Shifts in Soil Bacterial Communities under Three-Year Fertilization Management and Multiple Cropping Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I went through the manuscript entitled"Shifts in Soil Bacterial Communities under Three-Year Organic-Inorganic Fertilization Management and Multiple Cropping Systems". I am of the opinion that this manuscript needs to some major revisions before accepting, such as:

The introduction needs to be rewritten. Its initial sentences should be deleted. The purpose of the research and its novelty should be clearly stated. The chemical analysis of the fertilizers used was not in the article. Given that the basic properties are very important, they should be mentioned. In Table 2, the application values ​​of some organic fertilizers are not stated. The exact date of cultivation should be mentioned. What is the meaning of yield exactly? Simultaneous display of properties with different units (t ha-1, g, number) on the same figure with the same y-axis is not suitable. It is better to separate the figures into three categories of characteristics and compare one characteristic in each figure but in the three years under study.

Using specialized terms, for example, properties instead of features....

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful review of the manuscript. You raise important issues and your inputs are very helpful for improving the manuscript. In the attached file, we respond in detail to each of your comments. We hope that you will find our responses to your comments satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS “Shifts in Soil Bacterial Communities under Three-Year Organic-Inorganic Fertilization Management and Multiple Cropping Systems” is addressing effects of organic and inorganic fertilization on soil health. Soil is most important entity in agriculture. Beneficial soil microbes perform fundamental functions such as nutrient cycling, breaking down crop residues, and stimulating plant growth. While the role of microbes to maintain soil health and contribute to crop performance is clear which ensure cropping system productivity and food security.  The MS is interesting for the readers in specific field and global readers in general. Here are some comments the improving the readability of the MS:

·       Title

1.     Title is quite long, it may be shortened

·       Abstract

2.     In abstract, please indicate the crops of the cropping system and sequence of cropping to create clarity for the readers.

3.     GMV and GMB microbial community buildup is compared with inorganic fertilization (control), were MF and GMW part of comparison or only earlier two were compared with that of control?

4.     Page 1, line # 24-25 “ MF can also be used alternatively to increase soil N and organic C, improve bacterial diversity and preserve the heterogeneity of bacterial communities” why a separate statement about MF is given???

5.     Authors used word “can be” in your concluding remarks, I would prefer to conclude that “the data indicated an increase in soil N and organic C levels and higher plant production by replacing IF with GMV and GMB” something like that.

·       Introduction  

6.     Introduction is looking fine to me.

M&M

7.     Page 2, Line # 76, Table 1. Soil physicochemical characteristics. The samples were taken before setting the experiment or after three years? Please indicate it

8.     Page 3, line # 83, Table 2. Different fertilization management during three years of cultivation. Did author measured the biomass quantity of GMV, GMB, GMW? Please indicate because green manuring crops biomass capability ensures the nutrients add up in the soil, which enhanced soil fertility and crop production.   

 Please correct the rest of MS in light of above comments

Good Luck!   

Minor editing is required to improve the quality

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful review of the manuscript. You raise important issues and your inputs help improve the manuscript. In the attached file, we respond in detail to each of your comments. We hope that you will find our responses to your comments satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction

These two sentences should be removed – are not necessary (line 30-31): “The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance.”

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental setup

In table 1 the content of nitrogen calcium and phosphorus is provided – what are the units exactly:  g kg⁻¹ fresh matter or g kg⁻¹ dry matter?

Properties of organic fertilizers are not provided (e.g. content of nutrients) as they can be of different quality. At least a link to such characteristic should be added. Furthermore on what basis were the fertilizers doses applied? Why nitrogen was added in the first and second year of experiment at the dose of 75 kg ha^-1 in plots with organic fertilization – what form of nitrogen was applied? What was the dose of natural fertilizers? Different crops have different requirement to nutrients. In experiment it was not taken into account.

The harvest time is not clear. Were the fruits harvested once or for prolonged time? “The growing sea-88 son for the crops from transplanting to harvest was 89, 96, and 140 days…” it means the last picking of fruits or termination of crop cultivation?

Results

3.1.

It will be interesting to analyse how the content of nitrogen has changed since the start of experiment due to the different fertilization? Was there a decrease in nitrogen content observed in case of control?

Discussion

Explain why bacterial diversity (accordingly to Pielou’s evenness and Simpson_e indices) was low in case of GMW: Green 196 manure wheat?

Why the shift in bacterial community biodiversity observed in the experiment is beneficial for soil environment, crops? It should be better explained in discussion.

Inorganic fertilization was applied in all fertilization management as 75 kg extra dose in first and second year. This aspect should be discussed.

There is a lack of discussion concerning nitrogen dose and organic fertilizer dose of green manure.

The increase in fruit yield due to application of organic fertilizers should be discussed mainly in relation to inorganic fertilization.

Conclusions

“Therefore, by replacing  inorganic mineral fertilization with vetch and field bean green manures in the same field  and semiarid climatic conditions, the soil ecosystem can be preserved, showing significantly greater soil N and organic C levels and higher plant production..” Is this statement true, as the inorganic fertilization was applied in all fertilization management?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful review of the manuscript. You raise important issues and your inputs are very helpful for improving the manuscript. In the attached file, we respond in detail to each of your comments. We hope that you will find our responses to your comments satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic addressed by the researchers represents an important aspect of the use of green manures as fertilisers enriching soils with important nutrients as an alternative to the use of mineral fertilisers. The work is well written, the methodologies used are appropriate for this type of research and allow valuable conclusions to be obtained. Of the most important, the significance of the presented study should be more emphasised and it should be indicated whether it has been previously discussed to some extent by other researchers. The article only needs a few minor corrections to improve the quality. Other detailed comments are given below:

1. Introduction: Please specify the originality of the topic undertaken in comparison to existing publications

2. Results: please use the columns distance for means in figures because the data relates to different variants of the experiment.

3. Conclusion: Please indicate the future perspectives of the presented research and what issues related to the topic are still unresolved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful review of the manuscript. You raise important issues and your inputs are very helpful for improving the manuscript. In the attached file, we respond in detail to each of your comments. We hope that you will find our responses to your comments satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulation