The New Soil Conditioner DewEco Could Improve Sandy Soil’s Properties for Efficient Maize Growth
, Xiping Deng 1,4 and Shiwen Wang 1,2,4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study aimed to propose a novel organic material as an efficient, economic and eco-friendly soil conditioner according to its positive effects on a range of soil properties and soil water/nutrient parameters, as well as on maize productivity indicators in sandy soil. The effect of conditioner dosage and conditioner-nitrogen interaction effect on maize growth and development in sandy soil were also evaluated. The topis is very relevant and clearly justified. The methodology is reproducibly presented. The control treatments are included, as well as the replicates for all measurements. The convincing results of this study present a valuable scientific and useful contribution to the sustainable agricultural practice. There are some minor suggestions to be consider prior to publication. General note: introduced abbrevations should be consistently used throughout the text.
Title
I suggest shorter, e.g. The new soil conditioner DewEco could promote plant productivity in sandy soil, or … could improve sandy soil properties for efficient maize growth
Abstract
Line 18 The soil conditioner origin should be provided here to be able indicate the agent's eco-friendly property in line 30 (fermented organic material consisted mainly of …, or …containing 50% organic matter and 4% nitrogen).
Lines 25-26 Introduce abbrevations WUE and NUE.
Keywords
Water holding capacity and water use efficiency refer both to the soil water parameter; better replace the later keyword with a nitrogen (or fertilizer, or nutrient) use efficiency.
Introduction
Lines 110-111 … should have high (or strong) water and fertilizer retention capacity… ("better" can be used for comparison).
Line 115 … without harm to the environment…
Line 120 … can provide the soil particle adhesion, i. e. their aggregation at the surface and inside the soil structure.
Materials and methods
Lines 143-147 This paragraph can be omitted, because the comprehensive soil properties are measured for each treatment during the experiment, including control samples without DE and N addition (natural sandy soil).
Line 172 Symbol W0 is already explained in line 165 and can be omitted.
Line 220 Reference for wilting coeff. method missing. Introduce abbrevation WC, because it shows up in the Results section.
Line 224 Reference year should be in bracket.
Lines 255 and 262 Abbrevations NUE and WUE should be described.
Line 285 Lapsus calami: replace with ANOVA.
Results
Fig. 2 Label the graphs with DE dosages (DE0, DE0.4, etc.) as shown in Fig 3.
Lines 303-308 Abbrevations SP, TPR, and later WHC and DE, are already introduced in Methodology section; use them in later text without repeating their meanings.
Line 315 Unit for EC is µS/cm (capital S). Correct it also in Table 1.
Line 327-331 Table 2 should be presented after this paragraph.
Line 333-347 Table 3 should be presented after this paragraph.
Fig. 4 Add letters a) - d) on the graphs.
Line 367 First sentence can be omitted as it was provided by Methodology section. Start with the second sentence and note Table 4.
Line 381 (Fig. 6 caption) ... according to equation 2(l-4) instead of 3(b).
Table 4 Note: ... according to equation 2(k) instead of 3(a).
Discussion
Lines 390-396 This is repeating of the introduction. Start from: In this study, we tested...
Conclusions
Lines 476-477 ... can improve soil texture, increase soil porosity, large particle content and water retention capacity, and enhanced soil fertility.
Fig. 7 Caption: There is no need for repeating the two sentences from the Conclusions. Only first sentence is sufficient (A schematic model...).
References
There are too many references with the similar content. Try to reduce them - up to 50 ref. should be quite enough. Do not cite several refs for the same subject, select only the most relevant.
Author Response
Thank reviewer’s comments. This will help us to further improve the quality of the paper. In response to the reviewers' suggestions, we have revised it following.
Title
I suggest shorter, e.g. The new soil conditioner DewEco could promote plant productivity in sandy soil, or … could improve sandy soil properties for efficient maize growth
Answer: I agreed to revise the title of the MS and adopted the suggestions of the reviewer
Abstract
Line 18 The soil conditioner origin should be provided here to be able indicate the agent's eco-friendly property in line 30 (fermented organic material consisted mainly of …, or …containing 50% organic matter and 4% nitrogen).
Answer: we have revised
Lines 25-26 Introduce abbrevations WUE and NUE.
Answer: we have revised
Keywords
Water holding capacity and water use efficiency refer both to the soil water parameter; better replace the later keyword with a nitrogen (or fertilizer, or nutrient) use efficiency.
Answer: we have revised
Introduction
Lines 110-111 … should have high (or strong) water and fertilizer retention capacity… ("better" can be used for comparison).
Answer: we have revised
Line 115 … without harm to the environment…
Answer: we have revised
Line 120 … can provide the soil particle adhesion, i. e. their aggregation at the surface and inside the soil structure.
Answer: we have revised
Materials and methods
Lines 143-147 This paragraph can be omitted, because the comprehensive soil properties are measured for each treatment during the experiment, including control samples without DE and N addition (natural sandy soil).
Answer: we have revised
Line 172 Symbol W0 is already explained in line 165 and can be omitted.
Answer: we have revised
Line 220 Reference for wilting coeff. method missing. Introduce abbrevation WC, because it shows up in the Results section.
Answer: we have supplied.
Line 224 Reference year should be in bracket.
Answer: we have revised
Lines 255 and 262 Abbrevations NUE and WUE should be described.
Answer: we have revised
Line 285 Lapsus calami: replace with ANOVA.
Answer: we have revised
Results
Fig. 2 Label the graphs with DE dosages (DE0, DE0.4, etc.) as shown in Fig 3.
Answer: we have revised
Lines 303-308 Abbrevations SP, TPR, and later WHC and DE, are already introduced in Methodology section; use them in later text without repeating their meanings.
Answer: we have revised
Line 315 Unit for EC is µS/cm (capital S). Correct it also in Table 1.
Answer: we have revised
Line 327-331 Table 2 should be presented after this paragraph.
Answer: we have moved it
Line 333-347 Table 3 should be presented after this paragraph.
Answer: we have moved it
Fig. 4 Add letters a) - d) on the graphs.
Answer: we have revised
Line 367 First sentence can be omitted as it was provided by Methodology section. Start with the second sentence and note Table 4.
Answer: we have revised
Line 381 (Fig. 6 caption) ... according to equation 2(l-4) instead of 3(b).
Answer: we have revised
Table 4 Note: ... according to equation 2(k) instead of 3(a).
Answer: we have revised
Discussion
Lines 390-396 This is repeating of the introduction. Start from: In this study, we tested...
Answer: we have revised
Conclusions
Lines 476-477 ... can improve soil texture, increase soil porosity, large particle content and water retention capacity, and enhanced soil fertility.
Answer: we have revised
Fig. 7 Caption: There is no need for repeating the two sentences from the Conclusions. Only first sentence is sufficient (A schematic model...).
Answer: we have revised
References
There are too many references with the similar content. Try to reduce them - up to 50 ref. should be quite enough. Do not cite several refs for the same subject, select only the most relevant.
Answer ,: Thank the reviewers suggestion. There are abundant references in this paper. Considering that we did refer to the contents of these reference in the process of writing the MS, we think it may be more appropriate to keep them
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Auhor,
the paper is interesting and is wekll written even if some check on spelling and fomat needed. .eg. pag 4 L197, I suppose that is 38.5°C.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised the manuscript in detail, especially noting spelling mistakes
