Organic C Fractions in Topsoil under Different Management Systems in Northeastern Brazil
, Henrique Antunes de Souza 2, Edvaldo Sagrilo 2, Ademir Sergio Ferreira Araujo 3,*, Lucas William Mendes 4, Erika Valente de Medeiros 5, Arthur Prudêncio de Araujo Pereira 6, Diogo Paes da Costa 5, Renato Falconeres Vogado 7, João Rodrigues da Cunha 8, Marcos Lopes Teixeira 2 and Luiz Fernando Carvalho Leite 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Comments for Soil Systems manuscript soilsystems-2125720, entitled "Organic C fractions in topsoil under different management systems in Northeastern Brazil".
This manuscript reports on the effects of the conversion from native forest to different land-use systems on soil organic carbon fractions in Northeastern Brazil. This manuscript is generally well structured and presented, although it contains a large number of grammatical errors and poor wording that decrease from its overall quality. I would recommend publication after further editing to improve its readability and grammatical correctness. Further minor points are noted below.
(i) Please add a statement of implications/ramifications of results to the endings of the Abstract and Conclusion sections. What do the results mean in a larger context?
(ii) The linkage to the proposed hypotheses in the Discussion section must be strongly improved.
(iii) Line 257–258 The article [37] you used in this study may be insufficient to support this view. There was a global-scale synthetic study on the effects of no-tillage on soil aggregation and aggregate-associated organic carbon (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ ldr.4109). I suggest you to cite this paper to further support the view that the SOM turnover occurs through the action of microbial-enzyme accessibility to the substrate, and the physical protection of soil C in aggregates plays an important role in controlling this process.
(iv) All figures in this study are not clear enough, please improve the resolution of each figure to at least 600 ppi.
(v) Please note the citation format in the References section and make revisions according to other papers in this journal Soil Systems.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer
Reviewer 1
This manuscript reports on the effects of the conversion from native forest to different land-use systems on soil organic carbon fractions in Northeastern Brazil. This manuscript is generally well structured and presented, although it contains a large number of grammatical errors and poor wording that decrease from its overall quality. I would recommend publication after further editing to improve its readability and grammatical correctness. Further minor points are noted below.
Response: We thank your comments. The English was revised by a native speaker
(i) Please add a statement of implications/ramifications of results to the endings of the Abstract and Conclusion sections. What do the results mean in a larger context?
Response: done
(ii) The linkage to the proposed hypotheses in the Discussion section must be strongly improved.
Response: done
(iii) Line 257–258 The article [37] you used in this study may be insufficient to support this view. There was a global-scale synthetic study on the effects of no-tillage on soil aggregation and aggregate-associated organic carbon (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ ldr.4109). I suggest you to cite this paper to further support the view that the SOM turnover occurs through the action of microbial-enzyme accessibility to the substrate, and the physical protection of soil C in aggregates plays an important role in controlling this process.
Response: done
(iv) All figures in this study are not clear enough, please improve the resolution of each figure to at least 600 ppi.
Response: Figure were improved
(v) Please note the citation format in the References section and make revisions according to other papers in this journal Soil Systems.
Response: done
Reviewer 2 Report
Topic of the article is very interesting and current. Different kind of carbon contents of the different soils are important. I think the results are specious, but your interpretations are not enough. E.g. the standard deviation of some results are to big, however, the number of measured samples are only 5. I think you have to explain this. If the standard deviation will be less, the results of ANOVA analyses also be different. And the discussion also would change.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer
Reviewer 2
Topic of the article is very interesting and current. Different kind of carbon contents of the different soils are important. I think the results are specious, but your interpretations are not enough. E.g. the standard deviation of some results are to big, however, the number of measured samples are only 5. I think you have to explain this. If the standard deviation will be less, the results of ANOVA analyses also be different. And the discussion also would change.
Response: thank you for the comments. The standard deviation was explained
In addition, we corrected the paper according the comments inside the attached file
Attached file
Is it in w/w% or in v/v%?
It means percentage of increasing and does not reflect units.
Furthermore, a map may help the geographical situation of the area
Response:
please write the valency
Response: we do not use valency to describe available P.
Sometimes the standard deviation is very high, e.g. TOC of native forest. Please explain it and during the discussion and conclusions calculate with this one. Because, if we dispens with the high standard deciation, the TOC will be significantly different in native forest than NT12 and PAS
Response: done
according to your results, it is not true. The significance analyses also sign a difference
Response: It is true (see letter a is similar to ab)
Reviewer 3 Report
I have carefully read the whole article which is titled "Organic C fractions in topsoil under different management systems in Northeastern Brazil". I showed my suggestions on the draft manuscript, and the authors could pay attention to them.
Abstract
Some grammatical misusages have been detected in this part. This part will be good after revision. And the author needs the show reader what is the best bullet point and conclusion in the last sentence.
Introduction
In this part, there are grammatical deficiencies, too. These deficiencies need to be corrected. I have added some major and minor corrections to the PDF file. Some important sentences need to be cited.
Material and Method
Site descriptions are very well but I would like to see sampling points and study sites on a map. The manuscript scientifically sounds good and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. But, some grammatical problems must be checked. And also, This section does not specify how many soil samples were taken in total.
Results
This section of the manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented well. The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. But there is also some grammatical issue that needs to be cleared.
Discussion
In this section, a better discussion can be made of those who benefit from the articles in the literature. And some grammatical deficiencies must be corrected.
Conclusion
The conclusions presented a lack of evidence and argument however, authors should indicate which Land use type is better in soil carbon fractions or which fractions. And what do you recommend to the reader?
The figures/tables/images/schemes are needed to be in higher resolution. Yet, they are properly showing the data.
I would like to reconsider after major revision in line with the recommendations here and the PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to reviewers
Reviewer 3
I have carefully read the whole article which is titled "Organic C fractions in topsoil under different management systems in Northeastern Brazil". I showed my suggestions on the draft manuscript, and the authors could pay attention to them.
Response: We thank your comments.
Abstract
Some grammatical misusages have been detected in this part. This part will be good after revision. And the author needs the show reader what is the best bullet point and conclusion in the last sentence.
Response: we have included a statement at the end of Abstract
Introduction
In this part, there are grammatical deficiencies, too. These deficiencies need to be corrected. I have added some major and minor corrections to the PDF file. Some important sentences need to be cited.
Response: it was corrected and references were included
Material and Method
Site descriptions are very well but I would like to see sampling points and study sites on a map. The manuscript scientifically sounds good and the experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis. But, some grammatical problems must be checked. And also, This section does not specify how many soil samples were taken in total.
Response: we explained the questions. A map was included
Results
This section of the manuscript is clear, relevant, and presented well. The manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section. But there is also some grammatical issue that needs to be cleared.
Response: English was corrected
Discussion
In this section, a better discussion can be made of those who benefit from the articles in the literature. And some grammatical deficiencies must be corrected.
Response: English was corrected
Conclusion
The conclusions presented a lack of evidence and argument however, authors should indicate which Land use type is better in soil carbon fractions or which fractions. And what do you recommend to the reader?
Response: we expanded the conlusion
The figures/tables/images/schemes are needed to be in higher resolution. Yet, they are properly showing the data.
Response: Figure were improved
I would like to reconsider after major revision in line with the recommendations here and the PDF file.
Response: Thank you
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor and Authors:
After careful revisions by the authors of the manuscript, I recommend that the article can be published in Soil systems. The editing of the manuscript in relation to my queries is fully satisfactory.
All the best.
Author Response
After careful revisions by the authors of the manuscript, I recommend that the article can be published in Soil systems. The editing of the manuscript in relation to my queries is fully satisfactory.
Response: Thank you for its comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your answers. I think the high standard deviation does not explain with "this is a field study". I think you can explain with e.g. the biodiversity, or the depth of the transect, may not only analised the top layer, etc...
Author Response
Thank you for your answers. I think the high standard deviation does not explain with "this is a field study". I think you can explain with e.g. the biodiversity, or the depth of the transect, may not only analised the top layer, etc...
Response: We have explained as “The results showed a high standard deviation and it probably occurred due to some variation along the transect [44], which contributed to increase the standard deviation. However, the statistical analysis was robust to show significant differences.”
- Lark, RM. Changes in the variance of a soil property along a transect, a comparison of a non-stationary linear mixed model and a wavelet transform. Geoderma, 2016, 266, 84-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.12.002.
Reviewer 3 Report
After the suggested changes were made, the article became more scientifically readable. Thanks. In this state, the article is acceptable.
Author Response
After the suggested changes were made, the article became more scientifically readable. Thanks. In this state, the article is acceptable.
Response: thank you for the comment.
