the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The role of long-term mineral and manure fertilization on P species accumulation and phosphate solubilizing microorganisms in paddy red soils
Abstract. Fertilization managements have important impacts on soil P transformation, turnover, and bioavailability. Thus, long-term fertilization experiments (~38 years) with the application of different inorganic and organic fertilizers in paddy red soils were conducted to determine their effect on P pool accumulation and microbial communities, especially for phosphate solubilizing microorganisms (PSM). Long-term inorganic P fertilization increased the concentrations of total P (~479 mg/kg), available P (~417 mg/kg), and inorganic P (~18 mg/kg), but manure fertilization accelerated the accumulation of organic P, especially for orthophosphate monoesters (e.g. myo-IHP, ~12 mg/kg). Long-term mineral fertilization decreased bacterial richness, evenness, and complexation of bacterial networks. In contrast, long-term manure fertilization and rhizosphere accumulated more amounts of total carbon, total nitrogen, and organic carbon, as well as regulated the soil pH, thus improving the separation of bacterial communities. Unlike bacteria, the responses of fungi to those factors were not sensitive. Furthermore, PSM compositions were greatly influenced by fertilization managements and rhizosphere. For example, inorganic P fertilization increased the abundance of Thiobacillus (i.e. the most abundant phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) in this study) and shifted the community structure of PSB. Correspondingly, the concentrations of inorganic and total P were the key factors for the variation of PSB community structure. These findings are beneficial for understanding P accumulation, responses of PSB, and soil P sustainable fertility under different fertilization strategies.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1615 KB)
-
Supplement
(380 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1615 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(380 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1134', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2022
Comments
This study not only investigated P species but also studied the relevant enzymes and microbes responsible for P transformation. It provides valuable information for understanding P cycling based on long-term fertilization management with different treatments. Thus, I would like to recommend it for publication after resolving the following problems:
- The hypothesis seemed to have no meaning. A different response is obvious, but what specific difference should be given? Line 83-85. Please revise accordingly.
- More information about the experimental field and design should be given since it is a long-term experiment (i.e., 38 years). Also, the previous studies involved in this research area should be properly cited. Line 93-99.
- So, the author only conducted sampling once? The sampling details should be given. Line 102.
- How many hours were used for determining moisture? Line 109-110
- The pretreatment method for OC determination should be given. Line 110.
- The solid-liquid ratio of soil extracts should be presented in line 112.
- The author should explain why they determine acid and alkaline phosphatase activity in this study. Also, what kind of phosphatase is produced by microbes? Line 124-126.
- In section 3 Results, there are many citations of others’ studies. I think it is better to describe the result of this study, while the comparison or explanation of this study should be presented in the Discussion. Please check Section 3 thoroughly and make this section clear and concise.
- “bacteria” in line 372 should be “bacterial”.
- Although the author proposed hypotheses in the introduction, they did not answer the hypothesis. In the Discussion, the author should mention whether they achieved the goal through this study.
- Conclusion should be more concise.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoqian Jiang, 24 Jan 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1134/egusphere-2022-1134-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1134', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2023
This study aims to examine 38-year fertilization experiments under 5 fertilizer treatments were conducted to determine their effects on P pool accumulation, soil microbial communities, and phosphate solubilizing microorganisms (PSM) in paddy soils. Authors claimed that different fertilizer management could affect P species, wherein inorganic fertilizer treatments increased inorganic and available P concentrations. However, organic fertilizer treatments increased organic P concentrations, microbial biomass P contents, and alkaline phosphatase activity. Additionally, this study demonstrated that the compositions of PSM also related to different fertilizer managements. Inorganic fertilization increased the abundance of Thiobacillus whereas organic fertilization raised the abundance of Flavobacterium, Aspergillus, and Trichoderma. This study provided sufficient and sophisticated data. However, some technical errors such as some unit formats should modify throughout this manuscript. This manuscript also needs to be edited for the sentence construction. Collectively, I recommend the publication of this study after a minor revision. Few specific comments were given below.
Abstract:
The scientific significant should mentioned in the abstract rather than merely state the results. Abstract should emphasize the significance of the work and state the purpose, the main findings of this work.
Line 26-27: Please change mg/L to mg L-1.
Materials and methods:
Line 101: 0-20 cm?
Line 103-104: Please provide detail methods for collecting the rhizosphere soil.
Line 110-111: Please provide methods for soil organic carbon measurement.
Line 117-118: Please confirm the extraction method of acidic soil available P was referred to the Bray No.1.
Results:
Line 209, 216, and 217: mg kg-1.
Discussion:
I suggest authors could provide important diagrammatic sketch for this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1134-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoqian Jiang, 24 Jan 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1134/egusphere-2022-1134-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoqian Jiang, 24 Jan 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1134', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Dec 2022
Comments
This study not only investigated P species but also studied the relevant enzymes and microbes responsible for P transformation. It provides valuable information for understanding P cycling based on long-term fertilization management with different treatments. Thus, I would like to recommend it for publication after resolving the following problems:
- The hypothesis seemed to have no meaning. A different response is obvious, but what specific difference should be given? Line 83-85. Please revise accordingly.
- More information about the experimental field and design should be given since it is a long-term experiment (i.e., 38 years). Also, the previous studies involved in this research area should be properly cited. Line 93-99.
- So, the author only conducted sampling once? The sampling details should be given. Line 102.
- How many hours were used for determining moisture? Line 109-110
- The pretreatment method for OC determination should be given. Line 110.
- The solid-liquid ratio of soil extracts should be presented in line 112.
- The author should explain why they determine acid and alkaline phosphatase activity in this study. Also, what kind of phosphatase is produced by microbes? Line 124-126.
- In section 3 Results, there are many citations of others’ studies. I think it is better to describe the result of this study, while the comparison or explanation of this study should be presented in the Discussion. Please check Section 3 thoroughly and make this section clear and concise.
- “bacteria” in line 372 should be “bacterial”.
- Although the author proposed hypotheses in the introduction, they did not answer the hypothesis. In the Discussion, the author should mention whether they achieved the goal through this study.
- Conclusion should be more concise.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoqian Jiang, 24 Jan 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1134/egusphere-2022-1134-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1134', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2023
This study aims to examine 38-year fertilization experiments under 5 fertilizer treatments were conducted to determine their effects on P pool accumulation, soil microbial communities, and phosphate solubilizing microorganisms (PSM) in paddy soils. Authors claimed that different fertilizer management could affect P species, wherein inorganic fertilizer treatments increased inorganic and available P concentrations. However, organic fertilizer treatments increased organic P concentrations, microbial biomass P contents, and alkaline phosphatase activity. Additionally, this study demonstrated that the compositions of PSM also related to different fertilizer managements. Inorganic fertilization increased the abundance of Thiobacillus whereas organic fertilization raised the abundance of Flavobacterium, Aspergillus, and Trichoderma. This study provided sufficient and sophisticated data. However, some technical errors such as some unit formats should modify throughout this manuscript. This manuscript also needs to be edited for the sentence construction. Collectively, I recommend the publication of this study after a minor revision. Few specific comments were given below.
Abstract:
The scientific significant should mentioned in the abstract rather than merely state the results. Abstract should emphasize the significance of the work and state the purpose, the main findings of this work.
Line 26-27: Please change mg/L to mg L-1.
Materials and methods:
Line 101: 0-20 cm?
Line 103-104: Please provide detail methods for collecting the rhizosphere soil.
Line 110-111: Please provide methods for soil organic carbon measurement.
Line 117-118: Please confirm the extraction method of acidic soil available P was referred to the Bray No.1.
Results:
Line 209, 216, and 217: mg kg-1.
Discussion:
I suggest authors could provide important diagrammatic sketch for this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1134-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoqian Jiang, 24 Jan 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1134/egusphere-2022-1134-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoqian Jiang, 24 Jan 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
213 | 55 | 14 | 282 | 26 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 213
- PDF: 55
- XML: 14
- Total: 282
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Shuiqing Chen
Jusheng Gao
Huaihai Chen
Zeyuan Zhang
Jing Huang
Lefu Lv
Jinfang Tan
Xiaoqian Jiang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1615 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(380 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper