Sustainable Maize Forage Production: Effect of Organic Amendments Combined with Microbial Biofertilizers Across Different Soil Textures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report for sustainability-3896988-peer-review-v1

Dear authors,

This study investigates the use of Biobased and Microbial Fertilizers for Sustainable Maize for age: Enhancing Residual Fertility across Different Soil Textures. However, some specific comments and suggestions to improve this article.

The article is well written, however, some of the sentences are clumsy and at times ungrammatical and will need to be edited in terms of language to project snugness and professionalism. I highly encourage the authors to seek the services of professional English language editing, prior to resubmission.

Title

The title is not reflected the main focus of the research and the aim of the study.

Abstract

Abstract. Please provide more quantitative results in this section.

Keywords:

need to edit according to your abstract

Introduction

• The authors need to indicate what has been demonstrated in controlled settings in the prior literature and how this field-based, two-phase trial supplements that literature in a unique way. To establish a solid foundation in the broader field, more references to earlier studies using both methods should be included.
• need to clarity some idea was repeated
• The problem for your study

Materials and Methods

• Materials and Methods: need to clarity with flow (combine the same method or treatments). For ex. Experimental setup
• The sub-sub plots involved the application (MBF+) or not (MBF-) of the selected MBF. This design resulted in twenty-four treatments with three 139 replicates each, with sub-sub plot sizes measuring 2.0 m × 1.0 m. insert your treatment
• This design resulted in twenty-four treatments with three 139 replicates each, with sub-sub plot sizes measuring 2.0 m × 1.0 m. your tanks (10 × 5 m, 3 m deep)
• These limitations notwithstanding, the study does present potentially useful data, in particular the analysis of soil physical, chemical, and biological indicators in initial data.

Results and Discussion Section

• The research is a one-season crop study (short-term) and single-site. This drawback should be explicitly admitted, since the findings might not be applicable to different soils or climate.
• Update figures and wording to make it clear and professional.
• The non signifivat result return to the OM% in Table 1. So, you must be insert these when discussion your results

Conclusions

Conclusions should be reformulated in a way that (a) they should relate directly to the given hypotheses, (b) they should make claims that are supported by the data, and (c) they should point out their strength and weaknesses. Currently, the inferences are exaggerated, and can be diluted.

Additional comments

The manuscript addresses a significant agricultural issue and presents potentially useful findings. Nonetheless, as it currently stands, it is plagued by grave problems in fundamental reporting, study design, and validity of results. The work needs to be revised significantly before it is deemed to be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript addresses a significant agricultural issue and presents potentially useful findings. Nonetheless, as it currently stands, it is plagued by grave problems in fundamental reporting, study design, and validity of results. The work needs to be revised significantly before it is deemed to be published.

Author Response

REV 1

Dear authors,

This study investigates the use of Biobased and Microbial Fertilizers for Sustainable Maize for age: Enhancing Residual Fertility across Different Soil Textures. However, some specific comments and suggestions to improve this article.

The article is well written, however, some of the sentences are clumsy and at times ungrammatical and will need to be edited in terms of language to project snugness and professionalism. I highly encourage the authors to seek the services of professional English language editing, prior to resubmission.

1. AU. We thank the reviewer for positive feedback. We have carefully revised the text and corrected all grammatical mistakes.

 

REV 1 The title is not reflected the main focus of the research and the aim of the study.

AU Thanks for your useful comment. We have changed the title as follows. “Sustainable maize forage production: effect of organic amendments combined with microbial biostimulant across different soil textures”

 

REV 1 Abstract. Please provide more quantitative results in this section.

AU We strongly agree with the referee's comments. Accordingly, we have thoroughly revised the abstract, incorporating quantitative values.

 

REV 1 Keywords: Need to edit according to your abstract

AU We have changed the keywords

 

REV 1 Introduction

• The authors need to indicate what has been demonstrated in controlled settings in the prior literature and how this field-based, two-phase trial supplements that literature in a unique way. To establish a solid foundation in the broader field, more references to earlier studies using both methods should be included.
• Need to clarify some idea was repeated
• The problem for your study

AU We have carefully revised the introduction section to clarify both the background and the aim of our study

 

REV 1 Materials and Methods

• Materials and Methods: need to clarify with flow (combine the same method or treatments). For ex. experimental setup

AU We have combined the experimental site and setup into a single, comprehensive section

 

• REV 1 The sub-sub plots involved the application (MBF+) or not (MBF-) of the selected MBF. This design resulted in twenty-four treatments with three 139 replicates each, with sub-sub plot sizes measuring 2.0 m × 1.0 m. insert your treatment
• This design resulted in twenty-four treatments with three 139 replicates each, with sub-sub plot sizes measuring 2.0 m × 1.0 m. your tanks (10 × 5 m, 3 m deep)
• These limitations notwithstanding, the study does present potentially useful data, in particular the analysis of soil physical, chemical, and biological indicators in initial data.

AU Thank you for your valuable remark and kind comments. We agree that further clarification of the setup was necessary. We have corrected the dimension of the replicated plots (now 2.5×0.83 m) and, for clarity, have detailed the dimensions of the plot, sub-plot, and sub-sub-plot. Additionally, we have included a figure illustrating the experimental setup (Figure S2).

 

REV1 Results and Discussion Section

• The research is a one-season crop study (short-term) and single-site. This drawback should be explicitly admitted, since the findings might not be applicable to different soils or climate.
• Update figures and wording to make it clear and professional.
• The non significant result return to the OM% in Table 1. So, you must insert these when discussion your results

AU We strongly agree with the reviewer's suggestion. We have modified the graphs accordingly, and we have also clearly stated the limitations of this study in the Conclusions section.

 

REV 1 Conclusions

Conclusions should be reformulated in a way that (a) they should relate directly to the given hypotheses, (b) they should make claims that are supported by the data, and (c) they should point out their strength and weaknesses. Currently, the inferences are exaggerated, and can be diluted.

AU Based on your valuable comments, the conclusion section has been fully rewritten to address all points and better articulate the significance of our study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Biobased and Microbial Fertilizers for Sustainable Maize Forage: Enhancing Residual Fertility Across Different Soil Textures

 

This MS discuss the role of bio-based microbial fertilizers for enhancing the soil fertility using 3 different soil texture and production of maize forage

The MS has many problems and needs more improvements such as:

1- The title included “Residual Fertility”, what does mean? And how did the authors evaluated this parameter?

2- Abstract section should include some findings as in increasing/decrease rate according to the control in different studied parameters

3- Keywords: please avoid any word already mentioned in the title

4- Introduction needs more improvements please by adding the global N-fertilizers production in 2025

Please 3-4 paragraphs in Introduction section, mainly Biobased fertilizers, Microbial Fertilizers, Sustainable Maize Forage and Residual soil Fertility, based on your title

Please explain the used terms like “global reactive N production”

5- Section of Materials and Methods: many parts are not clear such as:

Lines 108 -111: the authors mentioned “The trial was conducted during the 2023 maize growing season in three large in-ground concrete tanks (10 × 5 m, 3 m deep) located at the open-field experimental site of the Department of Agricultural Sciences of the University of Naples Federico II (Gussone Park, Portici, Italy; 40°49′ N, 14°15′ E; 72 m a.s.l.).” this section needs some photos please for the readers

Line 113, please more details about the used soils (sandy, loamy, or clay) are needed (where or which place? The basic chemical and physical properties)

I asked about Table 1, what does mean “Chemical properties of the experimental soils under different fertilization treatments.” Are these values of soils before starting or after a certain time or after harvesting?

But I found in lines 170-171:

“Homogenized soil samples were dried in an oven at 40 °C until a constant weight was reached and then sieved to 2-mm for physicochemical properties analysis (Table 1).” Are these values before cultivation? Why the authors did air dried these samples as mentioned in the standard methods?

When the authors did applied the treatments (Com, Vcom, biofertilizers to the soil? And what about the added amount?

In Table 1, please consider the decimals in your values please like 1592.40, not correct to add these decimals after thousands, please

What does mean “residual fertility from compost or vermicompost”?

Are these values for available or the total of [P2O5, ppm K2O, ppm] and please double check?

This table needs to be statistically analyzed by adding Duncan letters, please

Please note values of pH can follow this analysis or adding Duncan letters

Figure 1 and all figures, please in a color form

Line 156: “Nitrogen application rates were determined by adjusting the theoretical dose, calculated based on the expected nutrient uptake (3.9 kg N 157 t⁻¹ yield) and the reference biomass yield for the area (65.0 t ha⁻¹), for the and initial fertility status and texture of soils [27].” Not clear please clarify as the original source in Italian

6- Section of Results:

3.1. Nutritional plants state: SPAD and MPM100 measurements, please correct this title as chlorophyll content is NOT “Nutritional plants state”

to 3.1 Chlorophyll content

What are the MPM100 measurements? Clarify please

Please, correct also “The SPAD index was significantly affected…” to

The chlorophyll content (in SPAD) was significantly affected…..

All figures, please complete the treatments to be Clay, Loam, Sand; NOT in the current form

In Figure 2a, please correct the Y-axis title to be Total chlorophyll content (SPAD)

In figure 2b, change C to control, bio to microbial-based fertilizers or its abbreviation as the figure in not crowded

Figure 3, again please correct the Y-axis title to be Total chlorophyll content (SPAD), please unify in figures 2 and 3

What is the “Chlorophyll Index” in Figure 3?

What does mean “MPM100”, please provide the complete meaning, then the abbreviation

The N balance index (NBI) and other indices are needed to insert their calculations and to mention in the section of Materials and methods

Where is the impact of applied fertilizers on soil physical properties?

Major revision is needed

Thanks

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

REV 2

This MS discuss the role of bio-based microbial fertilizers for enhancing the soil fertility using 3 different soil texture and production of maize forage

The MS has many problems and needs more improvements such as:

1- The title included “Residual Fertility”, what does mean? And how did the authors evaluated this parameter?

AU Thank you for your remark. We have revised the title as suggested. Regarding "residual fertility," we have clarified its meaning at LL 104-106; however, we have chosen to avoid the term in the main text to maintain clarity and flow.

 

REV 2 - Abstract section should include some findings as in increasing/decrease rate according to the control in different studied parameters

AU We strongly agree with the referee's comments. Accordingly, we have thoroughly revised the abstract, incorporating quantitative values

 

REV 2 - Keywords: please avoid any word already mentioned in the title

AU We agree with the referee's comment and changed the key words

 

REV 2 - Introduction needs more improvements please by adding the global N-fertilizers production in 2025

Please 3-4 paragraphs in Introduction section, mainly Biobased fertilizers, Microbial Fertilizers, Sustainable Maize Forage and Residual soil Fertility, based on your title

Please explain the used terms like “global reactive N production

AU Thank you for your suggestion. We have now given the global N-fertilizers production in 2025. We have also revised the text to follow the suggested flow and clearly clarified the concept of "global reactive N production" (L 44 and 47).

 

REV 2 - Section of Materials and Methods: many parts are not clear such as:

Lines 108 -111: the authors mentioned “The trial was conducted during the 2023 maize growing season in three large in-ground concrete tanks (10 × 5 m, 3 m deep) located at the open-field experimental site of the Department of Agricultural Sciences of the University of Naples Federico II (Gussone Park, Portici, Italy; 40°49′ N, 14°15′ E; 72 m a.s.l.).” this section needs some photos please for the readers

AU Thank you for your useful remarks. We have added a photo (Figure S1) to clarify the study site.

 

REV 2 Line 113, please more details about the used soils (sandy, loamy, or clay) are needed (where or which place? The basic chemical and physical properties)

AU The soils used for filling the thanks were taken in 3 different areas of the Campania region, and their texture characteristics are reported as footnotes in Table 1.

 

REV 2 I asked about Table 1, what does mean “Chemical properties of the experimental soils under different fertilization treatments.” Are these values of soils before starting or after a certain time or after harvesting?

AU The chemical properties in Table 1 refer to the start of the experimental text; however, we modified the caption of table for greater readability.

 

REV 2 “Homogenized soil samples were dried in an oven at 40 °C until a constant weight was reached and then sieved to 2-mm for physicochemical properties analysis (Table 1).” Are these values before cultivation? Why the authors did air dried these samples as mentioned in the standard methods?

AU Thank you for your queries. As stated, the values presented in Table 1 refer specifically to the beginning of the experiment. In regard to the method used for soil drying, we confirm that we strictly followed the procedure indicated by ISO 11277 as indicated in the reference list (n 36).

 

REV 2 When the authors did applied the treatments (Com, Vcom, biofertilizers to the soil? And what about the added amount?

AU At lines 143-152, we specified that compost and vermicompost were applied to the previous crop, that is wheat, and also specified the dose (as nitrogen-equivalent rate of 120 kg N ha⁻¹; LL 161-163) and nitrogen content per each organic product (LL 165-170). Lines refer to re-submitted manuscript

 

REV 2 In Table 1, please consider the decimals in your values please like 1592.40, not correct to add these decimals after thousands, please

AU We have followed your suggestion and removed decimal in the column

 

REV 2 What does mean “residual fertility from compost or vermicompost”?

AU We have clarified the meaning of "residual fertility" at LL 104-106; however, we have chosen to avoid using the term in the main text.

 

REV 2 Are these values for available or the total of [P2O5, ppm K2O, ppm] and please double check?

AU Thank you for your question. To clarify, the values presented refer specifically to available P2O5 and K2O.

 

REV 2 This table needs to be statistically analyzed by adding Duncan letters, please

Please note values of pH can follow this analysis or adding Duncan letters

AU Thank you for your suggestion. As Table 1 exclusively reports the initial soil conditions at the beginning of the trial, these data are descriptive and do not consent to a treatment comparison.

 

REV 2 Figure 1 and all figures, please in a color form

AU We strongly agree with reviewer’s comment and changed the figures accordingly

 

REV 2 Line 156: “Nitrogen application rates were determined by adjusting the theoretical dose, calculated based on the expected nutrient uptake (3.9 kg N 157 t⁻¹ yield) and the reference biomass yield for the area (65.0 t ha⁻¹), for the and initial fertility status and texture of soils [27].” Not clear please clarify as the original source in Italian

AU We strongly agree with reviewer’s comment and changed the text for flow and readability LL

 

6- Section of Results:

REV 2 - 3.1. Nutritional plants state: SPAD and MPM100 measurements, please correct this title as chlorophyll content is NOT “Nutritional plants state” to 3.1 Chlorophyll content

AU Thank you for your comment. We have deleted changed the title to SPA and MPM100 measurements

 

REV 2 What are the MPM100 measurements? Clarify please

AU Sorry for the mistake, MPM100 is the name of the instrument; we added information the materials and methods section LL 200-204

 

REV 2 Please, correct also “The SPAD index was significantly affected…” to The chlorophyll content (in SPAD) was significantly affected…..

In Figure 2a, please correct the Y-axis title to be Total chlorophyll content (SPAD)

Figure 3, again please correct the Y-axis title to be Total chlorophyll content (SPAD), please unify in figures 2 and 3

AU Thank you for your remark. We prefer to maintain the indication of the SPAD index for consistency with other scientific reports. As SPAD provides a well-established indirect measure of chlorophyll, we believe retaining the original term is the most appropriate choice

 

REV 2 In figure 2b, change C to control, bio to microbial-based fertilizers or its abbreviation as the figure in not crowded

AU Thanks for the remarks, we have changed the figures

 

REV 2 What is the “Chlorophyll Index” in Figure 3?

AU Thank you for your inquiry. We have added clarifying information about the MPM100 instrument and the parameter it measures to the Materials and Methods section.

 

REV 2 What does mean “MPM100”, please provide the complete meaning, then the abbreviation

AU Sorry for the mistake, MPM100 is the name of the instrument; we added information on the materials and methods section (LL200-204)

 

REV 2 The N balance index (NBI) and other indices are needed to insert their calculations and to mention in the section of Materials and methods

AU Thanks for the suggestion, we added an explanation in the materials and methods section (LL 203-204).

 

REV 2 Where is the impact of applied fertilizers on soil physical properties?

Thanks for the observation, but in this trial, we didn’t analyze the effect of fertilizers on soil properties.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is relevant. Scientifically and practically significant. The results are encouraging.
It is clear that fertilizer mixtures with added microorganisms must be selected for different soil types.

The reviewer believes it would be beneficial to highlight in the introduction developments in the application of nanotechnology and nanoscale micronutrients for plant nutrition and soil restoration under intensive land management.

Research in this area should be expanded and deepened, and clear recommendations should be issued for the management of basic agricultural food crops (to begin with, annual cereals).

Author Response

REV 3

This study is relevant. Scientifically and practically significant. The results are encouraging.
It is clear that fertilizer mixtures with added microorganisms must be selected for different soil types.

The reviewer believes it would be beneficial to highlight in the introduction developments in the application of nanotechnology and nanoscale micronutrients for plant nutrition and soil restoration under intensive land management.

Research in this area should be expanded and deepened, and clear recommendations should be issued for the management of basic agricultural food crops (to begin with, annual cereals).

AU Thanks for the positive feedback and the useful remark. We have added the importance of new technology in soil management (LL 617-619)

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Many thanks for your improvements, but still many comments should be clarified please such as

Figure S1, please move it to the section Materials and Methods for the readers

Still, please the term of “Residual Fertility” is missing and not clear

About the values of K, and P in table 1, these values for available K, and P (not in K2O, and P2O5 form), please double check, the values are very high, please

Again please the SPAD (all in capital letters) is the SPAD meter correct, please

Minor revision is needed

Thanks

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

REV. Many thanks for your improvements, but still many comments should be clarified please such as

1. We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made. We have addressed all the comments raised and provided the necessary clarifications in the revised manuscript. We hope these revisions meet your expectations and are happy to provide further clarification if needed.

REV. Figure S1, please move it to the section Materials and Methods for the readers

1. Thank you for the comment. As requested, we have moved Figure S1 to the Materials and Methods section (see Lines 119-120).

REV. Still, please the term of 'Residual Fertility' is missing and not clear

10. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. As suggested, we have defined the concept of residual fertility in the Introduction section (see Lines 96-97), using the definition proposed by https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2019.1359 to ensure clarity and avoid confusion. Thanks.

REV. About the values of K, and P in table 1, these values for available K, and P (not in K2O, and P2O5 form), please double check, the values are very high, please

1. Thanks for your remarks. We have double-checked the values for K and P in Table 1 and confirm that they are correctly expressed in K₂O and P₂O₅ units. To avoid confusion, we have updated the Materials and Methods section (Lines 217-218) and Table 1 (Lines 129-130) to clearly specify that the values refer to K₂O and P₂O₅, in line with standard reporting conventions.

We apologize for not noticing this earlier, but unfortunately the phosphorus values we had previously tabulated were incorrect and, as such, have been updated in the new version of the manuscript (see Table 1).

Regarding the concentrations of potassium, we agree with the reviewer that the values in the table are higher than the typical standard values for soils with comparable textures. However, it is important to note that experimental soils have been extensively used over the past forty years for agronomic trials, primarily involving horticultural and industrial renewal crops. These crops were subjected to repeated fertilization treatments, which may have further increased nutrient levels compared to natural field soils. Furthermore, the experimental soils, although varying in texture profile, all originate from the Campania region and, as such, exhibit a predominant volcanic mineralogy (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2023.107179). Accordingly, the concentrations of available K is significantly higher than the standard average values, as confirmed by https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-48711-1_38. These volcanic soil characteristics may potentially help explain the elevated levels of K₂O observed in our experimental setup. Additionally, we would like to emphasize that the experimental results clearly demonstrate differences between treatments within each soil type. This suggests that the high initial nutrient levels in the soil did not prevent us from observing significant treatment effects. Therefore, we believe that any potential interference from the elevated fertility of the base soil can be considered negligible in relation to the observed treatment effects. We trust this explanation addresses any concern regarding the potential for these values to be off range.

REV. Again please the SPAD (all in capital letters) is the SPAD meter correct, please

187. Thank you for your comment. We confirm that SPAD refers to the SPAD-502 meter used in our study, as explained at lines 184-187. To ensure consistency and clarity, we have checked the manuscript so that the term SPAD is always written in capital letters. Furthermore, we have clarified that the term “SPAD index” used throughout the text refers to the raw readings taken directly with the MINOLTA SPAD-502 meter (see Lines 256-257). We hope this resolves your concern.