Unravelling the Release Kinetics of Exchangeable Magnesium in Acid Soil of Nilgiris
, Karuppusamy Rajan 3, Djanaguiraman Maduraimuthu 4, Santosh Kumar Singh 5,*, Jagadesh Muthumani 1, Shivvendra Singh 6 and Biswajit Pramanick 7,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study focused on modeling the release of exchangeable magnesium from different fertilizer sources in acidic soil. Various mathematical models were tested, and the power function and parabolic diffusion models were found to best describe the release kinetics. The results emphasize the significance of magnesium solubility and offer valuable information for understanding magnesium behavior in acidic soils. This manuscript could be considered for publication in the Journal of Sustainability with major revisions.
1) The abstract should provide a clear overview of the study objectives, models used, and key findings related to the release kinetics of exchangeable magnesium in acidic soil.
2) The figures displayed in the manuscript are poor, and it is suggested that the authors should provide high-quality figures. Additionally, it is recommended to transform the dot graph in Figure 1 into a dot-line graph for improved clarity and readability.
3) Authors applied multiple mathematical models for investigating the release kinetics of the magnesium release process. The findings suggest that the power function and parabolic diffusion models best describe the magnesium release kinetics. What are their coefficient parameter and the linear equations? What do these results confirm? The authors should provide more information on the release patterns and behavior of magnesium in acidic soil.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Comment 1: The abstract should provide a clear overview of the study objectives, models used, and key findings related to the release kinetics of exchangeable magnesium in acidic soil.
Response 1: We, the authors, revisited and revised the abstract as per the reviewer’s suggestion.
Comment 2: The figures displayed in the manuscript are poor, and it is suggested that the authors should provide high-quality figures. Additionally, it is recommended to transform the dot graph in Figure 1 into a dot-line graph for improved clarity and readability.
Response 2: We authors updated the manuscript with high-quality figures and also we transformed the dot graph in Figure 1 into a dot-line graph for improved clarity and readability.
Reviewer 2 Report
Short Summary of the Manuscript:
Magnesium, being an important part of chlorophyll, is required by plants for their proper growth and development. In view of the Mg deficiency becoming rampant among plants of economic significance, the present investigation is an attempt to analyze the impacts of three Magnesium fertilizers, viz. Magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, Magnesium carbonate and Calcium magnesium carbonate on the release pattern of the phytonutrient in acidic soil and to test various mathematical models of the release kinetics of exchangeable Mg in such soils. The study provides valuable insights into Mg release in acid soils.
Major Issues:
1. Section 2.2: I would have kept the number of replications at least three for enhanced precision. For convenience in handling, had that been the issue, the treatment concentrations might have been reduced from five to three or four. However, a suitable justification may be given for this.
2. The power function and parabolic diffusion models need further elaboration.
Minor Issues:
1. All the figures are of poor quality. Good-quality figures may be provided for a better reflection of the results.
2. The language and grammar of the manuscript need serious attention. A careful reading of the document by a native English speaker is needed to eliminate errors.
1. The language and grammar of the manuscript need serious attention. A careful reading of the document by a native English speaker is needed to eliminate errors. Some of the points in this regard are hereunder only for example:
a. Line 43: Add “the” before “reduced”
b. Line 44: Replace “crop” with “crops”
c. Line 44: Add “the” before “deficiency”
d. Line 45: Replace aluminum with “aluminium”
e. Line 50: Delete “that”
f. Line 51: In my view, the word “enhanced” is not suitable. Replace it with “elevated”, “raised” or any of the other appropriate synonyms.
g. Line 61: Delete “with”
h. Line 66: Delete comma after “fertilizers”
i. Line 67: Add “the” before “deficiency”
j. Line 69: Shift comma from after “i.e.” to after “reasons”
k. Line 79: Delete comma after “soil”
l. Line 96: Add “the” before “soil” and “a” before “farmer’s”
m. Line 131: Delete comma after “method”
n. Line 132L Add “and” before “then”
o. Line 152: Add “and” before “hence”. Replace “details” with “detail”
…etc.
2. Line 50: Please write the author names, “Chan et al. [13] and Hailes et al. [14] revealed…”
3. Line 52: Please refer to point No. 2 above. Replace “[15]” with “Sumner et al. [15]”
4. Line 202: Replace “is” with “are” as the word “data” is plural.
5. Line 287: Add “other workers” after “outcomes of”
6. Line 289: Add “some researchers” after “explained by”
7. Line 291 and 292: Please give the author names of Reference No. 57 after “by” to eliminate the error of ending the sentence abruptly.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please see the attachment
Author Response
1. Section 2.2: I would have kept the number of replications at least three for enhanced precision. For convenience in handling, had that been the issue, the treatment concentrations might have been reduced from five to three or four. However, a suitable justification may be given for this.
Response: Even though many researchers worked on the effect of magnesium sources on yield but its effect on microbial community was still unexplored. Some properties like microbial community and enzymatic activities etc. are the another part of this incubation experiment for which we need graded levels of each sources to get precision in the microbial aspect. Those microbial parameters are not included in the manuscript. By taking these points into consideration, we decreased the no. of replication to two which already satisfies the error degree of freedom. As there is no Mg fertilizer recommendation for Broccoli (test crop for our field experiment) in acidic soil of Nilgiris but a recommendation of 60 kg Mg ha-1 for other vegetable crops like Potato. Hence, Mg upto 50 kg ha-1 was optimized for this experiment.
2. The power function and parabolic diffusion models need further elaboration.
Response: We authors revisited and revised the section 3.1 as per the reviewer suggestion.
3. All the figures are of poor quality. Good-quality figures may be provided for a better reflection of the results.
Response: We, authors, rechecked and updated the manuscript with high-quality figures.
4. The language and grammar of the manuscript need serious attention. A careful reading of the document by a native English speaker is needed to eliminate errors.
Response: We have checked the language of the entire article, now.
5. Line 43: Add “the” before “reduced”
Response: We authors added “the” before “reduced”.
6. Line 44: Replace “crop” with “crops”.
Response: We authors replaced “crop” with “crops”.
7. Line 44: Add “the” before “deficiency”.
Response: We authors added “the” before “deficiency”.
8. Line 45: Replace aluminum with “aluminium”.
Response: We authors replaced aluminum with “aluminium”.
9. Line 50: Delete “that”.
Response: We authors deleted “that”.
10. Line 51: In my view, the word “enhanced” is not suitable. Replace it with “elevated”, “raised” or any of the other appropriate synonyms.
Response: We authors replaced the word “enhanced” with “elevated”.
11. Line 61: Delete “with”.
Response: We authors deleted “with”.
12. Line 66: Delete comma after “fertilizers”.
Response: We authors deleted comma after “fertilizers”.
13. Line 67: Add “the” before “deficiency”.
Response: We authors added “the” before “deficiency”.
14. Line 69: Shift comma from after “i.e.” to after “reasons”.
Response: We authors shifted comma from after “i.e.” to after “reasons”.
15. Line 79: Delete comma after “soil”.
Response: We authors deleted comma after “soil”.
16. Line 96: Add “the” before “soil” and “a” before “farmer’s”.
Response: We authors added “the” before “soil” and “a” before “farmer’s”.
17. Line 131: Delete comma after “method”.
Response: We authors deleted comma after “method”.
18. Line 132L Add “and” before “then”.
Response: We authors added “and” before “then”.
19. Line 152: Add “and” before “hence”. Replace “details” with “detail”…etc.
Response: We authors added “and” before “hence” and replaced “details” with “detail”.
20. Line 50: Please write the author names, “Chan et al. [13] and Hailes et al. [14] revealed…”
Response: We authors updated the author names, “Chan et al. [13] and Hailes et al. [14]”
21. Line 52: Please refer to point No. 2 above. Replace “[15]” with “Sumner et al. [15]”.
Response: We authors replaced “[15]” with “Sumner et al. [15]”.
22. Line 202: Replace “is” with “are” as the word “data” is plural.
Response: We authors replaced “is” with “are” as the word “data” is plural.
23. Line 287: Add “other workers” after “outcomes of”.
Response: We authors added “other workers” after “outcomes of”.
24. Line 289: Add “some researchers” after “explained by”.
Response: We authors added “some researchers” after “explained by”.
25. Line 291 and 292: Please give the author names of Reference No. 57 after “by” to eliminate the error of ending the sentence abruptly.
Response: We authors updated the author names of Reference No. 57.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. A lot of work has already been done on this aspect but this study is very interesting because earlier maximum emphasis was placed on nitrogenous, phosphatic and potassic fertilizers as compared to magnesium. Although this is a small study, this work will be a basis for further research in the Nilgiri region. The four models used to check the magnisium release pattern are suitable and correct
2. Method Materials are clear and suitable
3. Tables and graphs are clearly represented the results with proper logic.
4. Some references need to be rechecked - 411, 423 and 431
Author Response
1. Method Materials are clear and suitable.
Response: Thank you for your encouraging comment.
2. Tables and graphs are clearly represented the results with proper logic.
Response: Thank you very much.
3. Some references need to be rechecked - 411, 423 and 431.
Response: We authors rechecked the references 411, 423, and 431 and also updated the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript, and their work can be published in the journal now.
