Characterization of Mollisols after Long-Term N Fertilization at Successive Rates in Continuous and Rotated Corn Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
The title does not fully represent the entire content of the paper.
The literature review can be improved by critically reviewing the recent published papers in the topic areas. Please do provide more critical analysis.
The methods and standards used must be provided.
The results must be justified in the discussion section by comparing with other related published papers.
The language of the paper must be improved by proofreading it by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Answers to the Reviewer 1:
The title does not fully represent the entire content of the paper.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. However, we would appreciate if the Reviewer can elaborate on this comment. We believe the current title well captures the type of our work (soil characterization), the soil order (Mollisols), the strength (long-term), and the treatments (N rates and crop rotation) of this study.
The literature review can be improved by critically reviewing the recent published papers in the topic areas. Please do provide more critical analysis.
Authors’ response: We appreciate your suggestion. We added more relevant articles to improve our literature review.
The methods and standards used must be provided.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. We added citations for the soil properties determination methods. Also, we included the link to the webpage that lists the methods and their citations used by the commercial lab that analyzed our samples.
The results must be justified in the discussion section by comparing with other related published papers.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We improved the Discussion by adding more comparisons to related studies.
The language of the paper must be improved by proofreading it by a native English speaker.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We went over the manuscript to correct any overlooked grammatical errors and improve language.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has merit and quality. It has great relevance in research associated with the area of soil fertility and management.
The methodology is well described and is easy to understand.
-In 2.1 insert an image or picture with the coordinates of the area.
Climatic conditions (minimum and maximum temperature, average rainfall) of the region should also be explained
-In 2.3 the type of microwave used to be quoted and also the mark of other devices.
-At 3. Explain the significance of the results and parameters. There is no need to introduce the statistical parameters presented in the tables.
-The table titles should be short and concise. All these explanations are given in the materials and methods. Descriptions are double
The results were very interesting and corroborate with experiments performed by other authors. But compare your results quantitatively with those of other people working on similar soils and treatments in your country and abroad.
The conclusion was concise, described the results, and respond to the objectives of the work.
Author Response
Answers to the Reviewer 2:
The article has merit and quality. It has great relevance in research associated with the area of soil fertility and management.
The methodology is well described and is easy to understand.
Authors’ response: Thank you for understanding the value of this manuscript. As you pointed out, we believe the results and data presented in this manuscript will be of great interest for the relevant community.
-In 2.1 insert an image or picture with the coordinates of the area.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. We included a map of Illinois that has the general location and the coordinate of the experimental site. The figure numbers and their references in the texts all have been changed accordingly.
Climatic conditions (minimum and maximum temperature, average rainfall) of the region should also be explained
Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. The average rainfall of the region is already reported. We added the minimum and maximum temperature of the region.
-In 2.3 the type of microwave used to be quoted and also the mark of other devices.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. For our measurements involving drying the soil, which we assume the Reviewer is referring to about a microwave, we used an oven. As suggested, we added the model and maker for the oven. Also, we realized that the description of the devices used for measuring WAS was missing so we added this information. Besides them, the devices and machines we used have already been described and cited.
-At 3. Explain the significance of the results and parameters. There is no need to introduce the statistical parameters presented in the tables.
Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We improved the Introduction and the Discussion sections to further emphasize the significance of the parameters used and the results. As for introducing the statistical parameters, we are assuming that the Reviewer is referring to the p-values in parentheses in the text. We try to make each of the text, figures, and tables to be as standalone as possible for the readers. For that matter, we believe reiterating the results already presented in the table helps to convey our points to the readers without them having to refer back to the tables.
-The table titles should be short and concise. All these explanations are given in the materials and methods. Descriptions are double
Authors’ response: Thank you for your comments. We truly appreciate your concerns that the captions of our figures and tables may be long and redundant of the main text. Similar to the previous response, we try our best to make each figure and table as standalone as possible so that readers have no need to refer to the main text to understand them.
The results were very interesting and corroborate with experiments performed by other authors. But compare your results quantitatively with those of other people working on similar soils and treatments in your country and abroad.
Authors’ response: We appreciate your comment. We added quantitative comparison with the other relevant studies in the Discussion.
The conclusion was concise, described the results, and respond to the objectives of the work.
Author’s response: Thank you for your comments. We are glad that the conclusion was concise and representative of the manuscript.
