Long-Term Wheat-Soybean Rotation and the Effect of Straw Retention on the Soil Nutrition Content and Bacterial Community
, Chengjie Ren 3,4, Gaihe Yang 3,4, Nana Liu 5, Jiao Sun 6, Jinxia Zhu 1,2, Guangxin Ren 3,4,* and Yongzhong Feng 3,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript entitled “Long-term wheat-soybean rotation and the effect of straw retention on the soil nutrition content and bacterial community” by Dejie Kong et al covers an important research topic related to the use of straw mulching, a sustainable and conservative agricultural practice with multiple positive effects on soil carbon sequestration, fertilization and water storage and in crop production improvement. Such studies are required especially nowadays when we claim for more sustainable agricultural practices as a response to soil degradation. Thus, I consider that the topic approached by this research is extremely valuable and falls into the scope of Agronomy journal. Despite these recognition I would suggest the authors to review their manuscript in terms of minor language and spelling errors before manuscript publication. I would also have a suggestion: in my personal opinion the authors should provide soil analysis and properties from the experimental period presented in the submitted manuscript (2016-2018). If the authors choose to present data from 2016 until 2018, than the description of soil properties and the related analysis from the year 2008 are too old.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The manuscript reports on the relationship between straw retention and soil nutrition and bacterial communities on a long-term wheat-soybean crop rotation system. The study is adequately designed, with a straightforward methodology and the manuscript is well-written. Below are my general comments.
Line 17. I believe this sentence should read
Straw retention and wheat-soybean rotation play critical roles in maintaining soil quality rather than
Straw retention and wheat-soybean rotation are play the critical role for maintaining soil quality
Line 26. Here the authors abbreviated soil dissolved organic carbon as (DTC), however in other instances it is abbreviated as DOC (for example lines, 110, 358, 375 etc.) Is DTC and DOC referring to the same thing? Please check the entire document for consistency between DTC or DOC.
Lines 49-50. The sentence “Straw retention is the main driver for improved crop production
(4.0%–28.0%, median: 8.2%)”. I am missing the reference to, or use of the percentages in brackets. The authors could explain more, or expand on the use of these statistics.
Lines 53-54. The authors should be clear on what mono-cropping and double cropping systems they are referring to. The use of the word “the” suggests the authors are referring to a specific cropping system which should have been stated before.
Line 78. Remove the comma after cycling
Line 86. The comma after situations is not necessary
Line 116. The authors could consider using “The study” instead of “This study”.
Line 119. Please correct to “The texture of the soil (0-20cm). The authors were missing “the”.
Line 153. Is this the correct spacing (xinong889) for the winter-wheat variety? Should there be a space between xinong and 889?
Line 156. Please correct to comprised “three replicates” instead of repeats. Replicates are more suitable for scientific research.
Line 441. Please correct inn to in, that is remove the second n in inn.
Lines 441-443. The sentence would read much better if the authors remove to the word “respectively” to after the 9.34% rather than having it at the end of the sentence.
Line 462. Correct the reference Zhang, the number is missing.
Line 555. The authors should consider using “used” instead of obtained as it is a better word choice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
