Improving the Physical Properties and Water Retention of Sandy Soils by the Synergistic Utilization of Natural Clay Deposits and Wheat Straw
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores the effects of organic amendments with varying particle sizes, in conjunction with natural clay deposits, on enhancing soil physio-chemical characteristics, nutrient availability, and the growth of Sudan grass. The author conducted multiple experiments and obtained practical results with potential applications. However, the findings fall short of being suitable for publication as a scientific article, primarily due to the limited exploration of underlying mechanisms. Scientific papers should not only present surface-level data but also delve into the underlying mechanisms; concurrently, enhancing the narrative and readability of the paper. It is evident that this paper lacks in this aspect.
More specific comments are outlined below:
Abstract:
Line10-12 “Improving physical properties and water retention of sandy soils is of critical importance arid and water-scarce regions such as Saudi Arabia for sustainable soil management.” Please revise this sentence with correct grammar.
Line23-25 “Significant reductions in soil pH, cumulative infiltration, hydraulic conductivity, cumulative evaporation, and bulk density were observed in amended soils compared to control.” All these changes are conductive for soil and plants?
Keywords:
L32 Please re-consider the selection of key words.
Introduction:
The Introduction is logically structured; however, the discussion lacks depth.
Materials and Methods:
Line 216-218 Why did the authors believe that plant residues, specifically wheat straw, should contain heavy metals? What is the source of these heavy metals?
Results and Discussion
Results lack further analyses. The authors could employ statistical tools to unveil the underlying relationships between different variables.
The current discussion lacks sufficient depth. Kindly provide a comprehensive explanation encompassing the reasons and mechanisms underlying the observed phenomenon.
Figures: Please rearrange the figures. Some of them, for example figure 4 and figure 5 are clear enough. The presentation of data is overly simplistic and lacks complexity.
Tables: Too many tables in the manuscript. Please put some of them in the supplementary materials.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer # 1
Abstract:
Comment 1: Line10-12 “Improving physical properties and water retention of sandy soils is of critical importance arid and water-scarce regions such as Saudi Arabia for sustainable soil management.” Please revise this sentence with correct grammar.
Reply: We are highly thankful to the reviewer for sparing time to review our manuscript. The suggestions and comments provided by the reviewer were important. We have considered all the suggestions/comments to improve the quality of our manuscript. The said sentence has been revised grammatically.
Comment 2: Line23-25 “Significant reductions in soil pH, cumulative infiltration, hydraulic conductivity, cumulative evaporation, and bulk density were observed in amended soils compared to control.” All these changes are conductive for soil and plants?
Reply: Thank you for this comment. All these parameters were studied for soil.
Keywords:
Comment 3: L32 Please re-consider the selection of key words.
Reply: The keywords have been revised.
Introduction:
Comment 4: The Introduction is logically structured; however, the discussion lacks depth.
Reply: The introduction has been revised.
Materials and Methods:
Comment 5: Line 216-218 Why did the authors believe that plant residues, specifically wheat straw, should contain heavy metals? What is the source of these heavy metals?
Reply: The soil and plants were analyzed for the presence of heavy metals. The soil was analyzed for physiochemical analyses, including heavy metals before the onset of the experiment, which showed the traces of heavy metals. Therefore, the plants were analyzed for heavy metals uptake. Moreover, it has previously been reported that soil in Dirab could have heavy metals (Elhindi et al., 2018), thus, it is reasonable to explore the potential presence of these metals in plant residues, specifically wheat straw. It was hypothesized that the accumulation of heavy metals in the soil could lead to their uptake by plants, including wheat, which could then result in the presence of these metals in the associated residues. Understanding the source of these heavy metals is crucial for assessing environmental impact and potential risks associated with agricultural practices.
Results and Discussion
Comment 6: Results lack further analyses. The authors could employ statistical tools to unveil the underlying relationships between different variables. The current discussion lacks sufficient depth. Kindly provide a comprehensive explanation encompassing the reasons and mechanisms underlying the observed phenomenon.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the results and discussion section thoroughly. The results have been described after applying the statistical tools and more discussion has been added where necessary.
Comment 7: Figures: Please rearrange the figures. Some of them, for example figure 4 and figure 5 are clear enough. The presentation of data is overly simplistic and lacks complexity.
Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the figures to make them clearer and more understandable.
Comment 8: Tables: Too many tables in the manuscript. Please put some of them in the supplementary materials.
Reply: Thank you for this comment. We have reduced the number of figures to 7 in the revised manuscript. Now, the manuscript contains 7 figures and 5 tables.
Comment 9: Moderate editing of English language required
Reply: The manuscript has been revised thoroughly and all the English language and grammatical mistakes have been rectified.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA good article but a few specific comments are as follows:
The abstract is too long, about 300 words…..please make it more concise according to journal guidelines (200 words maximum).
Page 2, Lines 56-58: “Moreover, some of the organic amendments could contain toxic elements (such as heavy metals and organic compounds), which may contaminate the soil after application.”…………….give an example of those toxic heavy metals and organic compounds……..…also need reference.
Page 2, Lines 62-65: too long sentence……………….. divide it into two sentences.
Page 2, Lines 75-77: need reference.
Page 3, Lines 85-: “In the literature, the role of particle sizes of organic residue in improving biochemical soil properties is controversial [15].”………………… “controversial” Please mention this in more detail about this point with more recent references to show this “controversially”.
Page 3, Lines 86-90: too long sentence……………….. divide it into two sentences.
Page 2, Lines 91-: There is not any reference …… Please add.
Page 3, Lines 97-103: too long sentence.
Page 6, XRD results…………. Mention the card number of the standard of those referred theta peaks…..Also, need reference/s Line 248: “The peaks observed around 11° and 24° 2θ were designated as kaolinite, while the peaks that appeared around 31° were ascribed as montmorillonite.”
Page 7, Line 261, for reference 27: mention research study regions “from eastern, middle and western regions)” and the concentration of minerals to compare with yours.
Page 9, Line 334: significantly (p < 0.05) ………………. According to Figure 2a, the author refers to a significant decrease for all treated groups, however, the figure shows a non-significant decrease for a few groups. For example, group C2W1 (ae) means it is non-significant to control (a) and so on…..please correct.
The results “Impacts of amendments on soil chemical characteristics” need to be discussed more according to previous research.
Page 11, Line 450: wheat straw on water water evaporation…………..wheat straw on water evaporation
Figures 4&5, control is written as “K”…………….correct to “CK” to unify the same abbreviation in the whole text.
I suggest combining figures 4a and 4b together to show the difference between all groups, also for Figure 5 a and 5 b.
Page 11, Line 457: lowest cumulative evaporation among all the treatments, which was 19%–22% lower than….. it is hard to see this % difference from figure alone without control….mention the number of this decrease and number of CK before percentage……and combine figures a & b to see this difference.
Figure 5 a and b: cumulative evaporation, while 5 c and d: infiltration rate…………………… Figure 5c and d should be separated to Figure 6 because it is different title.
Page 13, Line 524…………….infiltation rate………correct.
Page 14, Title “Effects of soi amendments on available P and K” ………..correct typo error.
Page 14, Line 554: resulted in lower increase ………….rewrite sentence.
In ligands of most figures/tables……..” having different letters indicate significant differences” .What about the same letters? Please clarify also in ligands.
Table 3 and table 5: As ………..is ND…Please remove it from the table and just mention within the text that it is non-detectable for all groups.
Page 19, Line 743: were not significan…………….correct typo error.
A few typographical errors should be checked.
Too long sentences in the introduction section should be divided and more concise.
Sentences need reference/s.
References need to be updated for recent years.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood
A few typographical errors should be checked.
Author Response
Reviewer # 2
Comment 1: The abstract is too long, about 300 words…..please make it more concise according to journal guidelines (200 words maximum).
Reply: We are very thankful to the reviewer for revising our manuscript and providing with valuable comments and suggestions. We have considered all the comments and suggestion to enhance the quality of our manuscript. The abstract has been revised and made concise according to the journal’s guidelines.
Comment 2: Page 2, Lines 56-58: “Moreover, some of the organic amendments could contain toxic elements (such as heavy metals and organic compounds), which may contaminate the soil after application.”…………….give an example of those toxic heavy metals and organic compounds……..…also need reference.
Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. The examples have been provided with reference as " Moreover, some of the organic amendments such as municipal solid waste, manure, and composte, could contain toxic elements (Pb, Ni, Zn, Cd, Cr, Cu, polychlorinated bi-phenyls, polychlorinated di-benzo-p-dioxins/furans and antibiotics, ), which may contaminate the soil after application [5]".
Comment 3: Page 2, Lines 62-65: too long sentence……………….. divide it into two sentences.
Reply: The sentence has been revised and shortened.
Comment 4: Page 2, Lines 75-77: need reference.
Reply: Reference has been added.
Comment 5: Page 3, Lines 85-: “In the literature, the role of particle sizes of organic residue in improving biochemical soil properties is controversial [15].”………………… “controversial” Please mention this in more detail about this point with more recent references to show this “controversially”.
Reply: The reference has been added with this statement.
Comment 6: Page 3, Lines 86-90: too long sentence……………….. divide it into two sentences.
Reply: The sentence has been divided into two.
Comment 7: Page 2, Lines 91-: There is not any reference …… Please add.
Reply: The reference has been added.
Comment 8: Page 3, Lines 97-103: too long sentence.
Reply: The sentence has been shortened.
Comment 9: Page 6, XRD results…………. Mention the card number of the standard of those referred theta peaks…..Also, need reference/s Line 248: “The peaks observed around 11° and 24° 2θ were designated as kaolinite, while the peaks that appeared around 31° were ascribed as montmorillonite.”
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The samples were analyzed from an outside facility, and we were not provided with the card numbers. However, we have added the references for these results.
Comment 10: Page 7, Line 261, for reference 27: mention research study regions “from eastern, middle and western regions)” and the concentration of minerals to compare with yours.
Reply: Research study regions have been added.
Comment 11: Page 9, Line 334: significantly (p < 0.05) ………………. According to Figure 2a, the author refers to a significant decrease for all treated groups, however, the figure shows a non-significant decrease for a few groups. For example, group C2W1 (ae) means it is non-significant to control (a) and so on…..please correct.
Reply: Thank you for highlighting this mistake. It has been corrected in the revised manuscript.
Comment 12: The results “Impacts of amendments on soil chemical characteristics” need to be discussed more according to previous research.
Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised this section and added some more discussion and explanation.
Comment 13: Page 11, Line 450: wheat straw on water water evaporation…………..wheat straw on water evaporation
Reply: Sentence has been corrected.
Comment 14: Figures 4&5, control is written as “K”…………….correct to “CK” to unify the same abbreviation in the whole text.
Reply: Thank you for indicating this mistake. It has been corrected now.
Comment 15: I suggest combining figures 4a and 4b together to show the difference between all groups, also for Figure 5 a and 5 b.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We tried the figure 4 a and b, as well as figure 5 a and b. However, due to a higher number of treatments, the lines in the graph were mixed up and it was difficult to recognize the treatments. Therefore, after discussion with co-authors, we agreed to separate the figure for more clarity.
Comment 16: Page 11, Line 457: lowest cumulative evaporation among all the treatments, which was 19%–22% lower than….. it is hard to see this % difference from figure alone without control….mention the number of this decrease and number of CK before percentage……and combine figures a & b to see this difference.
Reply: Thank you for this suggestion, and we are agreed with you. However, as mentioned in the previous reply, combining both the figures made it difficult to observe as most of the lines in the graph were overlapping. Therefore, we separated them.
Comment 17: Figure 5 a and b: cumulative evaporation, while 5 c and d: infiltration rate…………………… Figure 5c and d should be separated to Figure 6 because it is different title.
Reply: We have divided the manuscript into different sections based on parameters. Figure 5 shows the water relations of the soil as impacted by the treatments. Evaporation and infiltration are interrelated parameters and indicate the physical properties of the soil. Therefore, we combined them in to one figure.
Comment 18: Page 13, Line 524…………….infiltation rate………correct.
Reply: The mistake has been corrected.
Comment 19: Page 14, Title “Effects of soi amendments on available P and K” ………..correct typo error.
Reply: Error has been removed.
Comment 20: Page 14, Line 554: resulted in lower increase ………….rewrite sentence.
Reply: The sentence has been revised.
Comment 21: In ligands of most figures/tables……..” having different letters indicate significant differences” .What about the same letters? Please clarify also in ligands.
Reply: Thank you for indicating this mistake. We have also specified what the same letter meant for.
Comment 22: Table 3 and table 5: As ………..is ND…Please remove it from the table and just mention within the text that it is non-detectable for all groups.
Reply: The amendments have been done.
Comment 23: Page 19, Line 743: were not significan…………….correct typo error.
Reply: The error has been removed.
Comment 24: A few typographical errors should be checked.
Reply: The errors have been checked and removed.
Comment 25: Too long sentences in the introduction section should be divided and more concise.
Reply: Introduction has been revised.
Comment 26: Sentences need reference/s.
Reply: Needed references have been added.
Comment 27: References need to be updated for recent years.
Reply: References have been revised.
Comment 28: A few typographical errors should be checked.
Reply: The manuscript has been revised thoroughly for English language and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with this interesting manuscript. The problem of the formation of a fertile layer is very relevant for many areas of the Earth, where, for natural reasons, there are no soils suitable for growing cultivated plants. The authors analyzed a sufficient amount of literature, studied a lot of factual material. The results of the study are beyond doubt, the conclusions seem quite reasonable. The article can be published in this form
Author Response
Reviewer # 3
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with this interesting manuscript. The problem of the formation of a fertile layer is very relevant for many areas of the Earth, where, for natural reasons, there are no soils suitable for growing cultivated plants. The authors analyzed a sufficient amount of literature, studied a lot of factual material. The results of the study are beyond doubt, the conclusions seem quite reasonable. The article can be published in this form.
Reply: We are thankful to the reviewer for the encouraging comments. Moreover, we have further enhanced the quality of the manuscript through improving figures presentation, language, and discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article highlights that the authors have made relevant revisions and achieved obvious enhancements. The findings were insightful and offered valuable perspectives on effective strategy in improving plant production in water-scarce regions. However, prior to publication, some minor improvements are required.
Abstract:
When describing the results, please include significant marks if there are notable differences.
Keywords:
Please re-consider the order of key words.
Results and Discussion
The clarity of the figures could be enhanced, particularly in the case of Figure 3 and Figure 4. Reconsidering the color scheme in the bar charts may improve overall appearance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some grammar issues that need careful inspection and correction.
Author Response
Reviewer # 1
Comment 1: This article highlights that the authors have made relevant revisions and achieved obvious enhancements. The findings were insightful and offered valuable perspectives on effective strategy in improving plant production in water-scarce regions. However, prior to publication, some minor improvements are required.
Reply: We are highly thankful to the reviewer for sparing time in reviewing our manuscript. We have considered all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewer and modified the manuscript accordingly. The incorporation of the comments and suggestions has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Comment 2: Abstract: When describing the results, please include significant marks if there are notable differences.
Reply: We have revised the abstract section. The description of the results has been updated to make it clearer and more understandable. Thanks
Comment 3: Keywords: Please re-consider the order of key words.
Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the order of the keywords and added them in alphabetical order in the revised manuscript.
Comment 4: Results and Discussion: The clarity of the figures could be enhanced, particularly in the case of Figure 3 and Figure 4. Reconsidering the color scheme in the bar charts may improve overall appearance.
Reply: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the replaced Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 with new figures with improved quality. For the color scheme in bar charts, the control shown with yellow color for the distinction, while other bars were shown with a different color.
Comment 5: There are some grammar issues that need careful inspection and correction.
Reply: The manuscript has been revised thoroughly for English language and grammatical mistakes. All the English and grammar mistakes were rectified in the revised manuscript. The manuscript is of good quality now.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
