Performance of Medicago sativa Grown in Clay Soil Favored by Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper merits publication upon doing some revisions.

Below are some suggested edits:

Title: delete detail of variety and do not use acronyms in title (delete MSW).

Abstract: do not list the different sections in the abstract.

page 1, ln 25, delete 1) background

Introduction has a lot of general information that is not necessary.

Some suggestions are in revised copy of manuscript (attached).

Experimental design is missing.

Some details are missing in materials and methods (indicated in revised manuscript).

No need to repeat the scientific name of alfalfa after first mention.

Limit discussion to the nutrients you measured.

In conclusions, instead of physiological indicators, suggest using 'tissue metal content.

In general revise your English grammar and typos through manuscript there are several.

Author Response

Editorial Board Agronomy

December18^th, 2019

Dear Assistant Editor,

Re: Major Revisions - Manuscript ID: agronomy-643826

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript ID agronomy-643826 “Performance of Medicago sativa variety Gabes Grown in Clay Soil Amended with MSW Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”, to be published as an original research paper in an Agronomy with a revised title “Performance of Medicago sativa Grown in Clay Soil favored by Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”.

We would like to thank you forgiving us a chance to make major revision of the manuscript. The comments of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. All comments were accepted, and revisions were made. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments of the reviewers (red marked). Moreover, we attached also the Authorship Change Form, in which we added a co-author (Dr. Marek Zivcak) who significantly contributed to the manuscript finalization and revision.

Revisions in the text are shown using Track Changes function in MS Word. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Agronomy MDPI. We believe that our study will be interesting for the readers of Agronomy as well as for a broad community of crop scientists.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonia Mbarki

Corresponding Author

Responses to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: 

The paper merits publication upon doing some revisions. Below are some suggested edits.

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive statement as well as for the suggested edits, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript.

Title: delete detail of variety and do not use acronyms in title (delete MSW).

# Answer: We thank to the reviewer for the comment. The title was modified, as suggested.

Abstract: do not list the different sections in the abstract.

# Answer: We agree with the reviewer. The abstract was modified accordingly; see revised manuscript.

Page 1, ln 25, delete 1) background

# Answer: The requested correction was made.

Introduction has a lot of general information that is not necessary.

# Answer: We thank to the reviewer for this important comment. Some sentences were removed from the introduction, as suggested. See revised manuscript.

Experimental design is missing. Some details are missing in Materials and Methods.

# Answer: We added some more information into Material and Methods, including additional details on experimental design and other details; see revised manuscript. Experiments were conducted in a randomized complete‐block design with 6 replicates for each treatment.

No need to repeat the scientific name of alfalfa after first mention.

# Answer: Thanks for the comment; the scientific name was replaced by “alfalfa” several times across the manuscript.

Limit discussion to the nutrients you measured.

# Answer: Thank you for the comments. Despite some other nutrients are briefly mentioned, we think it is appropriate to explain the way of positive effects of the compost amendment. Anyway, this part of discussion was shortened.

In conclusions, instead of physiological indicators, suggest using 'tissue metal content.

# Answer: We made the appropriate correction in Conclusions; see revised manuscript.

In general revise your English grammar and typos through manuscript there are several.

# Answer: The language correction was made to avoid typo errors.

Reviewer #2:

The article is well written and adds to the literature on the subject. Because it lacks replication in time or space I would recommend transferring it to AGE. It seems better suited for that journal.

# Answer: We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the positive assessment of the quality of our manuscript. We fully respect the opinion of the reviewer, but we believe that our paper fits the scope of ‘Agronomy’ journal, as well. We greatly appreciate the quality and reputation of the journal and we believe that our paper will be interesting for the readers of the journal.

There are a few minor typos, but it is easy reading, interpretations seem appropriate for a study that has not been replicated in time or space.

# Answer: We thank for the comments. The corrections of the text to remove the errors were made.

Reviewer #3: 

The article is well written but major description of environmental details are missing.

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment as well as for the important comments and questions, which helped us to improve the manuscript significantly. We tried to add all requested information; see revised manuscript.

1) Was this study conducted in the field or in a greenhouse in pots?

# Answer: The study was conducted as a pot experiment in the greenhouse. The particular information was added to the text.

2) What was the exact location (longitude and latitude)

# Answer: The information on the exact geographic position (coordinates) was added.

3) how was irrigation applied, how much and how often?

# Answer: The additional information about the irrigation regime was added to the manuscript.

4) The major deficiency is lack of data concerning adequacy of minerals, either from soil or manure or applied as fertilizer. Was any other fertilizer applied to the alfalfa, if not where did the needed phosphorus and potassium come from. If not at adequate levels, then mineral availability was confounded with manure and compost application.

# Answer: No additional fertilizer was added, except of organic fertilizer (compost or manure). The phosphorus and potassium content naturally occurring in soil used in this experiment were available for plants. We agree that the additional nutrients coming with manure or compost positively influenced the growth of the plants. The information regarding the nutrition was added to the Material and Methods and the content of basic nutrients was added in the Table 1.

5) a) what type of animal was the manure from? b) What was the mineral content of the manure?

# Answer: The type of applied manure was a cow manure from the research agriculture station in region of Mornag, Tunisia. The information on the N P K content of soil, compost and manure was added to the Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well written and adds to the literature on the subject.  Because it lacks replication in time or space I would recommend transferring it to AGE.  It seems better suited for that journal.

There are a few minor typos, but it is easy reading, interpretations seem appropriate for a study that has not been replicated in time or space. 

Author Response

Editorial Board Agronomy

December18^th, 2019

Dear Assistant Editor,

Re: Major Revisions - Manuscript ID: agronomy-643826

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript ID agronomy-643826 “Performance of Medicago sativa variety Gabes Grown in Clay Soil Amended with MSW Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”, to be published as an original research paper in an Agronomy with a revised title “Performance of Medicago sativa Grown in Clay Soil favored by Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”.

We would like to thank you forgiving us a chance to make major revision of the manuscript. The comments of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. All comments were accepted, and revisions were made. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments of the reviewers (red marked). Moreover, we attached also the Authorship Change Form, in which we added a co-author (Dr. Marek Zivcak) who significantly contributed to the manuscript finalization and revision.

Revisions in the text are shown using Track Changes function in MS Word. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Agronomy MDPI. We believe that our study will be interesting for the readers of Agronomy as well as for a broad community of crop scientists.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonia Mbarki

Corresponding Author

Responses to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: 

The paper merits publication upon doing some revisions. Below are some suggested edits.

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive statement as well as for the suggested edits, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript.

Title: delete detail of variety and do not use acronyms in title (delete MSW).

# Answer: We thank to the reviewer for the comment. The title was modified, as suggested.

Abstract: do not list the different sections in the abstract.

# Answer: We agree with the reviewer. The abstract was modified accordingly; see revised manuscript.

Page 1, ln 25, delete 1) background

# Answer: The requested correction was made.

Introduction has a lot of general information that is not necessary.

# Answer: We thank to the reviewer for this important comment. Some sentences were removed from the introduction, as suggested. See revised manuscript.

Experimental design is missing. Some details are missing in Materials and Methods.

# Answer: We added some more information into Material and Methods, including additional details on experimental design and other details; see revised manuscript. Experiments were conducted in a randomized complete‐block design with 6 replicates for each treatment.

No need to repeat the scientific name of alfalfa after first mention.

# Answer: Thanks for the comment; the scientific name was replaced by “alfalfa” several times across the manuscript.

Limit discussion to the nutrients you measured.

# Answer: Thank you for the comments. Despite some other nutrients are briefly mentioned, we think it is appropriate to explain the way of positive effects of the compost amendment. Anyway, this part of discussion was shortened.

In conclusions, instead of physiological indicators, suggest using 'tissue metal content.

# Answer: We made the appropriate correction in Conclusions; see revised manuscript.

In general revise your English grammar and typos through manuscript there are several.

# Answer: The language correction was made to avoid typo errors.

Reviewer #2:

The article is well written and adds to the literature on the subject. Because it lacks replication in time or space I would recommend transferring it to AGE. It seems better suited for that journal.

# Answer: We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the positive assessment of the quality of our manuscript. We fully respect the opinion of the reviewer, but we believe that our paper fits the scope of ‘Agronomy’ journal, as well. We greatly appreciate the quality and reputation of the journal and we believe that our paper will be interesting for the readers of the journal.

There are a few minor typos, but it is easy reading, interpretations seem appropriate for a study that has not been replicated in time or space.

# Answer: We thank for the comments. The corrections of the text to remove the errors were made.

Reviewer #3: 

The article is well written but major description of environmental details are missing.

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment as well as for the important comments and questions, which helped us to improve the manuscript significantly. We tried to add all requested information; see revised manuscript.

1) Was this study conducted in the field or in a greenhouse in pots?

# Answer: The study was conducted as a pot experiment in the greenhouse. The particular information was added to the text.

2) What was the exact location (longitude and latitude)

# Answer: The information on the exact geographic position (coordinates) was added.

3) how was irrigation applied, how much and how often?

# Answer: The additional information about the irrigation regime was added to the manuscript.

4) The major deficiency is lack of data concerning adequacy of minerals, either from soil or manure or applied as fertilizer. Was any other fertilizer applied to the alfalfa, if not where did the needed phosphorus and potassium come from. If not at adequate levels, then mineral availability was confounded with manure and compost application.

# Answer: No additional fertilizer was added, except of organic fertilizer (compost or manure). The phosphorus and potassium content naturally occurring in soil used in this experiment were available for plants. We agree that the additional nutrients coming with manure or compost positively influenced the growth of the plants. The information regarding the nutrition was added to the Material and Methods and the content of basic nutrients was added in the Table 1.

5) a) what type of animal was the manure from? b) What was the mineral content of the manure?

# Answer: The type of applied manure was a cow manure from the research agriculture station in region of Mornag, Tunisia. The information on the N P K content of soil, compost and manure was added to the Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well written but major description of environmental details are missing.

1) was this study conducted in the field or in a greenhouse in pots? 

2) what was the exact location (longitude and latitude)

3) how was irrigation applied, how much and how often?

4) The major deficiency is lack of data concerning adequacy of minerals, either from soil or manure or applied as fertilizer.  Was any other fertilizer applied to the alfalfa, if not where did the needed phosphorus and potassium come from.  If not at adequate levels, then mineral availability was confounded with manure and compost application.

5) In this regard: a) what type of animal was the manure from? b) what was the mineral content of the manure?

Author Response

Editorial Board Agronomy

December18^th, 2019

Dear Assistant Editor,

Re: Major Revisions - Manuscript ID: agronomy-643826

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript ID agronomy-643826 “Performance of Medicago sativa variety Gabes Grown in Clay Soil Amended with MSW Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”, to be published as an original research paper in an Agronomy with a revised title “Performance of Medicago sativa Grown in Clay Soil favored by Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”.

We would like to thank you forgiving us a chance to make major revision of the manuscript. The comments of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. All comments were accepted, and revisions were made. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments of the reviewers (red marked). Moreover, we attached also the Authorship Change Form, in which we added a co-author (Dr. Marek Zivcak) who significantly contributed to the manuscript finalization and revision.

Revisions in the text are shown using Track Changes function in MS Word. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Agronomy MDPI. We believe that our study will be interesting for the readers of Agronomy as well as for a broad community of crop scientists.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonia Mbarki

Corresponding Author

Responses to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: 

The paper merits publication upon doing some revisions. Below are some suggested edits.

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive statement as well as for the suggested edits, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript.

Title: delete detail of variety and do not use acronyms in title (delete MSW).

# Answer: We thank to the reviewer for the comment. The title was modified, as suggested.

Abstract: do not list the different sections in the abstract.

# Answer: We agree with the reviewer. The abstract was modified accordingly; see revised manuscript.

Page 1, ln 25, delete 1) background

# Answer: The requested correction was made.

Introduction has a lot of general information that is not necessary.

# Answer: We thank to the reviewer for this important comment. Some sentences were removed from the introduction, as suggested. See revised manuscript.

Experimental design is missing. Some details are missing in Materials and Methods.

# Answer: We added some more information into Material and Methods, including additional details on experimental design and other details; see revised manuscript. Experiments were conducted in a randomized complete‐block design with 6 replicates for each treatment.

No need to repeat the scientific name of alfalfa after first mention.

# Answer: Thanks for the comment; the scientific name was replaced by “alfalfa” several times across the manuscript.

Limit discussion to the nutrients you measured.

# Answer: Thank you for the comments. Despite some other nutrients are briefly mentioned, we think it is appropriate to explain the way of positive effects of the compost amendment. Anyway, this part of discussion was shortened.

In conclusions, instead of physiological indicators, suggest using 'tissue metal content.

# Answer: We made the appropriate correction in Conclusions; see revised manuscript.

In general revise your English grammar and typos through manuscript there are several.

# Answer: The language correction was made to avoid typo errors.

Reviewer #2:

The article is well written and adds to the literature on the subject. Because it lacks replication in time or space I would recommend transferring it to AGE. It seems better suited for that journal.

# Answer: We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the positive assessment of the quality of our manuscript. We fully respect the opinion of the reviewer, but we believe that our paper fits the scope of ‘Agronomy’ journal, as well. We greatly appreciate the quality and reputation of the journal and we believe that our paper will be interesting for the readers of the journal.

There are a few minor typos, but it is easy reading, interpretations seem appropriate for a study that has not been replicated in time or space.

# Answer: We thank for the comments. The corrections of the text to remove the errors were made.

Reviewer #3: 

The article is well written but major description of environmental details are missing.

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment as well as for the important comments and questions, which helped us to improve the manuscript significantly. We tried to add all requested information; see revised manuscript.

1) Was this study conducted in the field or in a greenhouse in pots?

# Answer: The study was conducted as a pot experiment in the greenhouse. The particular information was added to the text.

2) What was the exact location (longitude and latitude)

# Answer: The information on the exact geographic position (coordinates) was added.

3) how was irrigation applied, how much and how often?

# Answer: The additional information about the irrigation regime was added to the manuscript.

4) The major deficiency is lack of data concerning adequacy of minerals, either from soil or manure or applied as fertilizer. Was any other fertilizer applied to the alfalfa, if not where did the needed phosphorus and potassium come from. If not at adequate levels, then mineral availability was confounded with manure and compost application.

# Answer: No additional fertilizer was added, except of organic fertilizer (compost or manure). The phosphorus and potassium content naturally occurring in soil used in this experiment were available for plants. We agree that the additional nutrients coming with manure or compost positively influenced the growth of the plants. The information regarding the nutrition was added to the Material and Methods and the content of basic nutrients was added in the Table 1.

5) a) what type of animal was the manure from? b) What was the mineral content of the manure?

# Answer: The type of applied manure was a cow manure from the research agriculture station in region of Mornag, Tunisia. The information on the N P K content of soil, compost and manure was added to the Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for making the suggested corrections.  It reads even better.  

Author Response

Dear Assistant Editor,

Re: Minor Revisions - Manuscript ID: agronomy-643826

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript ID agronomy-643826 “Performance of Medicago sativa variety Gabes Grown in Clay Soil Amended with MSW Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”, to be published as an original research paper in an Agronomy with a revised title “Performance of Medicago sativa Grown in Clay Soil favored by Compost or Farmyard Manure to Mitigate Salt Stress”.

We would like to thank you for giving us a chance to make minor revision of the manuscript. The comments of the reviewer and Academic Editor were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. All comments were accepted, and revisions were made. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments of the reviewers (red marked). Moreover, we attached also the Authorship Change Form, in which we added a co-author (Dr. Marek Zivcak) who significantly contributed to the manuscript finalization and revision.

Revisions in the text are shown using Track Changes function in MS Word. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Agronomy MDPI. We believe that our study will be interesting for the readers of Agronomy as well as for a broad community of crop scientists.

Sincerely Yours,

Sonia Mbarki

Corresponding Author

Responses to the reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: 

(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

# Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive statement as well as for the suggested edits, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. The language correction was made to avoid typo errors.

Thanks for making the suggested corrections.  It reads even better.

# Answer: We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the positive assessment of the quality of our manuscript.

Academic Editor:

Thanks a lot for submitting your work to this special issue. Now you address most of the comments of the reviewers, so the work needs only minor amendments. In particular, please revise again the English style and the typos and also include relevant information in all the figures/tables headings: number of replicates in each and what it is represented (mean+-SE).

# Answer: We express our gratitude to the Academic Editor for the positive assessment of the quality of our manuscript. We fully respect the opinion of the Academic Editor, we added all requested relevant information in all headings of figures/tables; see revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx