Fertigation and Carboxymethyl Cellulose Applications Enhance Water-Use Efficiency, Improving Soil Available Nutrients and Maize Yield in Salt-Affected Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor, Sustainability
I have browsed the manuscript entitled: Integrated Drip Irrigation and Carboxymethyl Cellulose Application Enhance Water and Salt Transport, Improve Soil Fertility, and Promote Maize Growth in Saline-Alkali Land
The novelty aspects are existed regarding using Carboxymethyl Cellulose as an alternative amendment for reclamation of salt-affected soils. However, the manuscript contains several drawbacks, which avoid publishing of this manuscript in its current form.
General comments
- The manuscript contains several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript needs substantial editing from native English speaker before publication.
- Classification of salt-affected soils depends on values of EC, pH and ESP. Saline-alkali soil possess pH value higher than 8.5 and EC value greater than 4.0 dS m-1. The EC value of the investigated soil is lower than 4.0 dS m-1. Therefore, please modify the title of the manuscript. In addition "soil" is more scientific expression than "land". I prefer using the expression "salt-affected soil".
- "The water-fertilizer integrated drip irrigation treatments" it is very long expression. I suggest using "fertigation" expression instead.
Specific comments
Introduction
- Lines 30-32 (please add an updated reference).
- Lines 34-36 (please add an updated reference).
- Line 62 " fertilizer integration drip irrigation" – need rephrasing
- Lines 64-66. This sentence is unclear and needs rephrasing
- Please consider these references in supporting the global utilization of humic substances and biochar for improving physicochemical characteristics of soil and plant productivity:
· 10.3390/su15021206
· 10.1016/j.eti.2021.101599
- Line 92 "there is an urgent need"
- Lines 98-99 – please rephrase the sentence: To dully understand the integrated effect CMC
- Lines 101-104 it looks like a redundancy. It is similar to the former sentence. Please merge the two sentences with appropriate rephrasing.
- Please rewrite the objectives of your study (lines 105-) and try to make it clear, concise and measurable.
- Lines 108-110 the impact of the research deliverable could benefit all salt-affected soils in arid and semi-arid regions worldwide.
Materials and Methods
Lines 118-121: I prefer a Table instead.
- Regarding soil physicochemical characteristics, SAR is a water criterion. I recommend considering ESP instead. What about other important analyses (e.g. soluble cations and anions, organic matter, total carbonate …etc.)?
- How did you schedule irrigation? Did you consider water depletion in the rhizosphere? If so, what about the soil water content? Please write details about irrigation scheduling based on scientific point of view.
- WC was added with cow manure, why? Additionally, how did you identify the sole effect of WC?
- (24-12-14) is the type of compound fertilizer. Please illustrate that these percentages correlate with N, P and K concentrations, respectively.
- The pretreated soil was sieved through 1-mm sieve. Why you did not use a 2-mm sieve? It is the most common protocol for soil preparation.
Results
- Line 356, author mentioned that application of a large amount of CMC (WC2 and WC3) significantly increased aboveground biomass and grain yield of maize. However, Table 5 showed no difference between samples according to significance letters. Please check the statistical analysis or change the word "significant".
- Check the quality of Tables and figures. For examples, figures are a little bit blurry and the significant letters sometimes written as capitalized and other times written as small caps.
Discussion
- Lines 376-932. These sentences were mentioned earlier in the introduction. Therefore, this is a redundancy.
- Please discuss the effect of CMC on water and salts movement in soil matrix in a chemistry point of view.
- I think CMC could persist in the surface layer of soil against downward movement in subsurface layers. This could be the reason of the insignificant differences in salt contents among subsurface layers. However, authors need to discuss in details the safeguard effect of CMC against salts accumulation in the topsoil. Theoretically, the high sorption capacity of CMC could bind higher amounts of cations and anions in the rhizospheric layer.
- Please discuss in details mechanisms responsible for increasing nutrient supply potentials of soil following CMC application.
- Lines 471-721, bad wording.
- The effect of experimental treatments on maize growth and yield needs intensive discussion.
- The manuscript contains several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript needs substantial editing from native English speaker before publication.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your comments on the manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on your comments and highlighted it in red, with those parts of the manuscript where your comments overlap with those of other reviewers highlighted in purple. All of your questions have been answered individually, and the following is a point-by-point response to your comments.
General comments
Q1. The manuscript contains several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript needs substantial editing from native English speaker before publication.
Response: We made full corrections for grammatical and writing errors in English and sent the manuscript to the English editing company recommended by MDPI for English editing and submitted the English editing certificate to the editor as well.
Q2. Classification of salt-affected soils depends on values of EC, pH and ESP. Saline-alkali soil possess pH value higher than 8.5 and EC value greater than 4.0 dS m-1. The EC value of the investigated soil is lower than 4.0 dS m-1. Therefore, please modify the title of the manuscript. In addition…"soil" is more scientific expression than "land". I prefer using the expression "salt-affected soil".
Response: We revised the title to " Fertigation and Carboxymethyl Cellulose Applications Enhance Water-Use Efficiency, Improving Soil Available Nutrients and Maize Yield in Salt-affected Soil " and highlighted in purple in the manuscript.
Q3. The water-fertilizer integrated drip irrigation treatments" it is very long expression. I suggest using "fertigation" expression instead.
Response: We revised the title to " Fertigation and Carboxymethyl Cellulose Applications Enhance Water-Use Efficiency, Improving Soil Available Nutrients and Maize Yield in Salt-affected Soil ". We have revised the manuscript statement of "The water-fertilizer integrated drip irrigation treatments" to "fertigation" and highlighted in Purple in the manuscript.
Specific comments
Introduction
Q1. Lines 30-32 (please add an updated reference).
Response: We have added a reference in line 34 and highlighted them in red.
Q2. Lines 34-36 (please add an updated reference).
Response: We have added a reference in line 38 and highlighted them in red.
Q3. Line 62 " fertilizer integration drip irrigation" – need rephrasing
Response: We have rephrased the entire manuscript on "fertilizer integration drip irrigation" in line 62 and have highlighted the revised parts in red.
Q4. Lines 64-66. This sentence is unclear and needs rephrasing
Response: We have rephrased the sentence in lines 64-66 and highlighted it in red.
Q5. Please consider these references in supporting the global utilization of humic substances and biochar for improving physicochemical characteristics of soil and plant productivity: 10.3390/su15021206; 10.1016/j.eti.2021.101599
Response: We have added these references as citations to the manuscript to support the global utilization of humic substances and biochar and highlighted the added content in red.
Q6. Line 92 "there is an urgent need"
Response: We have rephrased the sentence in lines 98-99 and highlighted it in red.
Q7. Lines 98-99 – please rephrase the sentence: To dully understand the integrated effect CMC
Response: We have rephrased this sentence as "To dully understand the integrated effect CMC on salt-affected soil..." in line 104 and highlighted it in red.
Q8. Lines 101-104 it looks like a redundancy. It is similar to the former sentence. Please merge the two sentences with appropriate rephrasing.
Response: We have merged these two sentences in lines 104-107 and highlighted them in red.
Q9. Please rewrite the objectives of your study (lines 105-) and try to make it clear, concise and measurable.
Response: We rewrote the objectives to make them clear, concise and measurable in lines 108-110 and highlighted them in purple.
Q10. Lines 108-110 the impact of the research deliverable could benefit all salt-affected soils in arid and semi-arid regions worldwide.
Response: We revised this sentence to "We anticipate that the impact of the research deliverable could benefit all salt-affected soils in arid and semi-arid regions worldwide" in lines 110-112 and highlight it in red.
Materials and Methods
Q1 Lines 118-121: I prefer a Table instead.
Response: We have revised the information in the test area profile to be presented in a table format (Table 1) and highlight it in red.
Q2 Regarding soil physicochemical characteristics, SAR is a water criterion. I recommend considering ESP instead. What about other important analyses (e.g., soluble cations and anions, organic matter, total carbonate …etc.)?
Response: We have supplemented the initial soil parameters of organic matter and ESP to characterize the physicochemical characteristics of the soil (Table 2) and highlight it in red.
Q3 How did you schedule irrigation? Did you consider water depletion in the rhizosphere? If so, what about the soil water content? Please write details about irrigation scheduling based on scientific point of view.
Response: Our experiment relies on a local cropland improvement project. Therefore, the experimental irrigation schedule is aligned with the local conventional irrigation and fertilizer application schedule in order to contrast with the local conventional fertigation, and specific information has been added to the manuscript and highlighted in purple.
Q4 WC was added with cow manure, why? Additionally, how did you identify the sole effect of WC?
Response: Our experiment was based on a local arable land improvement project. In order to better compare with local traditional field management to guide local cultivation, we also applied cow manure as a base fertilizer according to local traditional fertilization habits and applied cow manure in each treatment to ensure the sole effect of WC. We have already discussed this in "2.3. management and Irrigation scheduling" in lines 151-152 and highlighted in purple.
Q5 (24-12-14) is the type of compound fertilizer. Please illustrate that these percentages correlate with N, P and K concentrations, respectively.
Response: We illustrate these percentages in relation to N, P2O5 and K2O in the manuscript in line 160 and highlight them in red.
Q6 The pretreated soil was sieved through 1-mm sieve. Why you did not use a 2-mm sieve? It is the most common protocol for soil preparation.
Response: To achieve better filtration of impurities in our soil samples, we opted for a 1-mm sieve due to a considerable presence of plant residues and other impurities. Although it is worth noting that, in general, the use of a 2-mm sieve is preferred for soil analysis in most conditions.
Results
Q1 Line 356, author mentioned that application of a large amount of CMC (WC2 and WC3) significantly increased aboveground biomass and grain yield of maize. However, Table 5 showed no difference between samples according to significance letters. Please check the statistical analysis or change the word "significant".
Response: We have revised this sentence to be more accurate in lines 369-372 and highlighted it in red.
Q2 Check the quality of Tables and figures. For examples, figures are a little bit blurry and the significant letters sometimes written as capitalized and other times written as small caps.
Response: We checked the quality of the Tables and Figures and re-uploaded new ones. We also uploaded high resolution Figures in TIF format specifically for the submission system in order to avoid the reduced clarity caused by the Word mode conversion to PDF format.
Discussion
Q1 Lines 376-392. These sentences were mentioned earlier in the introduction. Therefore, this is a redundancy.
Response: We removed these sentences that were already mentioned in the Introduction.
Q2 Please discuss the effect of CMC on water and salts movement in soil matrix in a chemistry point of view.
Response: We have rewritten the discussion of the effect of CMC on the movement of water and salt in the soil matrix in the "Discussion" section in lines 409-424 and lines 450-459 and highlighted it in red.
Q3 I think CMC could persist in the surface layer of soil against downward movement in subsurface layers. This could be the reason of the insignificant differences in salt contents among subsurface layers. However, authors need to discuss in details the safeguard effect of CMC against salts accumulation in the topsoil. Theoretically, the high sorption capacity of CMC could bind higher amounts of cations and anions in the rhizosphere layer.
Response: We rediscuss the protective effect of CMC on salt accumulation in topsoil in the "Discussion" section in lines 450-459 and highlight it in red.
Q4 Please discuss in details mechanisms responsible for increasing nutrient supply potentials of soil following CMC application.
Response: We discussed in detail the mechanism of increasing soil nutrient supply potentials of soil following CMC application in the "4.2. Soil nutrients" section in lines 472-485, highlighted in red.
Q5 Lines 471-472, bad wording.
Response: We have rephrased the sentence in lines 504-505 and highlighted it in red.
Q6 The effect of experimental treatments on maize growth and yield needs intensive discussion.
Response: We discuss the effects of CMC on maize growth and yield in depth in the section "4.3. Crop responses" in lines 531-549 and highlight them in purple.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. p09 to p10, Line 286 to Line 288, It is mentioned "Specifically, WC2 and WC3 treatments resulted in a 33.00%-53.95% and 29.36%-51.49% higher desalination rate in the 0-10 cm soil layer, respectively, compared to the W treatment". Does the figures mentioned refer to those in Table 3? Which figures then?.
2. Referring to the title of current manuscript that ...."Promote Maize Growth in Saline-Alkali Land ", it is suggested to strengthen the conclusion on this aspect as well.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your comments on the manuscript. Based on your comments, we have revised the relevant parts of the manuscript and highlighted them in blue, with those parts of the manuscript where your comments overlap with those of other reviewers highlighted in purple. All of your questions were answered one by one.
Q1 p09 to p10, Line 286 to Line 288, It is mentioned "Specifically, WC2 and WC3 treatments resulted in a 33.00%-53.95% and 29.36%-51.49% higher desalination rate in the 0-10 cm soil layer, respectively, compared to the W treatment". Do the figures mentioned refer to those in Table 3? Which figures then?
Response: It was calculated based on the data in Table 3, and our expression about this content was not clear, we reworked the expression of this sentence in lines 300-302 and highlighted it in blue.
Q2 Referring to the title of current manuscript that ...."Promote Maize Growth in Saline-Alkali Land ", it is suggested to strengthen the conclusion on this aspect as well.
Response: We have enhanced the discussion and conclusions on "Promotion of saline maize growth" in lines 532-549 and lines 555-568, and highlighted it in purple.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please read my suggestions and questions carefully.Then, answer them
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
All my notes,suggestions and questions are written at the attached reviewed manuscripts.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your comments on the manuscript. The comments were valuable and very helpful. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on your comments and have highlighted them in green, with those parts of the manuscript where your comments overlap with those of other reviewers highlighted in purple. All of your questions have been answered individually, and the following is a point-by-point response to your comments.
Q1 my suggestion is to change the title to be “integrated drip ir and car app enhance water use efficiency, improve NPK availability, and maize yield. soil that been used in this study are not saline soils because of low soil EC.
Response: We have changed the title to " Fertigation and Carboxymethyl Cellulose Applications Enhance Water-Use Efficiency, Improving Soil Available Nutrients and Maize Yield in Salt-affected Soil " based on your suggestion and low soil EC, and highlighted it in purple.
Q2 In this study there is no saline effects can be found, unless the soil suspensions were analyzed as a soil solution at the lab, but if it were analyzed from soil paste will be big difference. this was my question; how did the authors make the soil suspension?
Response: We made saturated soil paste extracts from soil samples by standard methods (Robbins and Wiegand, 1990) with a water to soil mass ratio of approximately 3:5. We have added this in "Materials and Methods" in lines 187-189 and highlighted it in green.
Q3 What was the experimental design?
Response: We have rewritten this sentence in the "Abstract" to present the experimental design more clearly in lines 11-16 and highlight it in green.
Q4 What are the mechanisms that could CMC effect on water retention, desalination, and yield? Even on the plant or into the soil. you should write this in one paragraph.
Response: We have added the effects of CMC on soil water retention, desalination and yield to the "Introduction" of the manuscript in lines 88-96 and highlighted them in green.
Q5 from where water is coming to be evaporated?
Response: We have rewritten this sentence in lines 44-47 and highlighted it in green.
Q6 both objectives are different from your hypothesis.
Response: We rewrote the objectives to make them clear, concise and measurable in lines 108-112 and highlighted them in purple.
Q7 what was the soil texture?
Response: The soil textures are medium-textured saline alluvial soils with basic sand and loamy sand within 0-70 cm and loamy within 70-100 cm. We have added information about soil texture in "Materials and methods" in lines 124-125 and marked it in green.
Q8 what was the soil suspension method, was it soil paste or suspension soil: water? you should say that.
Response: We made saturated soil paste extracts from soil samples by standard methods (Robbins and Wiegand, 1990) with a water to soil mass ratio of approximately 3:5. We have added this in "Materials and Methods" in lines 187-189 and highlighted it in green.
Q9 you should mention this at M&M section.
Response: We have revised this Table and the "Materials and Methods" section.
Q10 what was the experimental design? you have 5 trt in each rep, so the total is 15, why it is 12?
Response: This was a mistake in our writing and has been revised to 15 plots and highlighted in green.
Q11 How many rows in each plot? is it meaning that you have five plots which each is 20*20 m2?
Response: There were 15 plots with 5 treatments and 3 replications, with a plot size of 20 ´ 20 m2 and 38 rows of maize per plot, for a total trial area of 6000 m2. We have added this in "Materials and methods" in line 146 and highlighted it in green.
Q12 Do you mean 400 kg N/ha form urea, ……. and so on?
Response: Yes, the amounts of N, P, and K were 400 kg N ha-1, 200 kg P2O5 ha-1, and 225 kg K2O ha-1, respectively. We have added this to "Materials and Methods" to make fertilizer application clearer in lines 155-157 and highlighted it in green.
Q13 how did you apply it? why did you apply it?
Response: Our experiments were conducted on the basis of a local arable land improvement project. In order to better compare with the local traditional field management and guide the local farming. We used maize water-soluble fertilizer (N-P2O5-K2O=24-12-14) as fertilizer for the drip irrigation treatment according to the traditional local fertilization practice. Ten rounds of irrigation were carried out during the maize growth period, with seven rounds of fertilization applied by drip irrigation, and the total amount of fertilizer was consistent with that of the flood irrigation treatment. We have already discussed this in "2.3. management and Irrigation scheduling" in lines 160-165 and highlighted in purple.
Q14 How
Response: We have added this in "2.3 Fertilization management and Irrigation scheduling " and highlighted in purple.
Q15 how did you mix the 3 rates of CMC into the soil?
Response: WC1, WC2, and WC3 were applied by surface spreading 100 kg ha-1, 200 kg ha-1, and 300 kg ha-1 of CMC in the corresponding plots prior to planting and then rototilled into 20-25 cm of soil by rotary tillage. We have added this in "2.3 Fertilization management and Irrigation scheduling " in lines 165-169 and highlighted in green.
Q16 why 1 mm? it should be 2 mm.
Response: You are right. In this experiment, a 1 mm sieve was chosen to better filter impurities from the soil samples due to the presence of large amounts of plant residues and other impurities. Although it is worth noting that, in general, a 2 mm sieve is preferred for soil analysis in most cases.
Q17 clarify each analyzer with model, make, and manufacturer.
Response: We have added the model, make, and manufacturer of the analyzer in lines 198-203 and highlighted it in green.
Q18 you have to mention 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 at the M&M section.
Response: We have added this section in "2.4. Statistical analyses" in lines 229-232 and highlighted it in green.
Q19 which exact N you are talking about? is its total N, or NH4 or NO3?
Response: Alkali hydrolyzed N determined by the alkaline diffusion method includes soil inorganic state N (ammonium N, nitrate N) and some easily hydrolyzed organic state N (amino acids, acyl ammonium and easily hydrolyzed proteins).
Q20 Which N was?
Response: We have revised this sentence in line 320 and highlighted it in green.
Q21 how is that happening? P is not moving in the soil, or a slow moving in the soil
Response: We discuss this phenomenon in the "4.2. Soil nutrients" section in lines 485-495 and highlight it in green.
Q22 what is the x-axes
Response: We have revised the figure.
Q23 citation!
Response: We have rewritten this part of the "Discussion" section.
Q24 how you get this fact?
Response: We have rewritten this part of the "Discussion" section.
Q25 you did not do something with infiltration?
Response: We have rewritten this sentence in lines 390-391 and highlighted it in green.
Q26 You did not say how much the EC to the irrigation water that been used in this study at M&M section?
Response: We have added information on irrigation water to the "Materials and Methods" in lines 168-169 and highlighted it in green.
Q27 citation or citations?
Response: We have rewritten this part of the "Discussion" section.
Q28 Be specific, which kind of salts are you talking about? write them here.
Response: We have added specific types of salt in lines 426-427 and highlighted them in green.
Q29 You are talking about many citations, but you wrote just one citation, why?
Response: We added this part of the citations.
Q30 how? Citation
Response: We have rewritten this part and added the citations.
Q31 You don’t need to write this, it is not related to your hypothesis or even your statement.
Response: We removed this section.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This study investigated integrated drip irrigation and carboxymethyl cellulose application enhance water and salt transport, improve soil fertility and promote maize growth in saline-alkali land. However, the amount of data in this paper is insufficient and the mechanism of the result phenomenon is not clearly revealed. In my opinion, the quality of the manuscript in the present form can not reach the criteria of Sustainability. And here is a question need for recheck. The irrigation quotas for WC2 and WC3 in line 142-143 are inconsistent with Table 2. Please check and unify them.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have made comprehensive revisions to the manuscript and added some content, highlighted in brown. Here is the point-by-point response regarding your comment.
Q1 The irrigation quotas for WC2 and WC3 in line 142-143 are inconsistent with Table 2. Please check and unify them.
Response: We checked and revised this section in lines 142-144 and highlighted it in brown.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question is related the effect of drip irrigation and CMC application regarding the content of available nutrients, surface evaporation,underground water loss, and evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency, also above-ground biomass and grain yield.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? You can not consider it a gap in the field but it is a kind of a new application.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? Its results which is related to the content of available nutrients, surface evaporation,
underground water loss, and evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency, also above-ground biomass and grain yield. 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? No comments.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments
presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes.
6. Are the references appropriate?
yes.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have revised the manuscript title and highlighted it in orange or purple (where it overlaps with other reviewers' comments), and the following is a point-by-point response to your comments.
Q1 The title is too long and needs to be shorten.
Response: We revised the title and highlighted in purple in the manuscript.
Q2 suggest to delete this part of the title
Response: We revised the title and highlighted in purple in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- Line 13, "are not clearly investigated"
- SAR is unitless. In addition, SAR is commonly used as a water criterion.
- I need an interpretation about how the high ESP value of soil (>20% in most cases) recorded pH value below 8.5.
- In Table 6, I suggest deleting the letter "a" of significance if there is no significant difference between treatments.
Quality of English Language has been improved in the revised version of manuscript.
Author Response
We appreciate your insightful and constructive comments and advice, and we have carefully addressed these concerns and made a proper revision of the manuscript. These comments and suggestions have not only enabled us to provide a highly improved manuscript but also inspired us to conduct more in-depth studies on the remediation of salt-affected soils.
We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on your comments and highlighted it in bold red font. The following is a point-by-point response to your comments.
Q1. Line 13, "are not clearly investigated"
Response: We revised this sentence and highlighted it in bold red font.
Q2. SAR is unitless. In addition, SAR is commonly used as a water criterion.
Response: As SAR is commonly used as a water criterion, we deleted the SAR from the Table.
Q3. I need an interpretation about how the high ESP value of soil (>20% in most cases) recorded pH value below 8.5.
Response: In this experiment, pH values below 8.5 and ESP between 19.24 and 20.91% were observed in the 50-100 cm depth soil layer. We speculate that the reason for this phenomenon may be due to the shallow groundwater depth caused by long-term diversion irrigation in this experiment area, and the sodium sulfate salt in groundwater may cause low soil pH and high ESP values. Meanwhile, in the soil of the deeper soil layer in this test, the soil texture is loamy and there is a high content of clay particles. The clay particles adsorb acidic ions such as sulfate ions (SO42-), thus giving the soil a low pH value. In addition, the relatively high organic matter of the top soil (14.31-15.79 g/kg) may leach organic acids released during the decomposition of organic matter into the deeper soils, lowering the soil pH value.
Q4. In Table 6, I suggest deleting the letter "a" of significance if there is no significant difference between treatments.
Response: We removed the letter "a" after the data for treatments with no significant differences between treatments in Table 6.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I still have a few suggestions that shown at the second revised copy. it is necessary to do them. other than on that, I don't have more and congratulation.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate your insightful and constructive comments and advice, and we have carefully addressed these concerns and made a proper revision of the manuscript. These comments and suggestions have not only enabled us to provide a highly improved manuscript but also inspired us to conduct more in-depth studies on the remediation of salt-affected soils.
We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on your comments and have highlighted them in bold green font. All of your questions have been answered individually, and the following is a point-by-point response to your comments.
Q1 Write it like this: 100 kg CMC ha-1, and the same for the others.
Response: We revised this sentence and highlighted it in bold green font.
Q2 How did you calculate them (SAR&ESP)? you should write the formula for each one with citations.
Response: We added formulas and citations in "Materials and Methods" and highlighted them in bold green font.
Q3 100 kg ? ha, …., You should write this between kg and ha
Response: We revised this sentence and highlighted it in bold green font.
Q4 How did you calculate yield? You should write a few sentences about this. Also, what was the grain moisture when did you harvest it? write this as well.
Response: We added maize grain yield measurement methods and grain moisture content at harvest in "Materials and Methods" and highlighted them in bold green font.
Q5 Biochar is not reducing soil pH. so, delete this unless applying humic acid could do this. in this case my suggestion here is that discuss each one apart.
Response: We have rewritten this sentence to discuss biochar and humic acid separately, and highlighted them in bold green font.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The author has corrected the comments of the reviewers and the paper has been greatly improved. In summary, the paper can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your approval of our revised manuscript. Your previous constructive comments not only enabled us to provide a highly improved manuscript, but also inspired us to conduct a more in-depth study on the remediation of salt-affected soils.
