Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The manuscript improved considerably, most of the observations of the first revision were made. However, I consider that the manuscript could still be better, mainly in the discussion of the results.

The objective of the investigation, which is at the end of the introduction, is not yet clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Authors substantially improved the manuscript in the revised version. However, I suggest authors to edit the manuscript for English error.

 

Line 206-207 – Change “100 μL of the sample dilutions were used for plate coating, performed in 3 replicated for each treatment.” to “100 μL of the sample dilutions were used for plate coating, performed in triplicates for each treatment.

 

 

Need a thorough check for grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

the application of around 400 kg S/ha (1/1000) is very high and must be discussed.

no

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Improve the title, too long. Check if the word effect is the most indicated.

In the abstract you should improve the conclusion, it is not clear according to your work.

MDA does not appear before line 27 the meaning.

The phrase "(ARD)" is repeated on line 12 and 35, I suggest leaving it only on line 12.

I suggest improving the objective at the end of the introduction.

In line 84 place country.

I suggest making a clear table with the treatments.

Improve the title “Effect of Different Treatments on Biomass of Malus hupehensis Rehd. Seedlings”

I suggest eliminating the months, in each region they have different characteristics, therefore it is better not to place it and find another way to differentiate those findings.

Check line 244, table 1 does not say exactly that.

Improve discussion related to the differences between T1 and CK1 and CK2, it does not mention anything, a very important result, discuss the reason for these results.

Check if the word effect is the best for the titles of the results.

Review that expression "T4 treatment has a more significant effect".

The discussion from 392 to 415 is not the most important thing for your investigation.

The manuscript has very clear and interesting results, but the discussion needs to be improved.

The conclusion is the best of the manuscript, but it could be better if the writing of the conclusion improves, a very long sentence.

The conclusion can be better, if the wording of the conclusion improves, a very long sentence.

I suggest reviewing the connection between title, objective and conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the article entitled “Effects of crystal lime sulphur fumigation and application of root promoting agent on soil environment and plant growth of apple replanting”, Xia et.al investigated the effect of different soil treatment methods- fumigated soil, with and without the addition of crystal lime sulphur, nutritional elements, and indole acetic acid on the replant soil of apple. They measured several physicochemical parameters such as soil enzyme activities and root protective enzymes (SOD, POD, CAT). They also analyzed the microbial composition of the soil with different treatment methods. Their study concluded that the T4 treatment of soil (crystal lime sulphur, indole acetic acid and nutrient elements) was efficient in promoting the beneficial soil microbial community and hence can control the Apple replant disease (ARD).

 

Current study is valuable and might help further controlling the ARD. The study is focused and the manuscript is well structured. Sequencing and downstream analyses of microbial diversity part is missing in the manuscript.

 

Please consider following comments to improve the text

 

 

Line 41-42 –Remove “has” and change to “ the continuous cultivation of apple trees is inevitable, leading to apple replant disease becoming a common phenomenon [9,10].”

 

Line 111-112- Please rewrite the sentence- tense error. “After a week, sealed plastic bags containing fumigated soil was opened and dried before further treatments.”

 

Line 118 – Again grammatical error. Change to “the soil fumigated with crystal lime sulphur was fully mixed with different combinations…”

 

Line 121 – Grammatical error. Change “will be” to “was”

 

Line 135/142 – Italicize the scientific name.

 

Lines 205-218 – What kind of “High-throughput sequencing” was used in this study. Incorporate more details about sequencing.

 

Line 223 – What are the “results and analysis” mean here? I suppose it is “Results”.

 

Lines 225-227 – Remove the lines as it is clear that Table 1 shows the same information.

 

Lines 227-231 – Rewrite to “From Table 1 it is clear that the growth of biomass of Malus hupehensis Rehd. seedlings could be effectively promoted by the treatment of crystal lime sulphur (T1), crystal lime sulphur and indoleacetic acid (T2), crystal lime sulphur with nutritional elements (T3), crystal lime sulphur, indole acetic acid and nutrient elements (T4) in comparison to CK1 and CK2 treatments.

 

Line 253 – Remove “can” and change to“effectively improved soil enzyme activity”

 

Line 298 – Change to “soil is inhibited…”

Reviewer 3 Report

The ms has to be strongly imporved.

L 48 ff. All macro- and nicronutrients are required for plant growth, explain why some of them are especcially important here.

Also IAA is an essential plant hormone. What is the point here?

L 66 1g/kg od what?

L 67 Which pollutants, which optimization? Explain in detail!

Which harmful microorganisms? Explain in detail!

In which way available N, K, P are determined? Which nutritional elements were applied?

What are the reasons to monitor the chosen soil and plant parameters here?

Give a detailed overview in results and discussion.