Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 16th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 4 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 23rd, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 21st, 2023 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 8th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 8, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Authors have improved the manuscript, so I recommend that manuscript can be accepted for publication in PeerJ.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

I have gone through the revised version of Manuscript, submitted by authors. It shows satisfactory revisions raised by reviewers. I have no more queries regarding this. Manuscript is recommended for Publication in the Journal

Experimental design

It is up to mark for the publication in the Journal.

Validity of the findings

Sound for publication in the Journal

Additional comments

NA

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

In accordance to all the previous comments, authors have tried to address the comments and they are successful in doing so. I recommend the acceptance of this work.

Experimental design

N/A

Validity of the findings

N/A

Additional comments

N/A

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 23, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Authors are advised to address all comments of the reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript entitled "Soil microbial and enzyme activities in different land use systems of the North Western Himalayas" appears to be a captivating research article in the field of soil science and ecosystem dynamics. It holds significant potential to attract the interest of readers, researchers, and professionals engaged in the study of soil microbial ecology and enzyme activities. However, before its publication in this esteemed journal, the manuscript requires careful revision to ensure it meets the journal's high standards for well-structured and focused publications.

Experimental design

Material and Methods are up to date, according to protocol and standards

Validity of the findings

Background information and the research's importance can be included to the abstract to improve it.
Describe in the abstract the research gap or the driving force for the study.

Additional comments

The abstract would gain depth by include a brief description of the ecological importance of these enzyme activities in connection to the sustainability and health of the soil.
The introduction lacks a problem statement and a research question, which must be added.
The importance of the research topic must be demonstrated in the introduction in order to capture the reader's interest.
Explain in the introduction the potential ramifications of your research, how it can advance the discipline, and a real-world issue.
The introduction should be succinct, clear, and interesting.
Discuss the different land use systems present in the study area.
As well as providing information on the biodiversity and the presence of rare or endangered species in the research region.
The specific results regarding soil physicochemical properties, microbial activity, and enzymatic activity should be briefly summarized in the conclusion. This would give a succinct summary of the study's main findings.
Conclusion need further elaborative points
Based on the study's findings, the conclusion can offer advice or suggestions for further investigation or management tactics.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript seems interesting in context to the current land use managements on soil microbial and enzyme activity. Sufficient filed background/context provided. However, the manuscript is not well presented and therefore require some minor changes.
1. Try to include few updated literatures of 2021, 2022, and 2023 in introduction and discussion section.
2. Conclusion section should support all the results with numerical values.

Experimental design

The materials and methods section are also well described and structured. The description of the area and sampling sites are clear.

Validity of the findings

Sufficient data provided to justify the findings and elaborated accordingly. However, the discussion is too short. I suggest the authors to elaborate the discussion part and make critical comparison of the data.

Additional comments

In general, I consider that the manuscript is well written and with clear information.

·

Basic reporting

In the research article “Soil microbial and enzyme activities in deferent land use systems of the North Western Himalayas”, it was revealed that the land conversions need to be restricted in order to prevent microbiome depletion, lessen the deterioration of natural resources, and guarantee the sustainability of soil health.
This study revealed a significant impact of LUSs and SD on soil physicochemical characteristics, and microbial and enzymatic activity in the North Western Himalayas, India.
Overall, the manuscript (MS) is well written, comprehensive. I find the MS quite interesting. The topic is of general interest and contains new aspects. The presentation reflects the present state of knowledge. All relevant aspects of the topic presented mostly.

Experimental design

Authors have used appropriate materials and methodologies; they have entered the relevant references. Authors used appropriate experimental design clearly presented results of the study. Please mention further physicochemical characteristics of soil samples. Give further detail about samples size. Why specific enzymes activities evaluated? Why paddy-oilseed soil treated alike? Why samples obtained from forest, pasture, apple, saffron, and paddy-oilseed? Why samples obtained from a specific soil depth? Did you observe nitrogen kg ha-1? Provide details of all the instruments used, its model number, country of manufacture in the materials and methods.

Validity of the findings

Why bulk density of forest, pasture, apple, saffron, and paddy oilseed soil varied? Figures having higher resolutions should be used. The authors state that they carried out a range of statistical analysis but it is not clear in some sections of the results (and figures) whether the data are significantly different or not.
In results, there is a striking lack of connectors between sentences and leading to confusing. Some sentences are useless in Results section, please focus your key findings.

Additional comments

The Discussion section needs improvement. Discussion does not convey the proper information and does not put the investigation in perspective of known information. In this section, add some mechanism of action why and how a parameter increased/decreased. What is the possible mechanism.
Please provide a conclusive conclusion. Also, give clear-cut recommendations. Give future perspective regarding this research. Please include the limitations and what can be done for the future studies. Does this study unveil any economical or environmental concern?
Please write the complete name of an organism or term before writing its abbreviation (please check name of enzymes and biological agent etc.). Afterwards, no need to write the complete term in a section.

Reviewer 4 ·

Basic reporting

The study reports Soil microbial and enzyme activities in different land-use
ystems of the North Western Himalayas. The manuscript has been written in a systematic manner with proper experimentation and substantial statistical analyses. The findings presented in the manuscript are worthy of publication. The findings will certainly be helpful across the scientific domain and sustainable land management. based on the findings of this study, scientists, field researchers and policymakers can upscale and promote sustainable land use systems in order to prevent land degradation following rampant land use conversions.

Experimental design

Well designed

Validity of the findings

Findings reported in the manuscript are worthy of publication.

Additional comments

The manuscript needs minor revisions. Annotated pdf is attached for guiding the authors to revise it.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.