Biological Indicators of Soil Quality under Different Tillage Systems in Retisol
, Modupe Olufemi Doyeni 2 and Dalia Ambrazaitiene 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript ‘Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” provides ample information regarding the soil quality and under different tillage systems. This manuscript is worthy for researchers working on soil quality and soil security.
This manuscript was well written with effective valid data and holistic experimental procedures. However, there are some major concerns regarding the data analysis and presentation in the manuscript. Therefore I strongly recommend this manuscript to revised substantially and address my concerns before stepping up in next phase.
Main comments;
- The abstract and conclusion of the manuscript must rewrite and highlight the importance of the study.
- Though authors have tried to include literatures regarding biological indicators of soil quality, they must also focus on literatures related with the soil type 'Retisol'.
- Throughout the manuscript, I could not find the exact number of soil samples used in this study.
- My concern is in robustness of soil sampling. There will be temporal and spatial variation in the microbial distribution in soils and the sampling time. Please mention clearly how many cores of soil samples were taken in each tillage systems.
- Authors have tried to explore bacterial diversity as a biological indicator in the manuscript. How about the fungal diversity under different tillage system?
- In some portion of the results section of the manuscript, authors just explained the results without indicating figure or table/data. For example: Lines 215-217, 224-225, etc. Please provide data while explaining the results.
- As we are familiar that, there may be some correlation between soils environmental parameters and soil microorganisms which directly influence in soil quality. So I suggest authors to provide correlation data (using R- software) between soil environmental parameters and dominant soil microorganisms.
Other comments:
Line 13: Rewrite this sentence and make it clear.
Line 22-23: Please clear this sentence.
Line 132-142: Please provide the references.
Line: 154: Please provide CFU data.
Line 151-166: How about the soil fungal investigation?
Line 167-197: Please prove relevant references for this section.
Line 203-205: Please mention clearly in which data sets you analyze correlation and regression.
Line 218-224: I could not find the data of porosity, bulk density particle density and other soil physical parameters data. Please describe this.
Line 288-290: What does this sentence tried to explain. Please state it clearly.
Line 298: Please provide 10 most abundant species with their abundancy ratio you mentioned here.
Line 443-445: I could not find the Canonical correlation analysis data throughout the manuscript. Please make it clear by providing figure/table.
Other Concerns
- Please increase the resolution of figures 5 and 6.
- English editing is required throughout the manuscript.
- Authors are requested to recheck the references format as per the instructions of the journal.
- Overall, this manuscript should undergo major revision and submit again after substantial revision/correction.
Author Response
Manuscript sustainability-1326953
Response to Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” for publication in the Sustainability journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
The manuscript ‘Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” provides ample information regarding the soil quality and under different tillage systems. This manuscript is worthy for researchers working on soil quality and soil security.
This manuscript was well written with effective valid data and holistic experimental procedures. However, there are some major concerns regarding the data analysis and presentation in the manuscript. Therefore I strongly recommend this manuscript to revised substantially and address my concerns before stepping up in next phase.
Author response: Thank you!
The abstract and conclusion of the manuscript must rewrite and highlight the importance of the study.
Author response: The abstract and conclusion of the manuscript was rewrite and highlighted the importance of the study.
Though authors have tried to include literatures regarding biological indicators of soil quality, they must also focus on literatures related with the soil type 'Retisol'.
Author response: The literature review was enriched with several papers about research in Retisol or about similar soil types in Lithuania or near countries.
Throughout the manuscript, I could not find the exact number of soil samples used in this study.
My concern is in robustness of soil sampling. There will be temporal and spatial variation in the microbial distribution in soils and the sampling time. Please mention clearly how many cores of soil samples were taken in each tillage systems.
Author response: In the method part, we added the number of the samples (4 samples for metagenomic analysis) and 864 soil samples for chemical, physical soil analysis and for determination of soil microorganisms physiological groups.
Authors have tried to explore bacterial diversity as a biological indicator in the manuscript. How about the fungal diversity under different tillage system?
Author response: We think that fungi are an extremely important part of the soil ecosystem, but regards the technical issues, we left this question for future researches, and concentrated on bacterial diversity.
In some portion of the results section of the manuscript, authors just explained the results without indicating figure or table/data. For example: Lines 215-217, 224-225, etc. Please provide data while explaining the results.
As we are familiar that, there may be some correlation between soils environmental parameters and soil microorganisms which directly influence in soil quality. So I suggest authors to provide correlation data (using R- software) between soil environmental parameters and dominant soil microorganisms.
Author response: Regards other comments, all mentioned information was added to the text, additionally was added soil porosity, bulk density particle density and other soil physical parameters data and 10 most abundant species (table 2 and figure 5).
Other comments:
Line 13: Rewrite this sentence and make it clear.
Line 22-23: Please clear this sentence.
Line 132-142: Please provide the references.
Line: 154: Please provide CFU data.
Line 151-166: How about the soil fungal investigation?
Line 167-197: Please prove relevant references for this section.
Line 203-205: Please mention clearly in which data sets you analyze correlation and regression.
Line 218-224: I could not find the data of porosity, bulk density particle density and other soil physical parameters data. Please describe this.
Line 288-290: What does this sentence tried to explain. Please state it clearly.
Line 298: Please provide 10 most abundant species with their abundancy ratio you mentioned here.
Line 443-445: I could not find the Canonical correlation analysis data throughout the manuscript. Please make it clear by providing figure/table.
Author response: all mentioned information was added to the text, or clarified the sentences.
Other Concerns
Please increase the resolution of figures 5 and 6.
English editing is required throughout the manuscript.
Authors are requested to recheck the references format as per the instructions of the journal.
Overall, this manuscript should undergo major revision and submit again after substantial revision/correction.
Author response: The resolution of all figures was changed. All paper was edited by English native speaker.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a case study of identify bacterial community composition and soil properties under different tillage in Dystric Bathygleyic Glossic Retisol. The experiment is very interesting, and the paper is appropriately referenced, with relevant tables and figures. The methods section do need to be refined to link the statistical analysis and describing the results.
- It is not clear to me why the experiment was established in split-plot treatments and the analysis is conducted for the one-way classification. (line 94, line 200)
- In the methods section, add what has been studied by ANOVA.
- The methods section should be improved with the formulas of biodiversity indicators (for example in a table).
- The correlation and regression analyses are a description of methods, yet them are not in the results section.
- Lines 226-237: I don’t understand this. Variation partitioning analysis is not described in the method section. I don't understand the relationship between variation partitioning analysis and the dataset.
- I don’t understand (avg. ± LSD). Should it be (avg. ± confidence intervals)? (line 267). And in line: 365 (± Standard deviation)?
- I don’t understand “The variation of biological diversity indices.” (line 305) Does this mean the average values?
- I think that the phrase "significantly higher" is not correct. May be „ significantly differ” or “we conclude that the mean of … is greater than …”.
- The most recently published scientific literature specific to this study area is required in the discussion section.
Author Response
Manuscript sustainability-1326953
Response to Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” for publication in the Sustainability journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
The authors present a case study of identify bacterial community composition and soil properties under different tillage in Dystric Bathygleyic Glossic Retisol. The experiment is very interesting, and the paper is appropriately referenced, with relevant tables and figures. The methods section do need to be refined to link the statistical analysis and describing the results.
Author response: Thank you!
- It is not clear to me why the experiment was established in split-plot treatments and the analysis is conducted for the one-way classification. (line 94, line 200)
Author response: the mistake was remediated. "One-way" changes into "two-way".
- In the methods section, add what has been studied by ANOVA.
Author response: Additional information was added.
- The methods section should be improved with the formulas of biodiversity indicators (for example in a table).
Author response: Additional information was added into mention sections.
- The correlation and regression analyses are a description of methods, yet them are not in the results section.
- The correlation and regression analyses are a description of methods, yet them are not in the results section.
Author response: There were made a logical mistake, the statistical analysis section was modified.
- I don’t understand (avg. ± LSD). Should it be (avg. ± confidence intervals)? (line 267). And in line: 365 (± Standard deviation)?
Author response: All abbreviation was clarified and added to figures and tables descriptions.
- I don’t understand “The variation of biological diversity indices.” (line 305) Does this mean the average values?
Author response: The statement was clarified.
- I think that the phrase "significantly higher" is not correct. May be „ significantly differ” or “we conclude that the mean of … is greater than …”.
Author response: We choose to use the “significantly differ” phrase or change the sentences avoiding the "significantly higher" expression.
- The most recently published scientific literature specific to this study area is required in the discussion section.
Author response: The discussion section was enriched with additional literature.
Reviewer 3 Report
The goal of this study was to evaluate the regularities of soil organic carbon accumulation in the effect of long-term application of agro-techniques and to determine the genetic diversity of microorganisms actively involved in the process of mineralization. I have the following suggestions, in order to improve the content and the shape of it:
Figure 1 is blurred, please replace it with a better quality one o replace it with text, the few information provided in it are not needing a separate figure.
All figures 2-8 are blurred as well, please find a way to save them in the best quality. Figure 6 is unreadable!
Please explain the meaning of OTU (L286, L288) in the main text as well (at its first usage) (L286), as it was explained also under figure 4 (as operational taxonomy units). Please check also that all abbreviations used to be explained at their first usage in the main text and under each figure/table (ie ACE L299)
In the main text, please use square brackets only for references (and replace them with parenthesis in the rest of the text, ie L296, 297; please revise the entire manuscript in this regard.
The numerical values in Figures 7, 8, 9 must to be with point (english values), not with comma. Again, please check also that all abbreviations used in the figures to be explained.
Phrase L381-384 beginning with Compared to research results published by other authors, this study...must be reshaped, it is confusing. Furthermore "other authors must be referenced. I suggest in this regard the following recent published papers: Samuel A.D.; et al. Effects of long term application of organic and mineral fertilizers on soil enzymes, Rev. Chim. 2018, 69(10), 2608-2612. https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.18.10.6590 ; Samuel, A.D.; et al. Effects of liming and fertilization on the dehydrogenase and catalase activities, Rev. Chim. 2019, 70(10), 3464-3468. https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.19.10.7576 ; Bungau S.; et al. Expatiating the impact of anthropogenic aspects and climatic factors on long term soil monitoring and management. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 30528-30550.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14127-7. Please check also the similarity of statements between last references above and your statement L384-386. Please divide the single long paragraph of 4.2. subsection, in more paragraphs (3-4), considering the ideas provided. Very hard to follow.
Author Response
Manuscript sustainability-1326953
Response to Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” for publication in the Sustainability journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the regularities of soil organic carbon accumulation in the effect of long-term application of agro-techniques and to determine the genetic diversity of microorganisms actively involved in the process of mineralization. I have the following suggestions, in order to improve the content and the shape of it:
Author response: Thank you!
Figure 1 is blurred, please replace it with a better quality one o replace it with text, the few information provided in it are not needing a separate figure.
Author response: Figure was replaced with a table.
All figures 2-8 are blurred as well, please find a way to save them in the best quality. Figure 6 is unreadable!
Author response: The resolution of Figures was increased.
Please explain the meaning of OTU (L286, L288) in the main text as well (at its first usage) (L286), as it was explained also under figure 4 (as operational taxonomy units). Please check also that all abbreviations used to be explained at their first usage in the main text and under each figure/table (ie ACE L299)
Author response: All abbreviation was clarified and added an additional information.
In the main text, please use square brackets only for references (and replace them with parenthesis in the rest of the text, ie L296, 297; please revise the entire manuscript in this regard.
Author response: the mistake was remediated.
The numerical values in Figures 7, 8, 9 must to be with point (english values), not with comma. Again, please check also that all abbreviations used in the figures to be explained.
Author response: the mistake was remediated.
Phrase L381-384 beginning with Compared to research results published by other authors, this study...must be reshaped, it is confusing. Furthermore "other authors must be referenced. I suggest in this regard the following recent published papers: Samuel A.D.; et al. Effects of long term application of organic and mineral fertilizers on soil enzymes, Rev. Chim. 2018, 69(10), 2608-2612. https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.18.10.6590 ; Samuel, A.D.; et al. Effects of liming and fertilization on the dehydrogenase and catalase activities, Rev. Chim. 2019, 70(10), 3464-3468. https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.19.10.7576 ; Bungau S.; et al. Expatiating the impact of anthropogenic aspects and climatic factors on long term soil monitoring and management. Environ Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 30528-30550.
Author response: thank you for the comment and suggestions.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14127-7. Please check also the similarity of statements between last references above and your statement L384-386. Please divide the single long paragraph of 4.2. subsection, in more paragraphs (3-4), considering the ideas provided. Very hard to follow.
Author response: The paper was revised by an English native speaker and the structure was modified.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Overall, the manuscript is interesting. I also have to admit that it is quite well written. The authors also put a lot of research into this manuscript. The article will therefore be quite interesting for the reader. However, there are corrections in the manuscript that need to be made.
Detailed comments are provided below:
Abstract: In my opinion the abstract is too precise. There is too much methodology in it. This should be corrected and the essence of these studies should be emphasized more. There may also be some general conclusion from the research in the abstract.
Line 69: Write down the number of repetitions performed for each test. This applies to measurements.
Line 120; The model (company, country, city) should be provided for each device used in the research. Moreover, the accuracy of measuring devices, e.g. scales, should be specified.
Line 140. See the description on line 120. Review the entire methodology for this.
Fig. 2. What do the letters (A, B) next to the numbers mean? Presumably there is a significance between outcomes. What test was used for this? Have homogeneous groups been checked for normality of the distribution?
Line 489: Add one more conclusion, more general. There is also no more utilitarian conclusion. What will be the prospects for the coming years?
Author Response
Manuscript sustainability-1326953
Response to Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” for publication in the Sustainability journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and other reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
Overall, the manuscript is interesting. I also have to admit that it is quite well written. The authors also put a lot of research into this manuscript. The article will therefore be quite interesting for the reader. However, there are corrections in the manuscript that need to be made.
Detailed comments are provided below:
Author response: Thank you!
Abstract: In my opinion the abstract is too precise. There is too much methodology in it. This should be corrected and the essence of these studies should be emphasized more. There may also be some general conclusion from the research in the abstract.
Author response: The abstract of the manuscript was rewrite and highlighted the importance of the study.
Line 69: Write down the number of repetitions performed for each test. This applies to measurements.
Author response: Additional information was added.
Line 120; The model (company, country, city) should be provided for each device used in the research. Moreover, the accuracy of measuring devices, e.g. scales, should be specified.
Author response: An additional information was added.
Line 140. See the description on line 120. Review the entire methodology for this.
Author response: Method section was modified.
Fig. 2. What do the letters (A, B) next to the numbers mean? Presumably there is a significance between outcomes. What test was used for this? Have homogeneous groups been checked for normality of the distribution?
Author response: Additional information was added and clarified in mention section.
Line 489: Add one more conclusion, more general. There is also no more utilitarian conclusion. What will be the prospects for the coming years?
Author response: Additional conclusion was added to the mention section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been revised substantially by the authors and is in better form than previously.
I would recommend this article worthy for publication with English editing.
Thank you
Author Response
Manuscript sustainability-1326953
Response to Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your repeatable revision of our manuscript “Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” for publication in the Sustainability journal. We appreciate the time and effort you and other reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper.
The manuscript has been revised substantially by the authors and is in better form than previously.
I would recommend this article worthy of publication with English editing.
Thank you
Author response: Thank you for your contribution.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made few shape improvements (nor those fully corrected), but it is not enough. The revision is superficial.
I suggest once again:
The numerical values in Figures 1-3, 5 are not correct; they must be written in English style! Please check all figures in this regard.
Quality of the figures is not the right one. The figures remained blurred. Please use just BEST quality figures!
I suggested also that the paragraphs to be better referenced and developed. The authors ignored my advice but they responded that "thank you for the comment and suggestions." without doing nothing. My suggestions are not for loosing time or for my personal confort, but for helping them in publishing their work. In this regard, please check the final of my 1st report (related to the: Furthermore "other authors must be referenced. I suggest in this regard the following recent published papers....) and proceed consequently, referring to the three published paper I suggested. If you check them, some aspects of your paper can be much better clarified. And of course, referenced.
The entire manuscript is poor referenced and many statements are not referenced at all. Please complete it accordingly.
I suggest adding in the Discussion section a Table summarising and highlighting the similarities/differences between the results of this paper and other papers (already published) in the same topic). As last column insert Ref., mentioning them in brackets.
Conclusions section does not need numerical values to be mentioned. It must to present briefly the MAIN findings of the paper, not percentages.
Author Response
Manuscript sustainability-1326953
Response to Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your repeatable revision of our manuscript “Biological indicators of soil quality under different tillage systems in Retisol” for publication in the Sustainability journal. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript, and we are grateful for the insightful comments on valuable improvements to our paper. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
The authors made few shape improvements (nor those fully corrected), but it is not enough. The revision is superficial.
I suggest once again:
The numerical values in Figures 1-3, 5 are not correct; they must be written in English style! Please check all figures in this regard.
Author response: We apologize for our mistake. All numeric values changed to English style.
Quality of the figures is not the right one. The figures remained blurred. Please use just BEST quality figures!
Author response: The resolution of all figures increased from 300 dpi to 600 dpi.
I suggested also that the paragraphs to be better referenced and developed. The authors ignored my advice but they responded that "thank you for the comment and suggestions." without doing nothing. My suggestions are not for loosing time or for my personal confort, but for helping them in publishing their work. In this regard, please check the final of my 1st report (related to the: Furthermore "other authors must be referenced. I suggest in this regard the following recent published papers....) and proceed consequently, referring to the three published paper I suggested. If you check them, some aspects of your paper can be much better clarified. And of course, referenced.
The entire manuscript is poor referenced and many statements are not referenced at all. Please complete it accordingly.
I suggest adding in the Discussion section a Table summarising and highlighting the similarities/differences between the results of this paper and other papers (already published) in the same topic). As last column insert Ref., mentioning them in brackets.
Author response: Thank you for your time and comment. We appreciated it. Carefully read your provided references and try to cite them in the text correctly. Still, regarding our study aim (metagenomic approach of soil bacteria) and aim of those referred studies (enzymatic identification of soil processes), we assumed that there is no possibility to make a comparative analysis as you offer (comment about the table with references). We added more references to the text.
Conclusions section does not need numerical values to be mentioned. It must to present briefly the MAIN findings of the paper, not percentages.
Author response: Thank you for your remark, the conclusions was rewrited.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
All my request were addressed.
Author Response
Thant you.
