Effects of NP Fertilizer Placement Depth by Year Interaction on the Number of Maize (Zea mays L.) Plants after Emergence Using the Additive Main Effects and Multiplicative Interaction Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

A large advantage of the research is that their findings are in a high degree  applicable to agriculture and could increase the productivity of maize farms. However, in discussion and in conclusion author do not propose something. However, the most important problem of the manuscript is that the main conclusion do not support good from their findings

-As explain in the discussion,  the main concusion of that research is that it wad found different results from other referrences  based on the hypothesis that (Lines 262-266) the subsoil was too loosened and water penetration was interrupted (s. Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper (This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep (15 cm) fertilizer placement during seed placement. Briefelly, authors found different results from other researchers due to a fandom factor which is not sure or an errore.g the seed planned deeper. This happen for 6 years (it was not measured how deeper), authors were not sure about that (in line 262 authors wrote most probably), and it was not on the target of the experiment.

- Authors wrote “NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2) were found to be the most stable, while 15 cm in rows (A4) and 0 cm in broadcast (A1) were the least stable in term of the number of plants after emergence.” So what do you propose to farmers? NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2)? I propose to authors to consider together the results of AMMI and that of table 4, where it is clear that A1 gave the higher number of plant. It is necessary to propose the better because the large advantage your research is that their findings are in a high degree applicable to agriculture and could increase the productivity of maize farms. What do you propose to farmers?

 General comments “English language and grammar control is necessary”. I propose many changes in the pdf

Abstract

In the Abstract, please clarify a little better the innovations and the main conclusion . The results are of great application in real farming conditions and could  increase corn yield per ha and farmers outcome. So it is really necessary for the conclusions to be presented more detailed.

• Also in abstract authors wrote “. “The number of plants after emergence decreased with the depth of NP fertilization in the soil profile, confirming the high dependence of maize on phosphorus and nitrogen availability, as well as greater subsoil loosening during placement.”, This is observed from 0cm or after 10cm? And from the practical point oview had do you suggest to corn farmers based on your study.

1. Introduction

Introduction is quite informative, just a few suggestions.

-Authors wrote, “Recently, maize has grown in popularity and importance [1].” However, the reference 1 is form 2013. Please add a more recent or use the fao stat site where you could find until 2020 statistical data.

-At line 89-96. Please add a few more references to support the importance of AMMI analysis. Please also explain the advantages of AMMI analysis.

2. Material and methods

-In table 1. Could authors explain the big difference in P (mg P kg^-1 dm of soil) and pH (4.5-5.9), in the soil, before establishing of the experiment in maize growing season.

- Also, did authors add different quantity of P since 2015 (P=40), 2018 (P=49) was quite lower in comparison with 2016(P=104), 2019 (P=155), 2020 (P=115), 2019. Also, did authors think that this differences in P could affect the results?

- According to authors line 159 “The maize variety P7905 was used in the experiment.” Is this a commercial hybrid or pure line?

-I propose to author to explain with more details Lines 177-179. And also support it with 2-3 more references.

-Results

I propose to authors to write with more details the results. Since the data of the tables are limited, it is a nice opportunity for an analytic presentation of the data of the tables 3, 4 and figures 3 & 4.

-Table 3 & 4. Could authors add Coefficient of variation (CV)

-Authors could add more information than the two lines 194-196, about figure 2.

-Authors could add more information about the values of IPCA1 relatively with IPCA2 (table 3)

Discussion

-Lines 240-241. Authors wrote “In the present study, the number of plants after emergence decreased along with the increase of NP fertilizer placement depth in each of the six years of research.” Is any other references to support these findings?

- 242-251 authors wrote “Kruczek [35] showed no significant effect of the method of placement phospho­rus and phosphorus-nitrogen fertilizers on plant emergence. Nevertheless, many authors have indicated that too high a concentration of the component in the immediate vicinity of seeds can cause disturbances in germinating seeds [10,12,36,37]. However, the latter authors have not provided the maximum concentration of a nutrient that can be used in the immediate vicinity of germinating seeds. The confirmation obtained in these studies [36] that even the maximum concentration of 130 kg P2O5 ha^-1, applied in the immediate vicinity of the seeds, did not affect maize emergence, seemed to be a positive result.

-Could authors please check if  the different results between their results and 35 reference and references ought to differences in precipitation or occurred irrigated fields.

- Lines 257-266. Author explain “the reason that they find different results probably in the fact that placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper”. ‘

So the different result ought probably to that. Do authors know how deeper, because these could effect the all experimentaion.

- So the main conclusion of that research is that it was found different results from other references  based on the hypothesis that (Lines 262-266) the subsoil was too loosened and water penetration was interrupted . Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper (This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep -15 cm fertilizer placement during seed placement.) Briefly, authors found different results from other researchers due to a fandom factor which is not sure or an error e.g the seed planned deeper. This happen for 6 years (it was not measured how deeper), authors were not sure about that (in line 262 authors wrote most probably), and it was not on the target of the experiment.

 “One can ask why the application of a lower phosphorus concentration of 70 kg P2O5 ha-1 (30.8 kg P ha-1) in the immediate vicinity of the seeds in the current study resulted in a reduction in plants' quantity after emergence and before maize harvest along with an increase in depth fertilizer application. The increase in fertilizer placement depth using a fertilizer coulter most likely worked in the same man¬ner as the use of a subsoiler (Figures 4 and 5). Most probably, the subsoil was too loosened and water penetration was interrupted. Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper. This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep (15 cm) fertilizer placement during seed placement.

-The discussion is poor regarding the importance of  AMMI –Lines 271-287.

 Conclusions are very poor and need to be written

-As explain in the discussion,  the main conclusion of that research is that it wad found different results from other references  based on the hypothesis that (Lines 262-266) the subsoil was too loosened, and water penetration was interrupted (s. Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper (This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep -15 cm fertilizer placement during seed placement.)  Briefly, authors found different results from other researchers due to a fandom factor which is not sure or an error e.g the seed planned deeper. This happen for 6 years (it was not measured how deeper), authors were not sure about that (in line 262 authors wrote most probably), and it was not on the target of the experiment.

- Authors wrote “NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2) were found to be the most stable, while 15 cm in rows (A4) and 0 cm in broadcast (A1) were the least stable in term of the number of plants after emergence.” So what do you propose to farmers? NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2)? I propose to authors to consider together the results of AMMI and that of table 4, where it is clear that A1 gave the higher number of plant. It is necessary to propose the better because the large advantage your research is that their findings are in a high degree applicable to agriculture and could increase the productivity of maize farms. What do you propose to farmers?

-author did not make any comment about the % variability of the environment which is quite important

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Reviewer #1

Point 1: General comments

A large advantage of the research is that their findings are in a high degree  applicable to agriculture and could increase the productivity of maize farms. However, in discussion and in conclusion author do not propose something. However, the most important problem of the manuscript is that the main conclusion do not support good from their findings

Response: Added to Conclusions section: “Based on the experiment, it seems reasonable to place the NP fertiliser granules at a maximum depth of 10 cm. A deeper application of fertiliser > 10 cm can only be advisable with thin coulters that do not disturb the soil structure under the seed.”

 Point 2: -As explain in the discussion,  the main concusion of that research is that it wad found different results from other referrences  based on the hypothesis that (Lines 262-266) the subsoil was too loosened and water penetration was interrupted (s. Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper (This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep (15 cm) fertilizer placement during seed placement. Briefelly, authors found different results from other researchers due to a fandom factor which is not sure or an errore.g the seed planned deeper. This happen for 6 years (it was not measured how deeper), authors were not sure about that (in line 262 authors wrote most probably), and it was not on the target of the experiment.

Response:

Yes, this is exactly our assumption. We did not investigate to what depth the maize seeds were moved when the NP fertiliser was applied deeper (15 cm). We will be able to make such a statement with the help of our long-term work on the improvement of maize agrotechnics. Numerous articles of my research team on the correct agrotechnology in maize cultivation and many years of observations authorize us to make such a statement.

Point 3: - Authors wrote “NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2) were found to be the most stable, while 15 cm in rows (A4) and 0 cm in broadcast (A1) were the least stable in term of the number of plants after emergence.” So what do you propose to farmers? NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2)? I propose to authors to consider together the results of AMMI and that of table 4, where it is clear that A1 gave the higher number of plant. It is necessary to propose the better because the large advantage your research is that their findings are in a high degree applicable to agriculture and could increase the productivity of maize farms. What do you propose to farmers?

Response:

To this question, the statement added an explanation in Conclusion section. We added text: “Maize varieties for deeper application of mineral fertilizer in the soil profile >10 cm (row fertilization) should be more tolerant to deeper seed placement during sowing.”.

Point 4:

• General comments “English language and grammar control is necessary”. I propose many changes in the pdf

Response: Thank you very much for your propositions of changes. We corrected manuscript.

Abstract

Point 5: In the Abstract, please clarify a little better the innovations and the main conclusion . The results are of great application in real farming conditions and could  increase corn yield per ha and farmers outcome. So it is really necessary for the conclusions to be presented more detailed.

Response: Added to abstract text: “Assuming that the maize kernels are placed in the soil at a depth of approx. 5 cm, the fertiliser during starter fertilisation should be placed 5 cm to the side and below the kernel. Deeper NP fertiliser application in maize cultivation is not recommended.”

Point 6:

• Also in abstract authors wrote “. “The number of plants after emergence decreased with the depth of NP fertilization in the soil profile, confirming the high dependence of maize on phosphorus and nitrogen availability, as well as greater subsoil loosening during placement.”, This is observed from 0cm or after 10cm? And from the practical point oview had do you suggest to corn farmers based on your study.

Response: Added to abstract text: “Assuming that the maize kernels are placed in the soil at a depth of approx. 5 cm, the fertiliser during starter fertilisation should be placed 5 cm to the side and below the kernel. Deeper NP fertiliser application in maize cultivation is not recommended.”

1. Introduction

Introduction is quite informative, just a few suggestions.

Point 7: -Authors wrote, “Recently, maize has grown in popularity and importance [1].” However, the reference 1 is form 2013. Please add a more recent or use the fao stat site where you could find until 2020 statistical data.

Response: We changed reference to:

Amnuaylojaroen, T.; Chanvichit, P.; Janta, R.; Surapipith, V. Projection of rice and maize productions in Northern Thailand under climate change scenario RCP8.5. Agriculture, 2021, 11, 23. doi:10.3390/agriculture11010023.

Point 8: -At line 89-96. Please add a few more references to support the importance of AMMI analysis. Please also explain the advantages of AMMI analysis.

Response: We corrected manuscript. We added more references and explained the advantages of AMMI analysis. We added text: “The advantages of the AMMI model are that they use overall fitting, impose no restrictions on the multiplicative terms, and result in a least squares fit; within limits, any model may also be expected to fit data from which it was derived. The AMMI method is used for three main purposes. The first is that the model diagnoses other models; secondly, AMMI clarifies treatment × environment interaction and summarizes patterns and relationships of treatment and environment [23,26], and the third use is the accuracy of trait estimates [23,26]. The AMMI method is widely used in stability and adaptability analyses because it i) provides an initial diagnosis of the model and is well-suited for data analysis with many environmental influences, ii) allows greater unfolding of the treatment × environment interaction and summarizes the patterns and relationships between treatments [27-33].”

1. Material and methods

Point 9: -In table 1. Could authors explain the big difference in P (mg P kg^-1 dm of soil) and pH (4.5-5.9), in the soil, before establishing of the experiment in maize growing season.

Response: The maize in each year of the study (growing season) was grown in a different field but at the same experimental site. The maize was not grown in the same field, as this would be a monoculture crop.

Point 10: - Also, did authors add different quantity of P since 2015 (P=40), 2018 (P=49) was quite lower in comparison with 2016(P=104), 2019 (P=155), 2020 (P=115), 2019. Also, did authors think that this differences in P could affect the results?

Response: In each year of the study, the same dose of P was applied. If phosphorus fertilisation had depended on the abundance of this nutrient in the soil, another research factor would have been added to the experimental design.

Point 11: - According to authors line 159 “The maize variety P7905 was used in the experiment.” Is this a commercial hybrid or pure line?

Response: We added text: “Is this a commercial hybrid.”

Point 12: -I propose to author to explain with more details Lines 177-179. And also support it with 2-3 more references.

Response: We explained with more details this fragment of the manuscript. Corrected sentences are: “where SS is the sum of squares, IPCA1 and IPCA2 are the first and the second interaction principal component axes, respectively; and the IPCA1 and IPCA2 scores were the NP fertilizer placement depth scores in the AMMI model. ASV is the distance from zero in a two-dimensional scatterplot of IPCA1 scores against IPCA2 scores. Since the IPCA1 score contributes more to the NP fertilizer placement depth by year sum of squares, it has to be weighted by the proportional difference between IPCA1 and IPCA2 scores to compensate for the difference in contribution. The distance from zero is then determined using Py-thagoras’s theorem. The greater the IPCA score, either negative or positive, the more specifically adapted the NP fertilizer placement depth is to certain years. The higher the IPCA score (which can be negative or positive), the more accurately selected NP fertilizer placement depth in an individual year. Lower ASV score indicates more stable NP fertilizer placement depth across the year [29,31,33,38,40]. The level of significance in PCA analysis was tested with the F test.”.

-Results

Point 13: I propose to authors to write with more details the results. Since the data of the tables are limited, it is a nice opportunity for an analytic presentation of the data of the tables 3, 4 and figures 3 & 4.

Response: We added more details in the Results section. We added: “Among the tested NP fertilizer placement depths, the A4 had the highest IPCA 1 value of 0. 882, while the lowest value of IPCA 1 was -0.251 for A1. The values of IPCA 2 ranged from -0.147 (for A1) to 0.153 (for A3) (Figure 2, Table 4). Among the years of study, the 2018 had the highest IPCA 1 value of 0.231, while the lowest value of IPCA 1 was -0.360 in 2016. The values of IPCA 2 ranged from -0.249 (in 2019) to 0.125 (in 2018) (Figure 2, Table 4).”, “Variation of the number of plants after emergence, measured coefficient of variation – CV, was equal to 3.28%, across all four NP fertilizer placement depth and six years of study (Table 3). The highest variation of the number of plants after emergence was observed for A1 (CV=3.17%), while the lowest for A3 (2.78%) (Table 4). Values of coefficient of variation for particular years of study varied from 1.34% (in 2018) to 3.03 (in 2016) (Table 4).” and other corrections.

Point 14: -Table 3 & 4. Could authors add Coefficient of variation (CV)

Response: We added values of coefficient of variations in Table 3 and 4 as well as description of these results.

Point 15: -Authors could add more information than the two lines 194-196, about figure 2.

Response: We added more information about Figure 2. We added text: “Among the tested NP fertilizer placement depths, the A4 had the highest IPCA 1 value of 0. 882, while the lowest value of IPCA 1 was -0.251 for A1. The values of IPCA 2 ranged from -0.147 (for A1) to 0.153 (for A3) (Figure 2, Table 4). Among the years of study, the 2018 had the highest IPCA 1 value of 0.231, while the lowest value of IPCA 1 was -0.360 in 2016. The values of IPCA 2 ranged from -0.249 (in 2019) to 0.125 (in 2018) (Figure 2, Table 4).”

Point 16: -Authors could add more information about the values of IPCA1 relatively with IPCA2 (table 3)

Response: Relation between values of IPCA 1 and IPCA 2 is always as IPCA 1 > IPCA 2. In our results both (IPCA 1 and IPCA 2) are statistically significant. Mentioned information were contained in the manuscript.

Discussion

Point 17: -Lines 240-241. Authors wrote “In the present study, the number of plants after emergence decreased along with the increase of NP fertilizer placement depth in each of the six years of research.” Is any other references to support these findings?

Response:  This issue was clarified in the discussion.

Point 18: - 242-251 authors wrote “Kruczek [35] showed no significant effect of the method of placement phospho­rus and phosphorus-nitrogen fertilizers on plant emergence. Nevertheless, many authors have indicated that too high a concentration of the component in the immediate vicinity of seeds can cause disturbances in germinating seeds [10,12,36,37]. However, the latter authors have not provided the maximum concentration of a nutrient that can be used in the immediate vicinity of germinating seeds. The confirmation obtained in these studies [36] that even the maximum concentration of 130 kg P2O5 ha^-1, applied in the immediate vicinity of the seeds, did not affect maize emergence, seemed to be a positive result.

-Could authors please check if  the different results between their results and 35 reference and references ought to differences in precipitation or occurred irrigated fields.

Response: The difference was not due to soil moisture (rainfall). If this were the case, there would be an interaction between total fumes and years.

 Point 19: - Lines 257-266. Author explain “the reason that they find different results probably in the fact that placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper”. ‘

So the different result ought probably to that. Do authors know how deeper, because these could effect the all experimentaion.

Response: We think about 2-3 cm deeper.

Point 20: - So the main conclusion of that research is that it was found different results from other references  based on the hypothesis that (Lines 262-266) the subsoil was too loosened and water penetration was interrupted . Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper (This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep -15 cm fertilizer placement during seed placement.) Briefly, authors found different results from other researchers due to a fandom factor which is not sure or an error e.g the seed planned deeper. This happen for 6 years (it was not measured how deeper), authors were not sure about that (in line 262 authors wrote most probably), and it was not on the target of the experiment.

 “One can ask why the application of a lower phosphorus concentration of 70 kg P2O5 ha-1 (30.8 kg P ha-1) in the immediate vicinity of the seeds in the current study resulted in a reduction in plants' quantity after emergence and before maize harvest along with an increase in depth fertilizer application. The increase in fertilizer placement depth using a fertilizer coulter most likely worked in the same man¬ner as the use of a subsoiler (Figures 4 and 5). Most probably, the subsoil was too loosened and water penetration was interrupted. Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper. This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep (15 cm) fertilizer placement during seed placement.

Response: We added text: “Other authors argued [Hardegree et al. 2016] that deeper sowing should be a common practice in the development of sustainable agriculture in arid and semi-arid areas of our globe. Nevertheless, most commercial maize varieties are not adapted to deeper sowing (>5 cm), which results in a disturbance of emergence dynamics [Hardegree et al. 2016] and reduction of the planned plant density. Therefore, scientists determined a recommended sowing depth, which is dependent on the type of soil, texture, pH and moisture conditions that vary for each crop species. However arable fields are not uniform, therefore deeper sowing becomes a difficult task to solve. Deeper sowing is an alternative agricultural practice that has a strong influence on maize germination rate and consequently the final yield [Saenz Rodrigueaz et al. 2021]. Hence, research should be focused on the selection of tolerant maize varieties in terms of increasing depth of their sowing. Strong hydrotropic reaction of new varieties should be the highest for its implementation in sustainable agriculture in times of the impending drought caused by the climate crisis [Zhao et al. 2010 ]. This feature varies greatly from strong (>40°) to weak (<40°), which confirms the large genetic diversity among commercial maize varieties [Eapen et al. 2017]. Therefore, the selection should use the genetic diversity of native, local maize varieties, which show a strong hydrotropic response and a greater mesocotyl elongation coefficient in deeper seed placement in soil during sowing [Vanhees et al. 2020].”

 Point 21: -The discussion is poor regarding the importance of  AMMI –Lines 271-287.

Response: We added to the Discussion section: “The AMMI is more appropriate in the initial statistical analysis of yield trials because it provides an analytical tool to diagnose other models, such as subcases, when these are better for particular data sets and also have a good chance of predicting new depths and years, this is a real advance [65]. To our knowledge, this is the first report about using the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model to analysis of NP fertilizer placement depth by year interaction on the number of maize (Zea mays L.) plants after emergence.” and “The AMMI model does not provide for a quantitative stability measure and such a measure is essential to quantify and rank genotypes in terms of observed trait stability [66,67]. Therefore, the AMMI stability value (ASV) was proposed by Purchase et al. [39] to quantify and rank objects according to their observed trait stability. The AMMI stability value (ASV) identified NP fertilizer placement depth A3 (10 cm in rows), as a more stable depth, which also had high mean performance. Such an outcome could be regularly employed in the future to delineate predictive, more rigorous recommendation strategies as well as to help define stability concepts for recommendations for maize.”

Conclusions are very poor and need to be written

-As explain in the discussion,  the main conclusion of that research is that it wad found different results from other references  based on the hypothesis that (Lines 262-266) the subsoil was too loosened, and water penetration was interrupted (s. Therefore, placing the seeds in such soil did not occur at the planned depth (4-5 cm), but deeper (This was confirmed by maize plant losses during the vegetation period that were in fact the lowest in objects with deep -15 cm fertilizer placement during seed placement.)  Briefly, authors found different results from other researchers due to a fandom factor which is not sure or an error e.g the seed planned deeper. This happen for 6 years (it was not measured how deeper), authors were not sure about that (in line 262 authors wrote most probably), and it was not on the target of the experiment.

Response: Maize varieties for deeper application of mineral fertilizer in the soil profile >10 cm (row fertilization) should be more tolerant to deeper seed placement during sowing. The condition for the use of agriculture progress, represented by localized fertilization, is the simultaneous recognition of the aspects of yielding physiology of new maize varieties and the assessment of their reaction to deeper seed placement during sowing.

Point 22: - Authors wrote “NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2) were found to be the most stable, while 15 cm in rows (A4) and 0 cm in broadcast (A1) were the least stable in term of the number of plants after emergence.” So what do you propose to farmers? NP fertilizer placement depths of 10 cm in rows (A3) and 5 cm in rows (A2)? I propose to authors to consider together the results of AMMI and that of table 4, where it is clear that A1 gave the higher number of plant. It is necessary to propose the better because the large advantage your research is that their findings are in a high degree applicable to agriculture and could increase the productivity of maize farms. What do you propose to farmers?

-author did not make any comment about the % variability of the environment which is quite important

Response: We corrected manuscript. We added information about variability of year effect.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is a great help in the practical work of farmers. In part of the material and method, I suggest detailing the distribution of precipitation and temperature, as the amount and utilization of precipitation depends on the distribution. I suggest supplementing the material and method section with extra soil characteristics parameters for the respective years, such as humus content and plasticity index according to Arany. The effect of fertilizer application differs depending on the depth based on the results, but it would be important to know directly the amount of precipitation and soil moisture during the application period, as it can affect the mobility of nutrients in the soil.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Reviewer #2

Point 1: The research is a great help in the practical work of farmers. In part of the material and method, I suggest detailing the distribution of precipitation and temperature, as the amount and utilization of precipitation depends on the distribution. I suggest supplementing the material and method section with extra soil characteristics parameters for the respective years, such as humus content and plasticity index according to Arany. The effect of fertilizer application differs depending on the depth based on the results, but it would be important to know directly the amount of precipitation and soil moisture during the application period, as it can affect the mobility of nutrients in the soil.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for noting the practical and utilitarian significance of the research results presented. Agricultural practice has been awaiting the results contained in this article for a long time. As suggested, humus and mineral nitrogen contents were added in Table 1. We do not have data on soil plasticity. The hydrothermal coefficient of water conservation was added in the Table 2.