Predicting Soil Carbon Sequestration and Harvestable C-Biomass of Rice and Wheat by DNDC Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, first of all, congratulate you for the work carried out in this article, being of interest in terms of the application and validation of the DNDC in real conditions, despite the fact that the document presented has remained concise and meaningless since you have a very robust design that later is not reflected in the body of the article. Why do you have so many fertilization combinations if they are not reflected in the result afterward? However, for the discussion if you mention them without having presented any results in the article.

More specific questions:

From my point of view, to explain the conditions of the experience, you should not refer to another article [Shaukat et al. [24].]. The normal thing would be for the authors to describe all this in this article and if you want to expand, refer to another article, but that nothing is exposed about the management methods (key for DNDC) or the climatic variables, irrigation, etc., etc., I think they detract from the potential of this article. Readers should not be looking for other articles to understand this one (lines 109-110).

Authors have referenced figure 1 as a graph prepared by [28] when the figure appears in the DNDC manual: User's Guide for the DNDC Model (unh.edu)

In Table 2, the authors have put the units in some parameters but not in others. What is the SOC and field capacity measured in?

Figures 2 and 3 are too big for the information that is expressed. In my opinion, authors can reduce the size and incorporate other data that can improve the article.

The outcome section is in my opinion correct, but it presents a lack of data that cannot be corroborated later in the discussion. Adding the errors should not be the only goal of this article.

Lines 349-350: “We anticipated that an increase in SOC from combined application of inorganic and organic amendments could be linked with higher soil moisture contents” In my opinion where are the data that corroborates that information. I have not seen in the results section.

In addition authors say: “the modelled SOC has a maximum value 6.10 g/Kg …… (lines 357-358) where I can corroborate this data in the article. For example in the results section did not appear the “fertilization treatments (8 treatments), but in the discussion section appears and we can no corroborate any trend o outcome. In my opinion, IT IS NECESSARY to REVIEW that scientific inconsistencies.

Lines 379-384 it seems more a CONCLUSION than a discussion.

To sum up: AUTHORS should IMPROVE results section and include the fertilization treatments in order to include this information in the outcomes and discussion section.

Author Response

Dear authors, first of all, congratulate you for the work carried out in this article, being of interest in terms of the application and validation of the DNDC in real conditions, despite the fact that the document presented has remained concise and meaningless since you have a very robust design that later is not reflected in the body of the article. Why do you have so many fertilization combinations if they are not reflected in the result afterward? However, for the discussion if you mention them without having presented any results in the article.

Thank you so much, we have incorporated treatment-wise prediction of each parameter in result section.

More specific questions:

From my point of view, to explain the conditions of the experience, you should not refer to another article [Shaukat et al. [24].]. The normal thing would be for the authors to describe all this in this article and if you want to expand, refer to another article, but that nothing is exposed about the management methods (key for DNDC) or the climatic variables, irrigation, etc., etc., I think they detract from the potential of this article. Readers should not be looking for other articles to understand this one (lines 109-110).

Many thanks, the suggestions have been elaborated in methodology section.

Authors have referenced figure 1 as a graph prepared by [28] when the figure appears in the DNDC manual: User's Guide for the DNDC Model (unh.edu)

Thanks for your suggestion. We included this figure for better understanding of the readers.

In Table 2, the authors have put the units in some parameters but not in others. What is the SOC and field capacity measured in?

We have addressed this suggestion as well.

Figures 2 and 3 are too big for the information that is expressed. In my opinion, authors can reduce the size and incorporate other data that can improve the article.

Thank you so much. We have included several detailed figures.

The outcome section is in my opinion correct, but it presents a lack of data that cannot be corroborated later in the discussion. Adding the errors should not be the only goal of this article.

Thanks. Now we have presented relevant data in result section.

Lines 349-350: “We anticipated that an increase in SOC from combined application of inorganic and organic amendments could be linked with higher soil moisture contents” In my opinion where are the data that corroborates that information. I have not seen in the results section.

Thanks. Now we have included data on soil moisture.

In addition authors say: “the modelled SOC has a maximum value 6.10 g/Kg …… (lines 357-358) where I can corroborate this data in the article. For example in the results section did not appear the “fertilization treatments (8 treatments), but in the discussion section appears and we can no corroborate any trend o outcome. In my opinion, IT IS NECESSARY to REVIEW that scientific inconsistencies.

Thank you so much. We have included treatment-wise predictions of DNDC model.

Lines 379-384 it seems more a CONCLUSION than a discussion.

Thanks very much. We have modified these lines.

To sum up: AUTHORS should IMPROVE results section and include the fertilization treatments in order to include this information in the outcomes and discussion section.

Thank you much. We have included several figures indicating a detail presentation of treatment-wise predictions of DNDC.

Submission Date

30 April 2023

Date of this review

29 May 2023 10:21:26

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Your article is interesting and original. However, I have some suggestions, especially about method.

The method must be rewritten. One of the investigated parameters is two plants planted in succession. The other factor is the factor of processing the soil differently and preparing it for planting. Finally, different fertilizer applications are a different factor.

- What is the design of the experiment?

- Is there any repetition in the experiment?

-What are the magnesium, nitrogen forms of the fertilizers used in the experiment?

-Was the analysis of the animal manure done? What are the results of analysis (macro, micro element)?

-In the discussion section, the rule of writing the literature should be followed. Please check

-Lliterature review is insufficient in the discussion. Should be discussed in more detail with the literature.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Authors

Your article is interesting and original. However, I have some suggestions, especially about method.

The method must be rewritten. One of the investigated parameters is two plants planted in succession. The other factor is the factor of processing the soil differently and preparing it for planting. Finally, different fertilizer applications are a different factor.

Thank you so much. We have elaborated the methodology of this experiment.

- What is the design of the experiment?

Thanks, we have incorporated into the manuscript.

- Is there any repetition in the experiment?

Thanks, the query has been addressed in methodology.

-What are the magnesium, nitrogen forms of the fertilizers used in the experiment?

Sources of in-organic fertilization are included.

-Was the analysis of the animal manure done? What are the results of analysis (macro, micro element)?

Yes, results are written in methodology section.

-In the discussion section, the rule of writing the literature should be followed. Please check

Thank you much, the suggestion has been addressed.

-Literature review is insufficient in the discussion. Should be discussed in more detail with the literature.

Thanks. We have included more discussion.

Best regards,

Submission Date

30 April 2023

Date of this review

29 May 2023 14:20:31

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, The paper have been improved. Congrats