Organo-Mineral Fertilization Based on Olive Waste Sludge Compost and Various Phosphate Sources Improves Phosphorus Agronomic Efficiency, Zea mays Agro-Physiological Traits, and Water Availability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear editor,

After checking the second version of manuscript entitled ‘Organo-Mineral Fertilization Based on Olive Waste Sludge Compost and Various Phosphate Sources Improves Phosphorus Agronomic Efficiency, Zea Mays Agro-Physiological Trails, and Water Availability’, Although the statistical analysis of the results has improved, but the statistical analysis (means comparisons) is still wrong in some traits. For example, in the table 3 in the trait of OM(%) the similar letters are wrong. The similar letters in the means of this traits is a, ab, bc, cd and after that is ‘f’. It is not true. Therefore, the authors should be checking the mean comparisons of the below traits:

- Table 3: OM (%)

- Figure 1(a)

- Figure 1(b)

- Figure 2(a)

- Figure 2(b)

- Figure 3(b)

- Table 5: MSI (%)

- Table 4: The non-significant impacts should be deleted.

- Table 4: It is suggested that the font size of the numbers listed in table 4 be slightly smaller.

- The conclusion should not be repetitive in the abstract or a summary of the results section. I would love to read striking points and take-home messages that will linger in the readers’ minds. What is the novelty, how does the study elucidate some questions in this field, and the contributions the paper may offer to the scientific community?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your time and your valuable remarks, which helped us to significantly improve the MS.  Bellow are answers for each of your comments.

After checking the second version of manuscript entitled ‘Organo-Mineral Fertilization Based on Olive Waste Sludge Compost and Various Phosphate Sources Improves Phosphorus Agronomic Efficiency, Zea Mays Agro-Physiological Trails, and Water Availability’, Although the statistical analysis of the results has improved, but the statistical analysis (means comparisons) is still wrong in some traits. For example, in the table 3 in the trait of OM(%) the similar letters are wrong. The similar letters in the means of this traits is a, ab, bc, cd and after that is ‘f’. It is not true. Therefore, the authors should be checking the mean comparisons of the below traits:

- Table 3: OM (%)

- Figure 1(a)

- Figure 1(b)

- Figure 2(a)

- Figure 2(b)

- Figure 3(b)

- Table 5: MSI (%)

Answers:

Thank you for your remarks, all statistical data has been improved replacing the SNK by Tukey Test which is more adequate for this kind of study

Reviewer 1 comments (N°2):

2- Table 4: The non-significant impacts should be deleted.  Table 4: It is suggested that the font size of the numbers listed in table 4 be slightly smaller.

Answers:

Thank you for your comments. Non-significant values were removed, and font size was reduced

Reviewer 1 comments (N°3):

- The conclusion should not be repetitive in the abstract or a summary of the results section. I would love to read striking points and take-home messages that will linger in the readers’ minds. What is the novelty, how does the study elucidate some questions in this field, and the contributions the paper may offer to the scientific community?

Answers:

The conclusion has been completely rewritten taking into consideration the reviewers valuable remarks

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This study estimated the “Organo-Mineral Fertilization Based on Olive Waste Sludge Compost and Various Phosphate Sources Improves Phosphorus Agronomic Efficiency, Zea Mays Agro-Physiological Trails, and Water Availability”. Indeed, influence of organo-mineral fertilization on morpho-physiological traits is of special interest. There are a lot of comments that should be taken into account by authors, which I believe are significant and important aspects that need to be thoroughly addressed in authors revision.

The main concern is:

Abstract:

(1) The main results that were obtained to conclude their conclusion is not presented well in the abstract, presenting the results interesting to the readers. This part needs to be completely revised. Moreover, language used in this section needs to be improved.

Introduction:

(2) Please illustrate by more details the influence of OMF on the measured parameters.

(3) At the end of this section, authors should illustrate what hypothesis this investigation aimed to test. Moreover, to verify this hypothesis, mention to the measured parameters.

(4) Research purpose is not clear - please make it more obvious.

(5) Please describe by more details the novelty of your work in comparison with previous work. What has it added that we did not know before?

Material and methods:

(6) The presentation of the treatments is not clear. This section should be completely revised. Please rewrite the treatments you did.

(7) How much plants were taken for different analysis should be mentioned clearly.

Results:

(8) Please explain all abbreviations in legend of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all statistics and abbreviations used must be clearly explained.

(9) In Tables 2, 3, 4 &5, Is that ±SE or ±SD values.

(10) Moreover, In figures, authors should define what bare are mean? they added SD or SE.

Discussion:

(11) Discussion must be improved – the authors did not present any possible mechanisms of OMF on each of the measured parameters. Some papers should be added to enhance this part.

(12) The authors should compare their treatments. So, they can accurately state which treatment was better than the others. Consequently, the authors should revise the text in results and discussion according to this suggestion.

(13) Authors should discuss how their results fit into the large pools of study. The Discussion is more a review type of the state of the art but does not critically discuss the findings and any potential pitfalls in the experiments.

(14) At the end of this section, all evaluated parameters should be well integrated and discussed.

Conclusion:

(15) The concluding section should be improved. Add the significance and future prospect of the study.

Linguistic quality:

(16) English should be polished. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your time and your valuable remarks, which helped us to significantly improve the MS.  Bellow, are answers for each of your comment.

Reviewer 2 comments (N°1):

Abstract:

The main results that were obtained to conclude their conclusion is not presented well in the abstract, presenting the results interesting to the readers. This part needs to be completely revised. Moreover, language used in this section needs to be improved.

Answer:

The abstract was fully reviewed and rewritten to emphasize key findings. English language was also improved

Introduction:

(2) Please illustrate by more details the influence of OMF on the measured parameters.

Answer:

Done, a paragraph was added in the introduction, providing more details on the influence of of OMF

(3) At the end of this section, authors should illustrate what hypothesis this investigation aimed to test. Moreover, to verify this hypothesis, mention to the measured parameters.

(4) Research purpose is not clear - please make it more obvious.

Answer:

Thank you for your remark. The hypothesis of the work was clarified at the end of the introduction section

(5) Please describe by more details the novelty of your work in comparison with previous work. What has it added that we did not know before?

Answer:

Thank you for your remark. The novelty was clarified in the introduction section. Using OMF formulation to increase specifically PUE is in our opinion novel as it is scarcely addressed in the literature or not at all. Studying the effect of OMF formulation using different P sources (bioavailable and not bioavailable) is also one of the novelty of the study.   

Material and methods:

(6) The presentation of the treatments is not clear. This section should be completely revised. Please rewrite the treatments you did.

Answer:

The section was improved, and treatments were rewritten

(7) How much plants were taken for different analysis should be mentioned clearly.

Answer:

 Done, the number of plants replicates is indicated for different analysis

Results:

(8) Please explain all abbreviations in legend of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all statistics and abbreviations used must be clearly explained.

Answer:

Done, for the table legend we added: Results are expressed per unit weight dry matter; EC: Electrical conductivity; OM: Organic matter; Exch: exchangeable., they represent means (±_standard deviation) of three replicates. Data within the same column followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey test at p < 0.05.

For Figures: Results represent means (±_standard deviation) of five replicates. Different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey test at p < 0.05.

(9) In Tables 2, 3, 4 &5, Is that ±SE or ±SD values.

Answer:

Dear reviewer, all statistical data has been redone following the reviewer 1 comment using Tukey test, The value in all tables and figures represent the means (±_standard deviation)  

(10) Moreover, in figures, authors should define what bare are mean? they added SD or SE.

Answer:

Thank you, for all table and figures we mentioned that the values represented mean and standard value

Discussion:

(11) Discussion must be improved – the authors did not present any possible mechanisms of OMF on each of the measured parameters. Some papers should be added to enhance this part.

Answer:

Done, the mechanisms of OMF action were added in the discussion part

(12) The authors should compare their treatments. So, they can accurately state which treatment was better than the others. Consequently, the authors should revise the text in results and discussion according to this suggestion.

Answer:

Done, all treatment has been compared in the discussed the obtained results

(13) Authors should discuss how their results fit into the large pools of study. The Discussion is more a review type of the state of the art but does not critically discuss the findings and any potential pitfalls in the experiments.

Answer:

Done, the discussion was improved by trying to discuss critically the obtained results

(14) At the end of this section, all evaluated parameters should be well integrated and discussed.

Answer:

Done, a section was added on the end of the discussion section as requested

Conclusion:

(15) The concluding section should be improved. Add the significance and future prospect of the study.

Answer.

The conclusion was fully rewritten

Linguistic quality:

(16) English should be polished. 

Done, 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks to the authors for providing this study.

This study provides practical information on: “Organo-Mineral Fertilization Based on Olive Waste Sludge Compost and Various Phosphate Sources Improves Phosphorus Agronomic Efficiency, Zea Mays Agro-Physiological Trails, and Water Availability”.

Main comment: A good study, and a lot of effort and time was spent to produce it in this way, and a lot of measurements were carried out with appropriate references cited, and this is a very good thing. Also, please answer the following comments:

See the attachment also for clarification of some comments.

keywords: Add to keywords: Olive Waste Sludge and Zea Mays; Delete: Plant Growth.

Introdution:

 ·       On the second page of the manuscript, in the third line, is written the following statement: Maize is one of the most important livestock for both humans and animals. Please correct the mistake, which is replacing the word "livestock" with "crop".

·       Add a paragraph to the introduction on the use of olive mill waste sludge (OMWS) as fertilizers in general.

Materials and methods:

·       Reformat Table 1 so that the data appears in it more clearly, and on the other hand, put Table 1 after paragraph 2.2.

·       Put the geographic data (latitude and longitude) of the location of the farm where the experiment was conducted.

·       What is the source of corn grain?

·       As it is known, corn is not grown in greenhouses, but rather in fields, because it needs sufficient lighting! Therefore, I see writing a description of the greenhouse in which the experiment was carried out, especially with regard to the intensity of lighting indoors, because this affects the growth of corn plants, which makes it another factor affecting growth other than the applied fertilizer treatments.

·       Has the field capacity of soil in pots been estimated? In order to accurately estimate the amount of irrigation water.

·       Were the pots used perforated from the bottom? So, was the water that came out of the pots in excess of the field capacity of the soil taken? Because the amount of this water and the substances in it will vary from one treatment to another.

·       If the above was done, put the results of this water analysis in the results because this result will help you discuss the rest of the results.

·       As shown in paragraph 4.2, the samples were dried for (24 h at 70°C). I do not think that this is sufficient based on previous experiments on maize plants. Green samples need at least 48 hours to dry, and then we can calculate the percentage of dry matter.

Results:

·       At the bottom of the results tables: Put how the mean results of the treatments were compared, i.e. at p < 0.05, and also write that the difference between the letters indicates that there are significant differences between the treatments in the same column.

·       The same command above applies to figures.

·       The standard deviation in some coefficients was high for example in figure 1 (a) the OMF2 transaction value of DAP as well as figure 1 (b) the value of PWS in controls. This means that the values for this average are divergent, so it is better to interpret this.

·       Please follow the above in all figures and tables.

·       The results of figure 2 are written in the body of the text in percentage form, while in figure the values are in g/kg and cm. This is incorrect on. Therefore, the results in the figure must either be modified to percentage values, or the results must be explained in the body of the text as shown in the figure.

·       Add the unit of measure in Figure 4 (a and c).

Discussion:

If the discussion is tabulated into paragraphs, it is easier to read. Just a non-compulsory opinion.

Conclusions:

Put among the recommendations at the end of the conclusions your recommendations about the use of Olive Waste Sludge because it is the main objective and the basic treatment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your time and your valuable remarks, which helped us to significantly improve the MS.  Bellow, are answers for each of your comment.

Reviewer 3 remarques and comments

• keywords: Add to keywords: Olive Waste Sludge and Zea Mays; Delete: Plant Growth.

Answer:

Done, the keywords Olive Waste Sludge and Zea Mays were added, and Plant Growth was deleted

Introduction:

• On the second page of the manuscript, in the third line, is written the following statement: Maize is one of the most important livestock for both humans and animals. Please correct the mistake, which is replacing the word "livestock" with "crop".
• Add a paragraph to the introduction on the use of olive mill waste sludge (OMWS) as fertilizers in general.

Answer:

       The required modification were done according to the author suggestion

Materials and methods:

• Reformat Table 1 so that the data appears in it more clearly, and on the other hand, put Table 1 after paragraph 2.2.

Answer:

Done, the table was reformatted

• Put the geographic data (latitude and longitude) of the location of the farm where the experiment was conducted.

Answer:

Done, the geographic data, and location of the experiment was added to the experimental design

• What is the source of corn grain?

Answer:

The source of corn grain was mentioned in maize seeds (MACHA certified variety). (P: 4)

• As it is known, corn is not grown in greenhouses, but rather in fields, because it needs sufficient lighting! Therefore, I see writing a description of the greenhouse in which the experiment was carried out, especially with regard to the intensity of lighting indoors, because this affects the growth of corn plants, which makes it another factor affecting growth other than the applied fertilizer treatments.

Answer:

Dear reviewer, we agree with you. The greenhouse was built in such a way as to let the light penetrate inside by the installation of a rigid wire ensuring maximum penetration of the solar rays

• Has the field capacity of soil in pots been estimated? In order to accurately estimate the amount of irrigation water.

Answer:

Dear reviewer, the field capacity of the soil was initially measured and then maintained during all the experiments. the field capacity of the soil was approximately 30%.

• Were the pots used perforated from the bottom? So, was the water that came out of the pots in excess of the field capacity of the soil taken? Because the amount of this water and the substances in it will vary from one treatment to another. If the above was done, put the results of this water analysis in the results because this result will help you discuss the rest of the results.

Answer:

Dear reviewer, all the pots are perforated from the bottom, with the presence of its reception at the bottom, and since only 30% of the field capacity is irrigated, there is generally no excess of water.

• As shown in paragraph 4.2, the samples were dried for (24 h at 70°C). I do not think that this is sufficient based on previous experiments on maize plants. Green samples need at least 48 hours to dry, and then we can calculate the percentage of dry matter.

Answer:

Thank you, it’s a mistake, the used period is 72h, it was corrected (P: 5)

Results:

• At the bottom of the results tables: Put how the mean results of the treatments were compared, i.e. at p < 0.05, and also write that the difference between the letters indicates that there are significant differences between the treatments in the same column.

Answer:

Done, the requested indication was added at the bottom of the results table as:

OMF0= 0 tonnes of compost, OMF1= 10 t, OMF2 = 50t, OMF3= 100t, PWS= Phosphate sludge. Results represent means (±_standard deviation) of three replicates. Data within the same column followed by different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey test at p < 0.05.

• The same command above applies to figures.

Answer:

Done: Results represent means (±_standard deviation) of five replicates. Different letters are significantly different according to the Tukey test at p < 0.05.

• The standard deviation in some coefficients was high for example in figure 1 (a) the OMF2 transaction value of DAP as well as figure 1 (b) the value of PWS in controls. This means that the values for this average are divergent, so it is better to interpret this. ·       Please follow the above in all figures and tables.

Answer:

Dear reviewer, thank you for the comments, in fact the SD VALUE is between 7% and 15% of the average values for DAP, and as you know in agronomy, it is quite normal to find high SD values. but since it is always lower than this margin, we interpret based on the average. and associating this with the DAP for example may not be correct.

      The results of figure 2 are written in the body of the text in percentage form, while in figure the values are in g/kg and cm. This is incorrect on. Therefore, the results in the figure must either be modified to percentage values, or the results must be explained in the body of the text as shown in the figure.

Answer:

Done, all value in percentages has been converted to similar values in the figures as you requested (Page 13 and 14).

   Add the unit of measure in Figure 4 (a and c).

Answer

Dear reviewer, thank you for the remark we really appreciate, but FV/F0 and FV/Fm are a ratio

Discussion:

If the discussion is tabulated into paragraphs, it is easier to read. Just a non-compulsory opinion.

Answer:

Thank you for the idea, we do tabulate into paragraphs in the discussion part

Conclusions:

Put among the recommendations at the end of the conclusions your recommendations about the use of Olive Waste Sludge because it is the main objective and the basic treatment.

Answer:

Conclusion was completely rewritten

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear editor, 

In the revised version, the authors corrected the comparison means results. After checking these results, I noticed that the results of mean comparison for figure 2a and 2b is still wrong. Please check the mean comparison results for figure 2a and 2b carefully and make the necessary corrections.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable remarks (and patience) which helped us to improve our manuscript according to your suggestions.

The statistical analysis of Figure 2 was reviewed and reported error were corrected. Additionally for more clarity we reviewed the presentation of figure 2. Figure is now divided into 4 figures, representing each parameter.

We attached also a document showing the original SPSS output and describing subsets so you can doublecheck.

Thank you very much again for time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript has greatly improved and can be published in Agronomy.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable remarks, which helped us to significantly improve our manuscript

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

- Given that the study presents a long list of abbreviations, I suggest adding a “glossary” table at the end of the paper as it will aid the readers to learn about the concepts/terms that they are about to study.

- Please add values and increasing percentage

- What is the best recommendation based on the obtained results?

Introduction

- Justify the novelty in introduction and discussion sections.

Materials and methods

Please add the soil physical and chemical properties in one table.

The experimental factors and treatments must be stated accurately.

Please add refences for measured methods such as RWC, etc.

Why means comparison done by SNK test?

Results

- Table 1: Please delete the non-significant data such as pH and Exch CaO.

- Table 1: The stranded errors should be written with ‘±’.

- Table 2: Please delete the non-significant data such as pH and Exch CaO.

- Figure 1: The analysis methods and means comparison analysis is not true.

- Figure 4: The analysis methods seem wrong in some traits. For example, in (Fv/Fm) the similar letters related to the lowest values is (a) and (de). Also, the letter for the highest value is (a), again. It is not true. The similar mistakes were reported in other results.

Discussion

-In this section the authors should be discussed based on the obtained results of this study. The similar results that published in previous studies should be deleted in this section. Please highlight the novelty in this section, too.

Conclusion

- This section is repetitive and should be rewritten.

- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reported the impact of “Organo-Mineral Fertilization Based on Olive Waste Sludge Compost and Various Phosphate Sources Improves Phosphorus Agronomic Efficiency, Plant Agro-Physiological Trails, and Water Availability”. The research topic is interesting and may have great importance in crop production. However, I have several major concerns with the manuscript which prevent me from recommending it for publication in its current situation.

(1) Please involve the test plant name in the title and the abstract section.

(2) The introduction is poorly written. There is a lack of information about what is new.

(3) Moreover, I am wondering the authors even did not mention to the effects of organo-mineral fertilization on maize plants.

Most of the data in the introduction is about positive effects of organic fertilization. However, there is a lack of broader data on the effects of organo-mineral fertilization on maize plants.

There is no information on how maize plants respond to organo-mineral fertilization, according to measured parameters. Authors should expand the state of the art by adding new references.

(4) Please correct the reference style, it is not correct.

According to ------ [5].

(5) Again, in introduction section similar discrepancy has been observed. Similarly, [7].

Please revise this issue in the whole ms!

(6) In material and methods, the authors must measure the chemical composition of organic fertilization, which they used.

(7) The methods must be described: How many repetitions had the experiment? How many plants were sampled?

(number of replication? number of plants per rep?)

How much plants were taken for different analysis should be mentioned clearly.

(8) In general, for plant experiments, it is recommended that the repeatability of the experiment be for 2 years.

(9) The results need to interpreted by taking the effect of olive waste sludge compost and various phosphate sources separately or comparing their dual effects.

(10) Figures resolution should be raised.

(11) In the discussion section, the generalities have been discussed more, the need to focus on the results obtained and the reasons for these results. The summary for the current studies is not enough, especially for the Discussion. Some papers should be added to enhance this part.

The mechanism of action of olive waste sludge compost and various phosphate sources is missing in all parameters. Why and how these applications increases or decreases a parameter ……what are the possible mechanisms, should be mentioned in the discussion part.

(12) Throughout the manuscript, there is also a lack of indication of what is innovative in this paper and what the authors have contributed to the current state of knowledge.

(13) The conclusion section must be rewritten. Authors should include specific results of their research, which extend the current state of knowledge. 

(14) References need to be cross-checked.

(15) The English still requires to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor,

After checking the new revised version of manuscript, till, the statistical analysis and means comparison for some measured traits seems wrong. For example, in table 3, in %OM, same averages have different letters. Therefore, my final recommendation is 'reject'

Bests

Author Response

We thank you very much for your valuable comments and remarks which helped us to significantly improve our manuscript with hope to meeting the journal quality standards.

The statistical analysis was thoroughly reviewed and mistake regarding statistical significance were corrected. The document was double checked to ascertain the relevance of the analysis. We also provide a document representing the original SPSS (used software) output, displaying means for groups in homogenous subsets for each figure and table. Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments have been mostly addressed. In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your valuable comments and remarks which helped us to significantly improve our manuscript with hope to meeting the journal quality standards.

We provide a revised version of the manuscript, which correct some mistakes with respect to statistical significance

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor,

After carefully check revised manuscript and supplementary file sent by authors, Still, the results of mean comparisons in the measured traits have many problems and mistakes. after checking the results, the results of mean comparison in some traits such as Exch K2O (table2), OM in table 3, figure 1a and 1b, figure 2a and 2b, figure 4b, MSI and RWC in table 3, etc. is wrong. Therefore, my final recommendation is reject.

Best regards