Distribution and Restricted Vertical Movement of Nematodes in a Heavy Clay Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the paper: „Distribution and lack of vertical movement of nematodes in heavy clay soils”

The title of the papet should be revised, especially phrase „lack of vertical movement”. Does it mean complete lack? See fig. 2. In the affiliation part – should be „School of Environmental” instead of „environmental”

Line 7 should be corrected

Line 9: Correspondence: oknox@.....

Abstract:

Line 19 - „Vertical movement of nematodes in these soils was restricted even in the presence of plant roots and moisture…” -  Why?

Keywords

At least three keywords need to be put.

Introduction:

Line 26 – abbreviation of NSW should be explain.

Line 38-42 – too long sentence. It should be revised.

Materials and methods:

Line 67, 69 – pH_H20 instead of pH_wat

Line 67 – pH_wat (1 to 5 in water) ? Should be „pH_H20 of 5.4”

Line 71 – „GWC” should be explain.

Line 72 – „with 24 hours break between…” (maybe in this way should be better)

Line 115-117 – What post-hoc test was used to indicate significant differences between means?

Results:

Line 122-123 – should be: „significant difference between the rotations…”

Line 122-126  - too long sentence, should be changed.

Fig. 1 – Line, 134-125 – should be: „the asterisks indicate a significant (p=0.02) interactions between the rotation and depth.

Fig. 1 - Very small numer of nematodes. The low nematode recovery meant that there was insufficient numbers to confirm this ? (Discussion line 173-174)

Line 145-145 – lack of information in the brackets (fig. 2a?, fig. 2b?)

Fig. 2 – This figure is difficult for readers to interpretation.

References:

The literature should be uniform and adapted to the Agronomy journal requirements.

There are mistakes, for example in 7 (line 217-218) should be:

Britt E. Pesticides: Bayer CropScience, EPA agree to phase out use of aldicarb. Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88, 34, 11. https://doi.org/10.1021/CEN081910162642

Line 225 – very general information

Line 250 – lack of information about journal

This can indicate carelessness in the preparation of the paper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file with changes noted in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See the attached pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see changes in the attached file with location marked in the returned manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the comments in the attached pdf of manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not have any further suggestions