Microbial Properties Depending on Fertilization Regime in Agricultural Soils with Different Texture and Climate Conditions: A Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to do this interested meta-analysis study which describing the effect of long-term fertilization application on microbial activities in the soil. The strength of the current study is that authors focused on 434 papers, identified 6211 data points in China, and determined different significant factors potentially affected microbial properties. These factors including fertilization regime, climate condition, fertilization duration, soil texture, etc. During this study, meta-analysis is proper method to conclude the effect of long-term fertilization regime on soil microbial properties; so, the interested issues in the current study led me to judge the present manuscript as “accepted after Minor revision”

Minor comments:

In material and methods section, formula number 4. What does vi mean?

Authors need to identify, explain or specify the data numbers which used for measuremt of parameters.

Parameters such as bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes need to be specified.

As we know that organic fertilization alone or combined with chemical fertilization is better than chemical fertilization regarding to microbial properiteis or soil quality and nutrient cycling. Discussion section need to be focused on the main findings of meta-analysis results.

English changes are required for discussion section.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors，

I have read through the manuscript, the authors made great efforts in collecting large dataset and covered a range of general microbial properties in agricultural ecosystems. Some weak points lie in the strategy of presenting key/important figures instead of showing all.

Some abbreviations were as follows:

Title: should be specific, thus better change “soil” to “agricultural soil”.

Lines 25-26, some clear and short abbreviations would be more helpful for readers. For example, “NPKS” → “OS”, “NPKM” → “OM”,  “Chemical fertilizers N” → “CN”,  “NPK fertilizer” → “CNPK”,.

Line 26, remove “treatment”

Line 37, the conclusion was not novel and kind of unclear, the authors can think of what is specific results from the present mete-analysis.

Line 40. the statement “based on soil particle size” was not specific

L105-106, pay attention to font size.

L117-119, the reasons of such classification should be stated.

Figure 1, if possible, please change the background colour of China into gray, which would be more clear for readers.

L149-159, keep font size consistent.

L161, where is the metadata set used for analyzing, they should be available online.

L166, leave space before and after the “<” , check it throughout the MS, i.e., Line 242 and so on.

L238, delete a “)” after phosphatase.

Figure 5 and 6, instead of presenting these 44 subfigures, I highly suggest authors only some key sub-figures and move other less important ones into supplementary figures.

 

Discussion,

There are too much descriptive sentences in this section. I guess the authors should think more based on your results and made relevant comparisons and explanations.

Conclusion,

It would be better, if the authors can remove repetitive sentences here. The conclusion must summarize the whole paper, explain its main purpose and discuss the significance of your points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

the topic of manuscript "Microbial properties depending on fertilization regime in soils with different texture and climate: A meta-analysis" is relevant, since soi biological processes are driven by soil organisms, and particularly SOM balance is sufficiently regulated by the activity of soil microorganisms. 

The meta-analysis is well done, focused on certain comparable climatic regions. 

There are some mistakes or misprintings. Detailed comments are given in the attachment.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx