Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Distance Education: Comparison of Digital Pedagogical Models
Previous Article in Journal
Cultural Tourism as a Driver of Rural Development. Case Study: Southern Moravia
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Effects of Fertilizer Type and Application Time on Soil Properties, Plant Traits, Yield and Quality of Tomato

Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 9065; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219065
by Muhammad Hasnain 1, Jiawei Chen 1, Nazeer Ahmed 2, Shumaila Memon 1, Lei Wang 1, Yimei Wang 1 and Ping Wang 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 9065; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219065
Submission received: 30 September 2020 / Revised: 26 October 2020 / Accepted: 27 October 2020 / Published: 31 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript (MS) evaluated “The effects of fertilizer type and application time on soil properties, plant traits, yield and quality of tomato.” The theme of this manuscript is within the scope of Sustainability.

There are some major concerns on this MS (especially for materials and methods).

[Abstract]

The abstract is perfect.

[Introduction]

The introduction is reasonably good and enough to express the importance to study.

[M & M]

The author did this study only one time. I think it should be done 2 or 3 seasons or times to know the effects of the organic sources. Especially, if we applied the cow manure which has a low C/N ratio, the effects of cow manure probably show in the second time or seasons.

The author did not mention the types of chemical fertilizers used. (e.g urea or triple superphosphate or muriate of potash)

The author should express the chemical composition of cow manure (C/N ratio, total N, total P, total K, mineralizable N, available P, etc.)

The author should describe the amount of cow manure applied (g/pot), total N, P, K applied (g/pot).

The treatment description is confusable. I think it should be CF30CM70, CF50CM50, CF70CM30, CF0CM100. The author added CF100. How about CM100?

How to prepare the pot using soil, manure, and chemical fertilizer? Please describe in detail.

[Results]

The result part is generally good. I did not found any figure and table in this file. 

[Discussion]

The way of discussion is reasonably good. But it is still needed some evidence.

Why CF30CM70 gave the best result for soil properties?

Why CF50CM50 gave the best result for plant growth?

Why fresh shoot weight, dry weight, branch number not affected by treatments?

In line 243, the chlorosis symptom was observed in CF100 and CK treatment. Why? The CF100 is not enough for plant growth? In a pot experiment, there is seldom a loss of nutrients.

Regarding the yield, CF30CM70 is the best. Why? The author should measure N uptake of tomato. The author should measure the C/N ratio of cow manure, the mineralization process of CM over time.

Generally, the organic manure that has higher N content or C/N ratio provides higher mineralization. It achieved higher uptake. Consequently, the yield is high.

Based on those data C/N or N mineralization, discuss the main finding of the study.

[Conclusions]

The conclusion is perfect.

[References]

Double-check each reference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary:

This manuscript, by Hasnain et al., surveys the effects of fertilizer type and application time on soil properties, plant traits, yield and quality of tomato. Overall, the topic is of interest to applied sciences (MDPI) readers.

Broad Comments:

  1. Although the introduction talks clearly about the need for the study. Adding more information on how this study is different and how it might address the use of these isolated enzymes would be beneficial for the readers.
  2. The methods are not clearly explained. Needs more work to improve readability.
  3. The figures lack title and legend description.

I have clearly indicated all my opinions and suggestions in the attached pdf documents with comments and remarks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for your revised manuscript. 

Back to TopTop