Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Damasus Riyanto 1,*,
  • Meksy Dianawati 2 and
  • Tri Martini 1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Ling Li Reviewer 2: Peng Shi Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, it is a high-quality manuscript. Some suggestions for revising the manuscript. 

1) The experimental design indicated four replicates used. The graphs plotted and data in tables did not show error bars and standard derivation values. 

2) The description of the mineralogy and soil analysis section is too simple. It only mentioned some references. Can you briefly describe each method used for the analyses? 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We are happy to send the first revision of manuscript entitled “The effect of P2O5 fertilizer, zeolite and vulcanic soil media from different altitude on the soil mineral, growth, yield and asiaticoside content of Centella asiatica” to be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal. We thank you for your valuable comments/suggestions allowing us to further improving the quality of our manuscript for the first round of review. We have addressed your comments/suggestions in the revised manuscript.

We summarized the revisions as follows:

  1. The experimental design indicated four replicates used. The graphs plotted and data in tables did not show error bars and standard derivation values. 

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. It is right that the experiment set up in four replications. We have been added the standard deviation in the tables and error bars in the graph plotted.

 

  1. The description of the mineralogy and soil analysis section is too simple. It only mentioned some references. Can you briefly describe each method used for the analyses?

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. Each method used for determining the analysis have been describe in the sub section 2.3. The Mineralogy and Soil Analysis from line 165 to 178.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Raden Heru Praptana

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, teh effect of zeolite, P2O5 fertilizer, and soil media from different altitudes on the growth performance, yield and asiaticoside content of Centella asiatica were studied through laboratory experiments. The results can provide scientific basis for efficient utilization of the soil formed by Merapi volcanic ash. This is an interesting work. However, the paper needs some improvement. I provide a set of suggestions and questions for authors to revise the manuscript.

1. Line 39, the Cation Exchange Capacity? The full name is used for the first time, followed by an abbreviation. In addition, I suggest adding data to describe how much the soil nutrient availability and soil CEC are improved by zeolite addition compared with no zeolite addition.

2. Line 131, I suggest adding a map of the locations of the sampling points.

3. Line 137, Characteristics of the zeolite? Please clarify it.

4. Line 146, What are the reasons for choosing four different fertilization levels? Please clarify it.

5. Line 152, Same as the previous suggestion. What are the reasons for choosing three different amounts of zeolite. Please clarify it.

6. Line 174-181, This part needs major revision.What are the methods for determining soil treatments, different physicochemical properties, and plant properties. Please specify.

7. Line 194-295, I notice in this section that there is no description of repeated experiments. The conclusion may be contingent. Have you set up a duplicate trial? Please clarify it.

8. Line 196-198, How significant is that?

9. Line 199-202, “58.94 to 67.44%”, “7.87 to 12.10%”, “60.03 to 75.90%”, and “5.25 to 9.93%”? These values cannot be retrieved from Table 1. Please rewrite Table 1.

10. Line 208, I suggest adding a column for Table.1, including "Kalitirto", "Wukirsari", and "Hargobinangun". In addition, if there are repeated experiments, I suggest that is recommended to use the “mean±SD”.

11. Line 210-212, Same as the previous suggestion. No duplicate trials set up?

12. Line 220-222, “31.3℃”, “29.1℃”, “25.2℃”, and “22.4℃”? Please provide information on the source and reliability of temperature data.

13. Line 317, I notice in your experimental design that it was repeated four times, so I suggest "mean ± SD" for all tables.

14. Line 358-363, What is the p-value of significance?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We are happy to send the first revision of manuscript entitled “The effect of P2O5 fertilizer, zeolite and vulcanic soil media from different altitude on the soil mineral, growth, yield and asiaticoside content of Centella asiatica” to be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal. We thank you for your valuable comments/suggestions allowing us to further improving the quality of our manuscript for the first round of review. We have addressed your comments/suggestions in the revised manuscript.

We summarized the revisions as follows:

  1. Line 39, the Cation Exchange Capacity? The full name is used for the first time, followed by an abbreviation. In addition, I suggest adding data to describe how much the soil nutrient availability and soil CEC are improved by zeolite addition compared with no zeolite addition.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised already. We also add table that describe effect of zeolite mineral on plant dry weight, P, K uptake, Ca and Mg nutrient, soil CEC, and the asiaticoside content of C. asiatica (Table 6) in the line 360-362

 

  1. Line 131, I suggest adding a map of the locations of the sampling points.

Author: Thank you. The map of the sampling point has been added, in the line 110-112

 

  1. Line 137, Characteristics of the zeolite? Please clarify it.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. The zeolite characteristic has been added in the line 126-128

 

  1. Line 146, What are the reasons for choosing four different fertilization levels? Please clarify it.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. The reason of choosing the level of P2O5 fertilizer has been describe in the line 124-126

 

  1. Line 152, Same as the previous suggestion. What are the reasons for choosing three different amounts of zeolite. Please clarify it.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. The reason of choosing three different amounts of zeolite has been explain in the line 129-130.

 

  1. Line 174-181, This part needs major revision. What are the methods for determining soil treatments, different physicochemical properties, and plant properties. Please specify.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. The methods for determining soil treatments, different physicochemical properties, and plant properties have been describe in the sub section 2.3. The Mineralogy and Soil Analysis from line 165 to 178

 

  1. Line 194-295, I notice in this section that there is no description of repeated experiments. The conclusion may be contingent. Have you set up a duplicate trial? Please clarify it.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. For analysis of soil samples and samples for mineralogy, composite taking is carried out in the field, then for analysis in the chemical and physical soil laboratory as well as the mineralogy lababoratory, there were done only once because of it was needed high budget for doing that works, especially for analysis of several types soil chemistry and primary mineral in the mineralogy laboratory in Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta 

 

  1. Line 196-198, How significant is that?

Author: thank you for the suggestion. Here is our explanation. Inceptisol is a soil of humid environments that usually reflect only a moderate degree of soil erosion and development. Inceptisol soil is a weakly-grown soil. This soil exposes minimal horizon development. With Inceptisol, some color changes may be conspicuous between the transpiring horizons, and the beginnings of a B horizon may be observed with the deposit of small amounts of clay and organic substance. They are relatively more developed than Entisols, but still lack the aspects that are characteristic of other soil orders. An Entisols soil consists of no diagnostic horizons and most are usually unchanged from the parent material, which can be unconsolidated sediment or rock.

 

  1. Line 199-202, “58.94 to 67.44%”, “7.87 to 12.10%”, “60.03 to 75.90%”, and “5.25 to 9.93%”? These values cannot be retrieved from Table 1. Please rewrite Table 1

Author: thank you for the suggestion. The values written in table 1 have already revised.

 

  1. Line 208, I suggest adding a column for Table.1, including "Kalitirto", "Wukirsari", and "Hargobinangun". In addition, if there are repeated experiments, I suggest that is recommended to use the “mean±SD”.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. The author has revised all values in Table 1, per the reviewer's suggestion.

 

  1. Line 210-212, Same as the previous suggestion. No duplicate trials set up?

Author: thank you for the suggestion. Our explanation for your advice: on the chemical soil analysis, there were no duplicate trials set up, because some soil sample analyses need a high budget to cover all of the research.

 

  1. Line 220-222, “31.3℃”, “29.1℃”, “25.2℃”, and “22.4℃”? Please provide information on the source and reliability of temperature data.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. Source of the data is from: Fawzia, A.A and Wiradiputra, R.A. Testing of Rain Data at Rain Stations includes Prumpung Station, Dolo Station, Jangkang Station and Gondangan Station on the Slope of Merapi Volcano, Yogyakarta Special Region.  Jurnal Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika. 2015., 2(2): 66-72.

 

  1. Line 317, I notice in your experimental design that it was repeated four times, so I suggest "mean ± SD" for all tables.

Author: thank you for the suggestion. Author have been revised all the values in all table as the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

  1. Line 358-363, What is the p-value of significance?

Author: thank you. The p-value of significance is < 0.05

 

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Raden Heru Praptana

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper needs a major revision with respect to content, language as well as its technical aspects. The paper also contains too many unnecessary details and could be shortened somewhat, as it gives the impression of an engineering report rather than a paper for publication in a scientific journal. The paper should be revised according to the following comments:

1.     The level of English (wording, sentence structures and grammar) is poor and the paper is not very readable.

2.     The literature review need to be updated with lately published papers. The authors are strongly recommended to cite and discuss all these papers:

·       Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., & Mohamadi asl, S. (2022). Stabilisation of Urmia Lake peat using natural and artificial pozzolans. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground Improvement, 175(2), 104-113.

·       Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., & Taghizadeh, F. (2019). Experimental study on marl soil stabilization using natural pozzolans. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 31(2), 04018363.

·       Kunjumon, R., Johnson, A. J., Sukumaryamma Remadevi, R. K., & Baby, S. (2022). Assessment of major centelloside ratios in Centella asiatica accessions grown under identical ecological conditions, bioconversion clues and identification of elite lines. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-11.

·       Hamedi, A., Bayat, M., Asemani, Y., & Amirghofran, Z. (2022). A review of potential anti-cancer properties of some selected medicinal plants grown in Iran. Journal of Herbal Medicine, 33, 100557.

·       Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., & Alizadeh, S. (2020). The influence of natural pozzolans structure on marl soil stabilization. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, 7(1), 46-54.

·       Tariq, M. R., Shaheen, F., Mustafa, S., Sajid, A. L. I., Fatima, A., Shafiq, M., ... & Nasir, M. A. (2022). Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms isolated from medicinal plants improve growth of mint. PeerJ, 10, e13782.

 

3.     The paper title seems to be long and not sensitive.

4.     The abstract need a revision considering main findings of the research.

5.     The results of graphs need to be discussed more.

6.     The conclusions are not clear. The authors are recommended to present the findings number by number.

7.     Please show me the novelty of this paper.

8.     Please add some text for this study application in industry.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We are happy to send the first revision of manuscript entitled “The effect of P2O5 fertilizer, zeolite and vulcanic soil media from different altitude on the soil mineral, growth, yield and asiaticoside content of Centella asiatica” to be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal. We thank you for your valuable comments/suggestions allowing us to further improving the quality of our manuscript for the first round of review. We have addressed your comments/suggestions in the revised manuscript.

We summarized the revisions as follows:

  1. The level of English (wording, sentence structures and grammar) is poor and the paper is not very readable.

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. We have been tried to improve the wording, sentences and grammar of the manuscript.

     

  1. The literature review need to be updated with lately published papers. The authors are strongly recommended to cite and discuss all these papers:

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. We apologize for not being able to use the references suggested by the reviewer to be cited in this manuscript because the topics of the proposed paper are far from the subject of our manuscript. We will use it for reference in our next manuscript if it has the same issue.

 

  1. Poin 3: The paper title seems to be long and not sensitive

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. The manuscript has already improved in substance and language by considering all the valuable suggestions from reviewers. Hopefully, these improvements are in line with the expectations of the reviewers.

 

  1. The abstract need a revision considering main findings of the research

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. The abstract has been already revised by considering the suggestion from reviewers.

 

  1. The results of graphs need to be discussed more

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. The discussion in the result of graph already enhanced by considering the suggestion from reviewer.

 

  1. The conclusions are not clear. The authors are recommended to present the findings number by number

Author: Thank you for the suggestion. The conclusion has been already revised by considering the suggestion from reviewers.

 

 

  1. Please show me the novelty of this paper.

Author. Thank you for the suggestion. The novelty of this study has been expressed in the abstract, in the line 34-46.

 

  1. Please add some text for this study application in industry

Author. Thank you for the suggestion. Considering that this research is only at the experimental stage in a greenhouse, the authors cannot provide recommendations for industrial applications. However, if the results of this study have developed at the level of business actors, it can become an opportunity for the complete mixed soil-nutrient industry as a planting medium.

 

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Raden Heru Praptana

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision answered all questions. I have no question and suggest the manuscript to be acceptted.

Reviewer 3 Report

merits for publication