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.
I believe authors can address the two minor comments from Reviewer 4 during the proofreading stage.
In addition, the Section Editor commented:
> Figure 5 legend has a spelling error" "managemen" should be "management"; English is generally understandable, but the manuscript text would benefit from professional English editing
Thanks for improving the manuscript based on reviewers and editors comments!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Curtis Daehler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
1) Throughout the manuscript, the authors frequently use the first-person expression “we…,” for example, “We collected surface soil and soil profile samples from….” Consider revising these sentences to a more formal, objective style by using the passive voice, such as “Surface soil and soil profile samples were collected from….”
2) Since this study was conducted at a single site, it is not necessary to repeatedly specify “in the Yangai tea farm.”
-
-
A Section Editor has reviewed the manuscript and find that there are many issues with the content of the revised manuscript which need to be addressed. These detailed comments are attached. Therefore, despite Reviewer 1 recommending acceptance of the manuscript, I am recommending another round of major revision. Please address all points raised by the Section Editor in a point-by-point response along with the re-revised manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The authors have made the satisfactory corrections as suggested in the previous review. Hence, the manuscript may now be accepted.
The authors have made the satisfactory corrections as suggested in the previous review.
The authors have made the satisfactory corrections as suggested in the previous review. Hence, the manuscript may now be accepted.
NA
While Reviewers 1 and 3 have recommended major revisions, Reviewer 2 has recommended rejection. Therefore, a significant effort is needed to bring the manuscript up to an acceptable standard for all three reviewers to recommend publication.
All three reviewers request extensive clarifications and improvements on the Methodology. In particular, the rationale for sampling at different periods and how measurements taken during different periods can be combined/compared validly should be explained. All three reviewers comment on the absence of statistical analysis of the data, without which meaningful and valid conclusions cannot be drawn.
All three reviewers request revision of the title to reflect the content of the manuscript.
Reviewer 1 provides extensive guidance on the correction and improvement of the manuscript.
Reviewers 1 and 2 highlight major flaws and deficiencies in the presentation of results and their discussion. In particular, Reviewer 1 highlights the need to provide explanations on the mechanisms that have been responsible for the observed variations.
In view of the above, I would request the authors to address all comments and suggestions of all three reviewers and do a comprehensive revision of the manuscript. A separate document, which gives a point-by-point explanation of how each and every comment/suggestion/recommendation has been addressed, should be provided along with the revised version of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The manuscript's language requires significant improvement for clarity and precision to suit an international audience. I suggest seeking assistance from a colleague proficient in English or engaging a professional editing service. Specific language issues include:
- Replace terms like "tea planting" (lines 59 and 63) with "tea plantation" and "tea plants" (line 86) with "tea plantations".
- Substitute "nylon screen" (line 109) with "nylon sieve," "land use modes" (line 65) with "land use types," and "tea tree plant variety" (line 91) with "tea cultivar".
- The term "factors" in line 49 should be replaced with "indicators."
- Correct unclear and grammatically incorrect passages, such as lines 59–61, 73–74, and 182–183.
- Rewrite the pH measurement method in the abstract using passive voice.
The study's objectives are not clearly defined. Consider outlining the specific challenges faced by tea plantations in the Yangai tea farm and presenting your study as an effort to address those issues.
Please explain how soil parameter values in supplemental figures were interpolated from sample locations to surrounding areas.
The experimental framework, which investigates factors such as soil pH, soil organic matter (SOM), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and exchangeable acidity, demonstrates relevance to the journal's aims and scopes. Nevertheless, I recommend that the authors implement the following suggestions to enhance the study's overall clarity and reliability:
- Include a figure displaying a map of the study areas and experimental design.
- Use an internationally recognized soil classification system (FAO_UNESCO or USDA) to describe the soil type (line 90).
- Provide accurate names of tea cultivars as per agronomic documentation.
- Expand on the description of study sites, including their topography, landform, area, and cultivation practices.
- Clearly describe the experimental design, including how soil sample and profile locations were determined (e.g., quadrants or transect lines). In addition, provide more information about the soil sampling, such as row spacing and profile locations.
- To clarify the significance of soil profile making, the characteristics in terms of cultivation practices of managed and unmanaged tea gardens should be provided.
- Clarify the reason for collecting different numbers of soil samples in February (12) and May (18).
- Justify the scientific basis for selecting 19 soil samples from soil profiles and specify how many samples were taken per profile.
- State the maximum soil sampling depth (e.g., 130 cm) and rewrite the relevant sections for clarity.
- Move the mention of soil sieving methods (line 116) to an earlier section (line 109).
- Provide a concise yet detailed description of soil analysis methods, including:
+ Correcting inaccuracies in the description of pH analysis methods (lines 117–118). Please read and follow the official manuals.
+ Clarifying the methods for H+ and Al3+ analyses (replace "several times" in line 125 with precise terms).
+ The term “this method” in lines 141-142 was vague. Please check it carefully.
+ Converting the concentration units of hexamine cobalt chloride solution in the CEC analysis to standard units (e.g., N or M).
+ Reviewing the oscillation frequency in terms of unit and value mentioned in line 145.
+ Noting that the supernatant in the CEC analysis should be filtered after centrifugation.
- Describe the statistical analysis methods used, as they are essential for interpreting terms like "significant" and "insignificant".
Certain aspects of the study require clarification and improvement to ensure the findings are presented with the rigor and precision expected of academic research. Therefore, the following comments and suggestions should be considered and implemented:
* Results section
- Conduct statistical analyses to substantiate claims of significance or insignificance.
- I could not see the content of the paper you cited as Chen et al., 2016 in line 178 and Kang et al., 2021 in line 188. Therefore, I was skeptical about the information you provided in lines 177-179 and lines 187-191.
- Add units to CEC values in line 187.
- Clarify whether grade 1 and grade 2 soil fertility correspond to strong fertilizer retention (lines 189–190).
- Avoid repetition in presenting average CEC values (lines 192 and 195).
- Confirm the identity of red and blue lines in Figure 4, as they appear to represent the unmanaged tea garden.
- Replace terms like "increase-decrease" and "decrease-increase-decrease" (lines 238–239) with "fluctuation".
* Discussion section
- Specify the intended meaning of "regions" (line 270).
- Avoid repeating results in the discussion. For instance, lines 283–290 contain redundant information.
- Reevaluate the claim regarding the temperature suitability for microorganism activity given the relatively low temperatures in winter and spring.
- Provide topographical and landform data for the study sites to support claims about their influence on soil CEC.
- Elaborate on the mechanism linking soil pH and SOM to interpret the results.
- There were some citations in your manuscript that I could not see in the reference list, which are: Liang et al., 2017 in lines 299-300; Zhao, 2020 in line 301; Zhou et al., 2023 in line 312; Li et al., 2015 in line 313; Zhu et al., 2017 in line 314; Domingues et al., 2020 in line 328; Han et al., 2017 in line 331; Yua et al., 2020 in line 332; and Gillespie et al., 2021 and Lollato et al., 2019 in line 346. Please verify the accuracy of all of them.
Revise the conclusion in alignment with the updated results and discussion.
Title: The title of the paper should accurately reflect the content and findings. I recommend selecting a title that explicitly highlights parameters such as soil pH, SOM, exchangeable acidity, and CEC.
Abstract: The abstract requires a more comprehensive description of the methods, including details about the study sites, experimental design, and soil sampling.
This paper reports a study focused on the spatial distribution of soil properties in a tea farm. After reviewing this paper, I thought several problems should be pointed out for the authors to consider.
The title of the manuscript is difficult to understand. I don’t know what you mean by saying “Four kinds of…”.
The paper title expresses the idea of spatial distribution, but beyond the interpolation maps, there is no further explanation about the methods and processes carried out.
The abstract is poorly structured and poorly expressed. The reason for the study and its main goals are not clear.
Please check the keywords. They should be more informative and in alphabetical order.
The introduction is very poor. The background is insufficient and does not provide a good justification for the study.
The study area section does not include a location map. In this format, it is very difficult to understand the interpolation maps. I also don’t understand what you mean by the surface of the farm “20000 mu.” There is no mention of the dominant climate type. The soil type should follow the WRB or Soil Taxonomy classification.
You mention different periods of analysis, but this idea does not appear earlier in the manuscript. Additionally, you refer to different land uses, but there are no maps or images to help understand these land-use types. The experimental design is not clear and does not provide sufficient information.
..
..
In general, the manuscript is very poor. I think that, in its current state, this manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in a journal. Please reconsider a deep review of your manuscript and have it reviewed by a native speaker. Some expressions are not well formulated.
1. The manuscript may be subjected to extensive language editing and grammar check.
2. The title of the manuscript is in accordance with the study but, may be rewritten in a better way to draw attraction of the reading community.
3. It is recommended to update some of the references that are outdated or too old.
4. A map representing the study area may be incorporated.
1. Primary research is in accordance to the aims and scopes of the journal.
2. The objectives and rationale of the study is clearly stated. Besides, the introduction needs to be more specific with deep insights of the research background. Novelty of the study is not clear.
3. Prevailing soil CO2 evolution, soil dehydrogenase activity and soil acid phosphatase activity could have been incorporated to better understand the soil biological properties.
4. Methodologies have no clear cut depiction of which statistical methods are being used for the data analysis during the study.
1. Result section is well written. However, an ANOVA needs to be conducted among the test results to come up with a conclusion in terms of variations in data set.
2. Authors are advised to check possibilities of incorporating PCA plots for showcasing the correlations in a more precise way for the readers.
3. Discussion is well written with detailed comparison with the existing literature. However, limitations of the study are not properly understood.
4. Conclusion is very much satisfactory and precise. Moreover, line 364 may be rewritten as it may create confusion among the readers.
5. When making recommendations to the broader farming community, it's important to specify the proper dosages of the recommended fertilizers. The conclusion does not clearly indicate whether any specific guidelines for organic fertilizers are already provided by government departments. If such recommendations do not exist, please clearly state which organic fertilizers you are recommending, along with their appropriate dosages and application periods.
No comment
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.