the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Effects of returning corn straw and fermented corn straw to fields on the soil organic carbon pools and humus composition
- 1College of Resource and Environmental Science, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun, Jilin Province 130118, China
- 2National Engineering Laboratory for Improving Fertility of Arable Soils, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China
- 3College of Resource and Environmental Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210095, China
- 1College of Resource and Environmental Science, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun, Jilin Province 130118, China
- 2National Engineering Laboratory for Improving Fertility of Arable Soils, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China
- 3College of Resource and Environmental Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210095, China
Abstract. In our previous studies, we filtered out fungus (Trichoderma reesei) to have the best ability to transform corn straw into a humic acid-like substance through laboratory incubation experiments. In order to further verify our former findings, we set up a 360 day-field experiment that included three treatments applied under equal C mass: (i) corn straw returned to the field (CS), (ii) fermented corn straw treated with Trichoderma reesei returned to the field (FCS-T), and (iii) blank control treatment (CK). Soil organic carbon (SOC), soil labile organic C components, soil humus composition, and the management levels of SOC pools under the three treatments were analyzed and compared. The results showed that the SOC content of CS and FCS-T treatments increased by 12.71 % and 18.81 %, respectively, compared with CK at 360 d. The humic acid carbon (HA-C) content of the FCS-T treatment was 0.77 g/kg higher than in the CS treatment. Application of FCS-T appeared to promote the significant increase of SOC, carbon pool activity index (CPAI) and carbon pool management index (CPMI) through accumulation of HA-C, humin carbon (HM-C), and easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC) contents. Application of fermented corn straw treated with Trichoderma reesei (FCS-T) is more valuable and conducive to increasing soil EOC and humus C content than direct application of corn straw.
Yifeng Zhang et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on soil-2021-105', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Nov 2021
The topic of the manuscript titled “Effects of returning corn straw and fermented corn straw to fields on the soil organic carbon pools and humus composition” is of interest for the “SOIL” readership.
Specific comments
(page, line: comment)
1, 24: Please write the acronym SOC here instead of on line 27
3, 72: There is a new reference for the Soil Survey Staff. The USDA recommended citation is the following: Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC
3, 85: Authors should detail the mineral salt solution they mixed to the corn straw. This could have influenced the characteristics of the fermented corn straw. For example, it showed higher N content than the unfermented corn straw (Table 2).
3, 93-105: Authors adjusted the C/N ratio of the corn straw residues to 25:1 adding urea. Apparently, they did not do the same procedure for the fermented corn straw, that showed a C/N ratio of about 10 (Table 2). Thus the mineralization of the two biomasses could have occurred differently also because of this parameter. Authors should consider also this when discussing their data.
7, 210: Authors did not compost the corn straw residues, but they fermented it. Composting and fermentation are not exactly synonyms. Please correct here and throughout the paper.
Figure 1: It should show all details of treatments, i.e., the common base fertilization and the C/N ratio adjustment.
Table 1 and 2 should show g kg-1 or mg kg-1 instead of g/kg and mg/kg. Table 2 does not report any statistical analysis between the two biomasses.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yifeng Zhang, 16 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://soil.copernicus.org/preprints/soil-2021-105/soil-2021-105-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Dec 2021
Dear Editor, dear Authors,
all of my previous comments have been addressed, so I am satisfied with the revised manuscript.
Best regards
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yifeng Zhang, 16 Dec 2021
-
AC1: 'Comment on soil-2021-105', Yifeng Zhang, 16 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://soil.copernicus.org/preprints/soil-2021-105/soil-2021-105-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on soil-2021-105', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 May 2022
The paper of Zhang et al. deals with the effect of addition to soil of crop(corn) residues on the soil stable and labile organic C pools. The paper describes the results of a year-round field experiment where differently treated straw (FCS-T, CS) were added to so soil. I do not see great novelty in this work since the positive effect on SOM and SOM pools of the amendment with pre-treated crop residue is well known. The fermentation with Tricoderma reesei substantially mimed a composting effect, producing a material partly degraded and enriched of stable molecules. This fact, evidently favors both the SOM accumulation and production of labile substances from the portion not completely stabilized. This effect could be explored in future by testing different fermentation periods that should produce material with different stability.
The introduction is not very well informative about the study presented and, further, in some parts it has a textbook-style, which should be avoided in a research paper. The authors have to do a greater effort in displaying the state of the art in the recycling of crop residue as soil amendments and presenting their own hypotheses.
I suggest to reduce the use of acronyms that make the paper very hard to follow.
In my opinion the manuscript needs major revision before to be considered for publication.Here below some specific comments
37-39. This sentence is a partial repetition of that at lines 25-28.
40 Please, add how much time passed between the application of the straw and the determination of the C.
41-42. this sentence need references
43 Please, explains what the CPMI index consists of
45-49. This part should be deleted. This information is well known by the soil community
76 The coordinate are not the same from line 69. Please explain why if is the case.
86 please define the mineral salt solution
114-116. how long lasted the shaking time with water?
117 No incubation and fumigation before the MBC extraction? How did you estimate the MBC without the difference between fumigated and not-fumigated samples? The simple extraction with K2SO4 gives you the OM soluble in a K2SO4 solution which has no connection with the microbial C!!
120-122. Here the authors refer to fumigation, but it is not clear. Please xplain better the methodology used. When and how did you fumigate soil during the cultivation period?
138 delete CPMI = CPI âx CPAI x 100
146-147. The humification degree (PQ) was calculated as HA-C/HE-C ratio (Sugahara and Inoko, 1981).
220, 221. Barley
239-250. This part describe essentially the effect of addition to soil of pretreated material (e.g. compost).I think that this part does not add very much to the discussion and could be diluted along the section.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
Dear Editor, dear reviewer, First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which will help us improve our manuscript. We have taken all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions when we were greatly revising our manuscript. Please find changes and explanations point by point below in Blue. The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement:
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
Dear Editor, Dear reviewer, First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which will help us improve our manuscript. We have taken all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions when we were greatly revising our manuscript. Please find changes and explanations point by point below in Blue.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on soil-2021-105', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Nov 2021
The topic of the manuscript titled “Effects of returning corn straw and fermented corn straw to fields on the soil organic carbon pools and humus composition” is of interest for the “SOIL” readership.
Specific comments
(page, line: comment)
1, 24: Please write the acronym SOC here instead of on line 27
3, 72: There is a new reference for the Soil Survey Staff. The USDA recommended citation is the following: Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC
3, 85: Authors should detail the mineral salt solution they mixed to the corn straw. This could have influenced the characteristics of the fermented corn straw. For example, it showed higher N content than the unfermented corn straw (Table 2).
3, 93-105: Authors adjusted the C/N ratio of the corn straw residues to 25:1 adding urea. Apparently, they did not do the same procedure for the fermented corn straw, that showed a C/N ratio of about 10 (Table 2). Thus the mineralization of the two biomasses could have occurred differently also because of this parameter. Authors should consider also this when discussing their data.
7, 210: Authors did not compost the corn straw residues, but they fermented it. Composting and fermentation are not exactly synonyms. Please correct here and throughout the paper.
Figure 1: It should show all details of treatments, i.e., the common base fertilization and the C/N ratio adjustment.
Table 1 and 2 should show g kg-1 or mg kg-1 instead of g/kg and mg/kg. Table 2 does not report any statistical analysis between the two biomasses.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yifeng Zhang, 16 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://soil.copernicus.org/preprints/soil-2021-105/soil-2021-105-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Dec 2021
Dear Editor, dear Authors,
all of my previous comments have been addressed, so I am satisfied with the revised manuscript.
Best regards
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Yifeng Zhang, 16 Dec 2021
-
AC1: 'Comment on soil-2021-105', Yifeng Zhang, 16 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://soil.copernicus.org/preprints/soil-2021-105/soil-2021-105-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on soil-2021-105', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 May 2022
The paper of Zhang et al. deals with the effect of addition to soil of crop(corn) residues on the soil stable and labile organic C pools. The paper describes the results of a year-round field experiment where differently treated straw (FCS-T, CS) were added to so soil. I do not see great novelty in this work since the positive effect on SOM and SOM pools of the amendment with pre-treated crop residue is well known. The fermentation with Tricoderma reesei substantially mimed a composting effect, producing a material partly degraded and enriched of stable molecules. This fact, evidently favors both the SOM accumulation and production of labile substances from the portion not completely stabilized. This effect could be explored in future by testing different fermentation periods that should produce material with different stability.
The introduction is not very well informative about the study presented and, further, in some parts it has a textbook-style, which should be avoided in a research paper. The authors have to do a greater effort in displaying the state of the art in the recycling of crop residue as soil amendments and presenting their own hypotheses.
I suggest to reduce the use of acronyms that make the paper very hard to follow.
In my opinion the manuscript needs major revision before to be considered for publication.Here below some specific comments
37-39. This sentence is a partial repetition of that at lines 25-28.
40 Please, add how much time passed between the application of the straw and the determination of the C.
41-42. this sentence need references
43 Please, explains what the CPMI index consists of
45-49. This part should be deleted. This information is well known by the soil community
76 The coordinate are not the same from line 69. Please explain why if is the case.
86 please define the mineral salt solution
114-116. how long lasted the shaking time with water?
117 No incubation and fumigation before the MBC extraction? How did you estimate the MBC without the difference between fumigated and not-fumigated samples? The simple extraction with K2SO4 gives you the OM soluble in a K2SO4 solution which has no connection with the microbial C!!
120-122. Here the authors refer to fumigation, but it is not clear. Please xplain better the methodology used. When and how did you fumigate soil during the cultivation period?
138 delete CPMI = CPI âx CPAI x 100
146-147. The humification degree (PQ) was calculated as HA-C/HE-C ratio (Sugahara and Inoko, 1981).
220, 221. Barley
239-250. This part describe essentially the effect of addition to soil of pretreated material (e.g. compost).I think that this part does not add very much to the discussion and could be diluted along the section.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
Dear Editor, dear reviewer, First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which will help us improve our manuscript. We have taken all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions when we were greatly revising our manuscript. Please find changes and explanations point by point below in Blue. The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement:
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
Dear Editor, Dear reviewer, First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which will help us improve our manuscript. We have taken all of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions when we were greatly revising our manuscript. Please find changes and explanations point by point below in Blue.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Yifeng Zhang, 20 May 2022
Yifeng Zhang et al.
Yifeng Zhang et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 711 | 165 | 27 | 903 | 14 | 9 |
- HTML: 711
- PDF: 165
- XML: 27
- Total: 903
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1