The Effect of Straw Management and Nitrogen Fertilisation on Soil Properties During 50 Years of Continuous Spring Barley Cropping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have attached a detailed document with comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough language revision is recommended to correct minor errors, particularly in style

Author Response

Thank you for your useful comments and suggestion. The answers to the questions are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract fails to supplement the scientific questions. The full text lacks logicality. The discussion lacks depth. The expression of materials and methods is inaccurate. It is not clear which data are analyzed and the depth of the analysis is insufficient. The long discussion in the introduction about the changes and mechanisms of aggregates and their unclear relationship to the article makes it impossible for readers to clearly obtain the value of the research. The scientific questions are not clearly stated, and the research area lacks positioning and coordinate information, resulting in incomplete description. The error bars in Figure 2 are all the same. There are problems. The discussion does not analyze the consistent conclusion. The conclusion lacks data.

Author Response

Manuscript has been revised. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The evaluated manuscript contains the results of a study on the effects of straw management and mineral nitrogen application on grain yield and soil aggregate stability, and the determination of mineralogical and geochemical properties determining soil aggregate stability in a multi-year monoculture of spring barley in the Czech Republic. The Authors found that the straw-applied variants had higher grain yields, which was to be expected. There was also an increase in soil aggregate stability with decreasing pH values. Surprisingly, the soil organic carbon content was similar in all experimental variants.

The biggest drawback of the evaluated manuscript is the lack of data on straw yields. Without this data, the manuscript cannot be published. I do not understand why ammonium sulphate was applied to straw, which is not used for this purpose in practice because it is too expensive a fertiliser and strongly acidifies the soil. Was this acidification the issue? What recommendations for agricultural practice arise from the research carried out? What should be the next research directions? The manuscript needs to be refined. Detailed comments below.

Comments

Materials and Methods

Please include a drawing with the location of the research site.

It is necessary to supplement this section of the manuscript with a full characterisation of the weather conditions during the experimental period. I have not found the Supplement 1 mentioned by the authors in the system that is supposed to contain these data.

What period does the data in Table 1 refer to?

Why was ammonium sulphate chosen as the nitrogen fertiliser?

What varieties of barley were sown in the following years? Please give a brief description of these.

What plant protection treatments were applied in the experiment?

Please provide the dates of each agrotechnical treatment in the following years (preferably in a table).

Results

The biggest drawback of the presented results is the lack of data on straw yields, the management of which was the first factor studied. Were they not studied?

Please give the increase in grain yield in % relative to the control, not just in t ha^-1.

Grain yield refers to grain with 14% moisture content? How was grain moisture determined? How was the yield converted afterwards?

Figures 3

Mean 2018-2021?

Figure 4 Soil pH (mean ± standard error) in spring 2018 and 2021 What about 2019 and 2020?

Table 4, 5

Which years? Description below the table.

Discussion

It is comprehensive and well conducted.

Conclusions

They are concise and well formulated.

References

Not a large number of publications, and much of it was published more than 10 years ago or even last century. Suggests deleting them unless they are essential to describe the research methodology.

Author Response

Thank you for useful comments and suggestions. The answers to the questions are in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given the quality of the work and its alignment with the journal's standards, I fully support its acceptance in its present form. Congratulations on this achievement, and I look forward to seeing its impact in the field

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and also thank for your valuable comments that contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Part of the description is inaccurate, such as whether the quantity or level of soil organic carbon has increasedin line 35? In line 37, soil crop yield? Are you sure?
2. The sentence missed the logic expression, such as line 39, what’s the relation for the two parts?
3. A lengthy description of the study on aggregates and their stability, and how it relates to straw and the main theme of the article, requires a logical relationship between the preceding and following.
4. The study area lacks descriptions of positioning and coordinates, so it is recommended to provide an overall positioning of the sample plots.
5. Line 121, it is recommended to provide a one-to-one correspondence between each abbreviation and its corresponding processing.
6. Line 191-192, why the data getted from the different years, what is the consistence for them?
7. Can the manuscript use the AI?
8. Line 236-237, there are some grammer mistake in the sentence.
9. Line 263, how to get the lowest one in both N treatments?
10. How to explain the phenomenon that the error lines are of the same sizein Figure 2 and 3? Suggest changing the data display method in the figure 4 and 5 to allow more readers to understand.
11. There should give more explanations for table 6 such as the abbreviations.
12. The revised conclusion still lacks data and cannot verify the scientific validity of the results.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and also thank for your valuable comments that contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript and also thank for your valuable comments that contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.