The Effects of the Long-Term Application of Different Nitrogen Fertilizers on Brown Earth Fertility Indices and Fungal Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled as The Effects of Long-term Application of Different Nitrogen 2 Fertilizers on Brown Earth Fertility Indices and Fungal Com- munities, mainly focused on the  relationship between the composition of soil fungi communities,fertility index,and the structure of soil fungal communities under varying  nitrogen fertilizer conditions, using long-term positioning test on brown earth.

Line 23-24 of abstract you mentioned about pathogen, have you studied any? if not then remove the sentence and focus on your work only.

Line 25 -29: rephrase. write in past tense.

all ascomycota? please be more meaningful in your expression.

Introduction section covers most part of the study. It can be improved by adding novelty statement and explaining study objectives in more precise manner.

Methodology is nicely explained but not properly referenced, I will suggest the authors to add relevant references to each section or justify they have developed these methods by themselves.

Treatment and number of replicates used for analysis is missing.

Results are very well compiled but language errors need consideration, figure quality should ne improved to make them readable.

I prefer discussion without headings. Authors done critical analysis of their work which is quite good.

While conclusion section requires total revision, Authors should not discuss what they did and what they get, infact they should summarize their salient findings with a strong take home message. What would be the future propects of the study, provide details as well.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language editing required from a professional

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

We are very grateful to you for accepting for publication our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled.

We have studied editor’s comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The followings are the responses and revisions to the editor’s questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Please check all the specific changes in the file of manuscript. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer.

 

1. Line 23-24 of abstract you mentioned about pathogen, have you studied any? if not then remove the sentence and focus on your work only.

Response: Accepted your suggestion and deleted this sentence.

2. Line 25 -29: rephrase. write in past tense.

Response: Revised.

3. all ascomycota? please be more meaningful in your expression.

Response: Revised.

4. Introduction section covers most part of the study. It can be improved by adding novelty statement and explaining study objectives in more precise manner.

Response: The introduction section has been modified to explain more precisely the study objectives. Line71-79 explain my research objectives more precisely.

5. Methodology is nicely explained but not properly referenced, I will suggest the authors to add relevant references to each section or justify they have developed these methods by themselves.

Response: Added references.

6. Treatment and number of replicates used for analysis is missing.

Response: Added the information about multiple processing in line 148-152.

7. Results are very well compiled but language errors need consideration, figure quality should ne improved to make them readable.

Response: Revised the language expression and improved figure quality.

8. I prefer discussion without headings. Authors done critical analysis of their work which is quite good.

Response: Thanks for the good comments. after authors’ discussion, we think the title with heading will make the article structure more clearly. So, we hope this could be retained.

9. While conclusion section requires total revision, Authors should not discuss what they did and what they get, infact they should summarize their salient findings with a strong take home message. What would be the future propects of the study, provide details as well.

Response: Thanks for the comments. The conclusion section has been comprehensively modified to summarize the significant findings and present the research prospects.

10. Comments on the Quality of English Language English language editing required from a professional

Response: Revised and improved English expression.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments

Manuscript ID: soilsystems-3199839-peer-review-v1

The manuscript entitled ''The Effects of Long-term Application of Different Nitrogen Fertilizers on Brown Earth Fertility Indices and Fungal Communities'', submitted to soilsystems MDPI Journal.

The authors have done a remarkable job and overall the manuscript is well written and presents new scientific knowledge to the scientific world. Before acceptance of this manuscript to the journal, I recommend minor suggestions:

· Authors affiliation numbering are not corrected. Why authors have stated affiliation from 2 ?.  Please correct it carefully.

· Abstract of manuscript is very poor written, make not in clear reading. Please revise it carefully and remove typo errors.

· Authors should add total 5 key words.

· Add a GIS map location in Materials and Methods section.

· Results are clearly represented. But, Fig 1 and 4 DPI should be >300.

· Discussion section need to be updated with few latest references based on mechanism point of view according to your results.

· Interpretations and conclusions are sound, justified by the data and consistent with objectives.

· I recommend acceptance after these changes to the journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

We are very grateful to you for accepting for publication our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled.

We have studied editor’s comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The followings are the responses and revisions to the editor’s questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Please check all the specific changes in the file of manuscript. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer.

 

1. Authors affiliation numbering are not corrected. Why authors have stated affiliation from to ?.  Please correct it carefully.

Response: After discussion, the corresponding author wanted to get the first affiliation, and remaining the first position for the current first author.

2. Abstract of manuscript is very poor written, make not in clear reading. Please revise it carefully and remove typo errors.

Response: Revised.

3. Authors should add total 5 key words.

Response: Revised.

4. Add a GIS map location in Materials and Methods section.

Response: Revised.

5. Results are clearly represented. But, Fig 1 and 4 DPI should be >300.

Response: Revised.

6. Discussion section need to be updated with few latest references based on mechanism point of view according to your results.

Response: Revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The suggestions for your research article are listed below.

1. General comment

1.1 Many typo errors, such as spacing and capital letter errors, were detected. Recheck the manuscript.

2. Introduction

2.1 Soil fungi were the key point of your study. Please explain soil fungi in more detail on page 2 of your manuscript.  

3. Material and Methods

3.1 Page 3, Section 2.1 Overview of the test site: Please explain in more detail the importance of the study site. What is the site value? Why did you study on this site?

3.2 Page 4, Section 2.3.3 Determination of soil fungal diversity. Please give the full name of some abbreviations such as E.Z.N. and A.A.

3.3 Page 4. Section 2.4 Data processing: All statistical software needs references.

 4. Results and Analysis

4.1 It is my primary concern about your manuscript. I suggest you rewrite this section. The practical results should follow the methods. It should start with the soil's physical properties and end with data analyses.

4.2 All figures should be maximized, especially Figures 2, 4, and 5.

4.3 All “p” of the word p-value should be italicized. Recheck the manuscript.

4.4 All scientific names (only genus and species levels) should be italicized. Recheck the manuscript.

5. References

5.1 Some references need to be updated. They had more than ten years of publications.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

We are very grateful to you for accepting for publication our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled.

We have studied editor’s comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The followings are the responses and revisions to the editor’s questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Please check all the specific changes in the file of manuscript. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer.

 

1. Many typo errors, such as spacing and capital letter errors, were detected. Recheck the manuscript.

Response: Corrected them.

2. Soil fungi were the key point of your study. Please explain soil fungi in more detail on page 2 of your manuscript.

Response: Added the introduction to soil fungi in line 52-58.

3. Page 3, Section 2.1 Overview of the test site: Please explain in more detail the importance of the study site. What is the site value? Why did you study on this site?

Response: I have covered my experimental site in more detail in the 2.1Study site section.

4. Page 4, Section 2.3.3 Determination of soil fungal diversity. Please give the full name of some abbreviations such as E.Z.N. and A.A.3.2

Response: Revised them.

5. Page 4. Section 2.4 Data processing: All statistical software needs references.

Response: Software references have been supplemented.

6. It is my primary concern about your manuscript. I suggest you rewrite this section. The practical results should follow the methods. It should start with the soil's physical properties and end with data analyses.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We rewrited this section.

7. All figures should be maximized, especially Figures 2, 4, and 5.4.2

Response: Revised them.

8. All “p” of the word p-value should be italicized. Recheck the manuscript.

Response: Corrected them.

9. All scientific names (only genus and species levels) should be italicized. Recheck the manuscript.

Response: Corrected them.

10. Some references need to be updated. They had more than ten years of publications.5.1

Response: Revised them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

1. Dear Authors,

   After I reviewed this revised manuscript, I found it to be better than the previous version. All questions were answered. I am satisfied with the revised manuscript. However, some minor errors need to be corrected. Please correct your manuscript carefully.

   1. Figures 3, 5, and 6 should be maximized.

   Sincerely yours.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

We are very grateful to you for accepting for publication our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled.

We have studied editor’s comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The followings are the responses and revisions to the editor’s questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Please check all the specific changes in the file of manuscript. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer.

   I have revised the pictures 3,5, and 6. I Improved the clarity of the picture and maximized the picture whenever possible. And attached the HD pictures in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf