Ameliorative Effects of Vermicompost Application on Yield, Fertilizer Utilization, and Economic Benefits of Continuous Cropping Pepper in Karst Areas of Southwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: agronomy-2435393

Title: Ameliorative Effects of Vermicompost Application on Yield, Fertilizer Utilization, and Economic Benefits of Continuous Cropping Pepper in Karst Areas of Southwest China

I have reviewed the manuscript titled “Ameliorative Effects of Vermicompost Application on Yield, Fertilizer Utilization, and Economic Benefits of Continuous Cropping Pepper in Karst Areas of Southwest China” My evaluation is as follows:

 

General comments

The authors have provided a series of experiments to determine the ameliorative effect of vermicompost application in continuous cropping pepper in the karst region of southwest China. The authors found positive correlations between vermicompost application and crop yield, quality, nutrient accumulation, fertilizer utilizationand economic benefits of contimous cropping pepper from 2021 to 2022. The focus of the study is topical, they have followed an appropriate methodology and used appropriate literature to support the work. The manuscript is well written with good readabiity and composition. However, there is need to improve on the discussion.

 

Specific comments

 

Tilte

The title is appropriate for the study subject

 

Introduction

·       The introduction sets out the need of the study appropriately.

• The introduction is well written and appropriately referenced.
• The authors have provided a well referenced and elaborate background information
• Line 31 of the introduction should be referenced.
• The objectives should be clearly stated.

 

Methodology

·       Experimental site is well described.

·       The methods described are scientifically sound and replicable.

·       Line 97 replace ‘were’ with ‘are’ and ‘showed’ with ‘shown’

·       Line 110, replace “were showed” with “are shown”

 

Experimental design

·       More information on the statistical analysis is desirable e.g. on the types and tests carried out to make deductions.  For example, the tests used to generate the p-values are not indicated.

• The authors should indicate what kind of data was collected and how this data was analyzed
• The authors indicate that SPSS’s ANOVA and Duncan’s method for multiple comparisons was used in the analysis, they do not indicate how this was done.

 

Results

·       Results are well presented

·       Tables are well presented and easy to understand.

·       Table 4 should not overflow the page

 

 

Discussion

·       The discussion section should discuss the results of the study in relation to other studies. However, there are instances where the authors have discussed other studes independent of this study results – especially when introducing an issue. I propose a revison of this sections to take this into consideration. This include:

v Sentence starting in line 242 – soil physical and chemical properties; soil nutrients and abundance of microoganisms were not tested in the experiment

v Sentence starting in line 273 about vermicompost increaasing soil nitrogen cycle, enzymes

v Line 278 – 284 introduces new information in the discussion just like the lines below

v Line 290 – 295

v Line 308 – 310 

v In line 312, the authors indicate that vermicompost offers a low cost and efficient soil amendment but in the abstract and line 315, they contradict that and say that vermicompost increased production costs. I am not sure how this was arrived at since these were neither measured in the methods section nor reported in the results sections

 

Conclusion

·       The conclusion is okay and supported by data.

·       However, the sentence starting in line 328 is a repetation of the previous sentence

·       The sentence starting in line 330 is speculative and not part of the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Minor editing required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this manuscript and give us another chance to revise the manuscript. We will cherish the opportunity of this revision. ​Your comments make this paper completer and more outstanding! I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. Thanks again.

Introduction

1. Line 31 of the introduction should be referenced.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have addition the relevant references

2. The objectives should be clearly stated.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added the objectives of this study in the introduction section.

Methodology

3. Line 97 replace ‘were’ with ‘are’ and ‘showed’ with ‘shown’.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have corrected the incorrect syntax.

4. Line 110, replace “were showed” with “are shown”.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have corrected the incorrect syntax.

Experimental design

5. More information on the statistical analysis is desirable e.g. on the types and tests carried out to make deductions.  For example, the tests used to generate the p-values are not indicated.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified this section and added some information.

6. The authors should indicate what kind of data was collected and how this data was analyzed

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added methods and steps for testing metrics.

7. The authors indicate that SPSS’s ANOVA and Duncan’s method for multiple comparisons was used in the analysis, they do not indicate how this was done.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified this section and added some information.

Results

8. Table 4 should not overflow the page.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified Table 4 to fit the page.

Discussion

9. Sentence starting in line 242 – soil physical and chemical properties; soil nutrients and abundance of microoganisms were not tested in the experiment.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed the parts that are not related to this article.

10. Sentence starting in line 273 about vermicompost increaasing soil nitrogen cycle, enzymes.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed the parts that are not related to this article.

11. Line 278 – 284 introduces new information in the discussion just like the lines below.

We have modified this section to meet the theme of the article.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified this section to meet the theme of the article.

12. Line 290 – 295

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed the parts that are not related to this article.

13. Line 308 – 310  

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed the parts that are not related to this article.

14. In line 312, the authors indicate that vermicompost offers a low cost and efficient soil amendment but in the abstract and line 315, they contradict that and say that vermicompost increased production costs. I am not sure how this was arrived at since these were neither measured in the methods section nor reported in the results sections.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. In line 312, we would like to convey that the sales price of vermicompost as a soil amendment is very low (only 1000 yuan·t^-1 in China), compared with other soil amendments (such as biochar, the sales price is 2000-3000 yuan·t^-1 in China). In the abstract and line 315, we want to convey that, compared with FP treatment, the addition of vermicompost will increase the production cost of pepper planting (that is the cost of vermicompost). Therefore, they are not contradictory.

Conclusion

15. However, the sentence starting in line 328 is a repetation of the previous sentence

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified this sentence.

16. The sentence starting in line 330 is speculative and not part of the study.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed the parts that are not related to this article.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Recently, research aimed at improving the efficiency of agricultural production has become very popular, and a large number of scientific articles on this topic are being published.

The authors of this article have presented a fairly complete and clear description of the research, which will undoubtedly be useful from a practical and theoretical point of view. I have no critical comments on this work. Minor remarks I have indicated in the text of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking your time to review this manuscript and give us another chance to revise the manuscript. We will cherish the opportunity of this revision. ​Your comments make this paper completer and more outstanding! I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. Thanks again.

We have revised and improved the manuscript according to your suggestion.