such as temperature, carbon nitrogen ratio, humidity, and bag method.

Secondly, in the context of large-scale agricultural machinery operations, the shorter the straw fragments, the higher the energy consumption, which does not meet current requirements.

Thirdly, the research area of this manuscript is located in the cold Haplic Phaeozem region. Although this area is a major grain producing region, due to its low temperature, the effective decomposition time of straw is only about 100 days. This is also a requirement for the duration of experimental design. We must find the best solution for straw decomposition suitable for major grain producing areas within a limited time frame under the background of large-scale agricultural machinery operations.

Fourthly, regarding the "fertilization purposes" proposed by the reviewing expert, in this study, we not only found the need to supplement nitrogen, but also the need to supplement potassium, which was rarely addressed in previous research.

2. Comment: The paper is dedicated: it is intended for the Haplic Phaeozem Region, a region with a very specific climate. Scientific knowledge should be universal.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The cold Haplic Phaeozem region is a major global food producing area, especially for corn. It plays an important role in ensuring national food security. Science should indeed be universal, but it should also serve the survival of humanity. The cold Haplic Phaeozem area has left a large amount of corn stalks due to year-round grain cultivation, which cannot be truly returned to the ecosystem, resulting in serious agricultural waste pollution and greatly affecting human food security. Therefore, it is urgent to conduct relevant research.

3. Comment: I believe that the pursuit of creating a model of straw decomposition in soil has overshadowed the substantive essence of the analyzed problem.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Firstly, our research background is to simulate modern large-scale agricultural machinery operations and analyze the changes in soil physicochemical properties, microbial communities, and enzyme activity systems during straw decomposition. If mathematical modeling is not used in this process, 22 soil indicators need to be analyzed one by one, which takes up a lot of time and brings about inaccuracy in the results. Secondly, another research focus of this manuscript is to explore the comprehensive impact of straw returning factors on ecosystems. This requires us to synthesize 22 soil indicators into a comprehensive indicator, which must be modeled mathematically. The most important thing is that for experimental designs with multiple factors and levels, it is necessary to construct appropriate models and find the relationships and key points when analyzing the results. This is precisely the urgent problem that needs to be addressed in this study, and it is also the key research content of the manuscript.

4. Comment: Considering the above, I believe that the paper should not be published in the journal Agriculture; it could be published in a journal of national significance.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I deeply regret your opinion. Perhaps the reviewing expert did not fully understand the important role of the Haplic Phaeozem region in agriculture, or our manuscript did not inform the expert about the background of current large-scale agricultural machinery operations; It is also possible that experts do not understand the advantages of multi factor and multi-level experimental design, or the good objectivity and rigorous scientificity that mathematical modeling can bring in data analysis. And these are precisely the innovations that distinguish our manuscript from published articles.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is devoted to solving the urgent scientific and practical problem of improving the efficiency of agricultural practices through the development and study of bioregulatory mechanisms of straw incorporation in Haplic Phaeozem region. The strengths of this article are its practical focus and the conduct of theoretical and experimental research using real data and relevant methods. However, there are certain comments on the article that the authors are advised to consider and correct:

1. It is recommended to begin the abstract with a statement of the scientific problem that is to be addressed in the article.
2. In the introduction section, it is necessary to analyse and summarise in more detail the bioregulatory mechanisms themselves, formulating unresolved problems, specifically those of a scientific and research nature, which will allow readers to objectively assess the current state of the subject area under study.
3. In subsection 2.1, information should be provided on the time period for collecting test samples. The authors mention spring 2019. However, it is necessary to justify why spring was chosen and whether this is sufficient for the completeness of the experiment.
4. Substantiation for choosing an orthogonal experimental design must be provided. Why an orthogonal design?
5. In the research, the authors chose an experimental plot size of 15 x 1 m. However, they do not provide substantiation for its compliance with real growing conditions. Therefore, it is recommended to provide substantiation for this choice.
6. On page 5, the authors refer to Table S1. However, there is no such table in the article. The same applies to Table S2, which the authors refer to in the Discussions section. The article contains Tables 1 and 2. Such designations may lead readers to ambiguous interpretations of the results.
7. The text and numerical labels in Figures 2 and 3 are illegible. These figures need to be scaled up.
8. In section 3, the authors provide a significant number of statistical estimates, but it would be useful to provide information summarising them, for example, in the form of diagrams or tables ranking influential factors.
9. A significant part of the analysis of known literary sources, as well as the discussion of the results obtained, is based on a critical analysis of local scientific research. It is recommended to take into account the results of research obtained by authors from other agroclimatic regions and countries of the world.
10. In the conclusions section, it is recommended to describe in more detail the scientific novelty and practical value of the research results obtained in the article.

Author Response

1. Comment:The reviewed article is devoted to solving the urgent scientific and practical problem of improving the efficiency of agricultural practices through the development and study of bioregulatory mechanisms of straw incorporation in Haplic Phaeozem region. The strengths of this article are its practical focus and the conduct of theoretical and experimental research using real data and relevant methods. However, there are certain comments on the article that the authors are advised to consider and correct: 

Response: Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. And thanks for your valuable advices. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated. In the revised manuscript, we have revised them one by one.

2. Comment:It is recommended to begin the abstract with a statement of the scientific problem that is to be addressed in the article.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added a description of the scientific problem in the abstract. 

3. Comment:In the introduction section, it is necessary to analyse and summarise in more detail the bioregulatory mechanisms themselves, formulating unresolved problems, specifically those of a scientific and research nature, which will allow readers to objectively assess the current state of the subject area under study.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the introduction section of the revised manuscript, we have refined the description of water regulation ability of soil (Line 47-48); Revised the description of existing reference (Line 49-50); Added elaboration on scientific issues (Line 66-77). 

4. Comment:In subsection 2.1, information should be provided on the time period for collecting test samples. The authors mention spring 2019. However, it is necessary to justify why spring was chosen and whether this is sufficient for the completeness of the experiment.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We are very sorry for the inappropriate description in the previous version. In the revised manuscript, we have correctly presented the time of the study (Line 85). And the description of the time period for collecting test samples is presented in Line 107- Line 110 of the revised manuscript

5. Comment:Substantiation for choosing an orthogonal experimental design must be provided. Why an orthogonal design?

Response: Thank you for your comments. For multi-factor and multi-level research, orthogonal experimental design can screen experimental points through orthogonality and comprehensively reflect the relationship between factors and indicators, with much higher stability than simple comparison method. 

6. Comment:In the research, the authors chose an experimental plot size of 15 x 1 m. However, they do not provide substantiation for its compliance with real growing conditions. Therefore, it is recommended to provide substantiation for this choice.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added supporting reference for the selection of experimental plot size.

7. Comment:On page 5, the authors refer to Table S1. However, there is no such table in the article. The same applies to Table S2, which the authors refer to in the Discussions section. The article contains Tables 1 and 2. Such designations may lead readers to ambiguous interpretations of the results.

Response: Thank you for your comments. And thank you very much for pointing out our shortcomings. In Line 161-162 of the revised manuscript, we have added a description of the location of Table S1; Similarly, in Line 321, a description has been added regarding the location of Table S2.

8. Comment:The text and numerical labels in Figures 2 and 3 are illegible. These figures need to be scaled up.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced Figures 2 and 3 to enhance their clarity. 

9. Comment:In section 3, the authors provide a significant number of statistical estimates, but it would be useful to provide information summarising them, for example, in the form of diagrams or tables ranking influential factors.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the previous version of the manuscript, we did not clearly indicate the extent of the influencing factors, but only presented the numerical values in Table 2 as F values. This is our negligence, we have realized this deficiency. In the revised manuscript, we have added relevant descriptions in the Results section. 

10. Comment:A significant part of the analysis of known literary sources, as well as the discussion of the results obtained, is based on a critical analysis of local scientific research. It is recommended to take into account the results of research obtained by authors from other agroclimatic regions and countries of the world.

Response: Thank you for your comments. And thank you for your reminder. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the references. Meanwhile, the reference with strong limitations has been replaced.

11. Comment:In the conclusions section, it is recommended to describe in more detail the scientific novelty and practical value of the research results obtained in the article.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added relevant descriptions in Line 496 to Line 497 of the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions have addressed the previous comments effectively. Your paper is well-presented, and the improvements made significantly enhance the clarity  of your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

My comments provided in the initial review of your manuscript remain valid. The revised version still does not demonstrate sufficient respect for the body of knowledge accumulated by researchers who have long studied straw incorporation into soil. The findings presented in your article largely confirm earlier research results. While you have added citations to several previous works, this does not constitute a thorough and critical review of the existing literature.

A proper scientific approach requires first identifying the gap in current knowledge, formulating a research problem based on that gap, and then proposing a hypothesis as a potential solution. Subsequent steps should include clearly defined objectives and scope of the study, along with specific research tasks whose results serve to verify the hypothesis.

It is entirely unjustified to claim that the research was conducted under operational conditions of modern, high-capacity agricultural machinery. The manuscript does not account for any operational factors, nor does it specify the types of machines used.

It is well understood that incorrect assumptions lead to flawed results. In my initial review, I listed key factors influencing the distribution and decomposition of straw in the soil. I have not seen any reference to these in the revised manuscript.

The conclusions section remains particularly weak. Nevertheless, your development of a model describing the distribution of maize straw in the soil represents a meaningful contribution to scientific knowledge. Therefore, I am ultimately inclined to recommend the article for publication, provided that the above concerns are adequately addressed.

Author Response

1. Comment: My comments provided in the initial review of your manuscript remain valid. The revised version still does not demonstrate sufficient respect for the body of knowledge accumulated by researchers who have long studied straw incorporation into soil. The findings presented in your article largely confirm earlier research results. While you have added citations to several previous works, this does not constitute a thorough and critical review of the existing literature.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Firstly, regarding the references you recommended, we noticed that although those studies focus on straw decomposition, their earlier publication dates mean that their background and data may not fully align with the needs of the current research. Therefore, based on the key points you raised, we have supplemented recent literature related to straw decomposition that aligns with our research direction in lines 64-66 of the revised manuscript, in order to enhance the timeliness and relevance of the content.

2. Comment: A proper scientific approach requires first identifying the gap in current knowledge, formulating a research problem based on that gap, and then proposing a hypothesis as a potential solution. Subsequent steps should include clearly defined objectives and scope of the study, along with specific research tasks whose results serve to verify the hypothesis.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The logical framework you organized—"identify research gaps, raise research questions, formulate hypotheses, define objectives, and develop tasks"—serves as an excellent reference for the standardized conduct of academic research, and has also given us new insights into the presentation logic of our own research framework.

When initially designing our research framework, given that this study is an application-oriented study based on a specific production scenario, we adopted a "scenario-oriented, problem-focused" presentation sequence in the writing process: Thus, we first focused on the practically observed soil ecological issues in this scenario; in response to these gaps and the practical needs of cold-region black soil conservation, we proposed the research objectives; and we designed a three-factor orthogonal experiment along with three scientific questions to be addressed. Notably, the design of these scientific questions itself implicitly incorporates the underlying hypothesis that "the interaction of the three factors can more comprehensively reveal soil ecological responses."

We recognize that its presentation sequence differs from that of classical theoretical studies; however, the core still revolves around the logic of "identifying gaps, addressing questions, and designing verification pathways," and the internal logic across all components remains coherent.

3. Comment: It is entirely unjustified to claim that the research was conducted under operational conditions of modern, high-capacity agricultural machinery. The manuscript does not account for any operational factors, nor does it specify the types of machines used.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. After fully considering your suggestions, we realized that the manuscript lacked an introduction to the background of modern large-scale agricultural machinery operations. Therefore, we have made revisions according to your suggestions in lines 54-63 of the returned manuscript, adding a detailed explanation of the production practice background of straw returning under modern large-scale agricultural machinery operations, and emphasizing its importance in current agricultural production.

4. Comment: It is well understood that incorrect assumptions lead to flawed results. In my initial review, I listed key factors influencing the distribution and decomposition of straw in the soil. I have not seen any reference to these in the revised manuscript.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion regarding the key factors affecting the decomposition of straw returned to the soil, we have made revisions in lines 64-66 of the returned manuscript.

5. Comment: The conclusions section remains particularly weak. Nevertheless, your development of a model describing the distribution of maize straw in the soil represents a meaningful contribution to scientific knowledge.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Based on your suggestions regarding the revisions needed in the conclusion, we have further refined the conclusion of the manuscript in lines 496-513.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript.