Assessment of Inter- and Intraspecific P Efficiency in Forage Legumes as Affected by Recycling Fertiliser
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled “Assessment of inter- and intraspecific P efficiency in forage legumes as affected by recycling fertiliser" presents the results of a study that aimed to evaluate the inter- and intraspecific P efficiency of alfalfa and red clover as affected by P recycling fertilisers.
General note:
The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance.
There are some major changes I am suggesting in the detailed comments below.
1. Authors should consider revising the abstract.
The introduction is presented correctly and in accordance with the subject. However, some information needs to be presented in more detail. For example, in lines 47-49, the authors state: "The interspecific differences in soil P mobilization between various legume species have been verified in multiple studies, which primarily concern distinctions in root traits and the root exudations [16,19–22]," referring to many works. However, it seems necessary to describe the selected results of the cited studies. In the next sentence, a similar situation - "Besides, intraspecific variabilities in P acquisition have also “have” been examined in various legumes species [23–27]." - please describe the selected results. In my opinion, the authors should provide more information about the 'inter- and intraspecific P efficiencies'.
Line 72 – “Although the readily available P forms in SSA can lead to low P fertiliser effectiveness” - This requires explanation. If the fertilizer contains easily available forms of P, its effectiveness is likely to be high
2. Line 50 – please delete “have”
Line 86 – 87 – “intraspecific differences in P uptake are more likely to be found the more the P supply in the soil differs and that” - this sentence needs rephrasing.
Line 134 - Why were all pots given equal doses of N, K, Mg, and S when selected nutrients were supplied with compost, SSA, and struvite? Was the control also fertilized with N, K, Mg, and S??
What was the amount of recycled fertilizers used and how much P was introduced into the soil?
The authors should add a formula for calculating PUPE
The conclusion needs to be revised.
Authors should revise the reference list by following the rules described in the guidelines for authors.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
We would like to thank you very much for the effort and the useful revision of our manuscript. We considered and answered all comments and changed the manuscript accordingly. Some other sentences in the text have also been rewritten without changing their meaning, in order to improve duplicate index. All changes in the text were high-lighted in yellow.
|
||
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
|
||
|
Comments 1: Authors should consider revising the abstract.
|
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We have carefully reread the summary. All necessary information is included: background, material & methodology, results and conclusions.
|
||
|
Comments 2: The introduction is presented correctly and in accordance with the subject. However, some information needs to be presented in more detail. For example, in lines 47-49, the authors state: "The interspecific differences in soil P mobilization between various legume species have been verified in multiple studies, which primarily concern distinctions in root traits and the root exudations [16,19–22]," referring to many works. However, it seems necessary to describe the selected results of the cited studies. In the next sentence, a similar situation - "Besides, intraspecific variabilities in P acquisition have also “have” been examined in various legumes species [23–27]." - please describe the selected results. In my opinion, the authors should provide more information about the 'inter- and intraspecific P efficiencies'.
|
||
|
Response 2: We have cited the references in lines 48 to 53 to emphasize that there are previous studies on P mobilization of legume species, but that our study can contribute to knowledge because we specifically looked at inter- and intraspecific differences in P utilization of alfalfa and red clover depending on the P sources, which to our knowledge has not been done before. In this respect, detailed outcomes of the other studies are not relevant here, as they were not the focus of our investigation.
Comments 3: Line 72 – “Although the readily available P forms in SSA can lead to low P fertiliser effectiveness” - This requires explanation. If the fertilizer contains easily available forms of P, its effectiveness is likely to be high.
Response 3: Thank you so much or indicating the mistake. It has been corrected to “sparingly”.
Comments 4: please delete “have”.
Response 4: We cannot find an error in this sentence: “Besides, intraspecific variabilities in P acquisition have also been examined in various legumes species”..
Comments 5: Line 86 – 87 – “intraspecific differences in P uptake are more likely to be found the more the P supply in the soil differs and that” - this sentence needs rephrasing.
Response 5: We have checked the sentence and found that both the grammar and the meaning of this sentence are correct. If the reviewer has no objections, we would like to keep this sentence.
Comments 6: Why were all pots given equal doses of N, K, Mg, and S when selected nutrients were supplied with compost, SSA, and struvite? Was the control also fertilized with N, K, Mg, and S?.
Response 6: In the nutrient solution there was no P included and it was added to avoid nutrient deficiency of elements other than P during the plant growth. The no P treatment was also fertilized with the same nutrient solution.
Comments 7: What was the amount of recycled fertilizers used and how much P was introduced into the soil?
Response 7: The recycled fertilizer was applied equivalent to 200 mg total P per pot (line 125). The amount of recycled fertilizer to each pot was calculated based on the P concentration (data shown in Table 2): TSP = 1 g, SSA = 1.8 g, compost = 111.11 g, struvite = 2.11 g.
Comments 8: The authors should add a formula for calculating PUPE.
Response 8: We provided the calculation of PUPE as text in line 162 to 163.
Comments 9: The conclusion needs to be revised.
Response 9: In the conclusions we considered the main results of our study and mentioned their application. We believe that these outcomes can make an important contribution to understanding the P uptake of legumes and are of interest for practical recommendations. Comments 10: Authors should revise the reference list by following the rules described in the guidelines for authors.
Response 10: We are sorry that double numbers occurred after the formatting by the journal. The reference list has now been checked and modified into correct form.
|
||
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe researchers evaluated the inter- and intraspecific P efficiency of legumes from different P sources in alfalfa and red clover plants grown in a greenhouse until the flowering phase.
The manuscript addressed an important topic but the manuscript needs to be reformulated.
The particle size of the P sources must be included in the manuscript.
The authors included figure 5 referring to the P content at the end of the manuscript and the correct option would be to start the result item with this variable. This is important because the authors need to prove to readers that the treatments used were sufficient to increase the available P content of the soil, which would be the beginning of the process when a nutrient is applied to the soil.
Figure 1 shows the statistical analysis, but it should be made clear that the performance of each plant accession is compared between the different sources of P used.
It is observed that the average treatment results (not P) with other sources such as TSP would not have much significant difference. The TSP source is a standard source that would have optimal available P for the plant but resulted in biomass production similar to the control (non-P) treatment for many cultivars (accessions). This is an indication that the soil studied would have a sufficient amount of P available for optimal plant growth. This amount of P in the original soil was not considered low enough to support plant growth until flowering, but this occurred because the authors did not include productivity data that could have given greater difference between treatments (No P and TSP). Therefore, we requested to include productivity data to strengthen the discussion of the manuscript.
Tables 3 and 4 also indicate the P levels in the plant and the differences are low between the Non-P and TSP treatments. What the authors need to discuss would not be the numerical values but whether the nutritional status of the plant from the No P treatment and the TSP treatment resulted in an improvement in the nutritional status of the level interpreted as deficient (No P) in relation to the TSP treatment that would be interpreted as as sufficient P. Was there a change between the Non-P treatments and the other P sources such that the nutritional status changed from deficient to sufficient? See in the literature the leaf P content in the crops studied that is considered sufficient or adequate and use this data to discuss the results.
Author Response
See attachment please
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented work deals with (o evaluate the inter- and intraspecific P efficiency of small-grain legumes supplied with different P recycling fertilisers).
The manuscript is generally (good written) however In the following contains some of in-depth comments, criticisms, worries, and recommendations that should be taken into account before a final judgment on the document is made. In light of the criticisms I've provided below, I predict that the rewritten document will produce a considerably different form from the one it is in now. As a result, I advise resubmitting this work because it typically yields some intriguing results.
The main criticism points are:
- The article lacks some parameters … please show the differences between Phosphorus Uptake Efficiency, Phosphorus Use Efficiency and Phosphorus Utilization Efficiency in Your Experiment .
- The authors explained the introduction in detailed
- Figures are not enough . could you add some figures for plants under experiment
- The article lacks novelty
- . What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comment
Author Response
See attachment please
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors were prepared manuscript in high level and I read it with interest.
In line 154 were mentioned that samples for metal analysis were prepared in HCl solution. Wanted to clarify if it really was used HCl?
Table 4 description shows that mean standart deviation was n=20, although everywhere it was 4 and for figure 5 it was 8.
In line 305 was used word stabile, but for characterization of phosphorus forms using stable could be more precise.
In line 359 was mentioned PUPE for first time without full name.
In lines 366-368 sentence can be improved.
Questionable is usage of figures 4, 5 in discussion part, although its represents achieved data and were well described, but can be considered their actual location in manuscript.
Reference list contains double numbers and Latin names aren't in italic.
Author Response
See attachment please
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors efforts on this manuscript, which indeed improve the quality of this manuscript. Thus, I satisfy the authors' respondence and the revision.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your comments and suggestions!
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered all questions satisfactorily and the manuscript was scientifically improved and we recommend it for publication.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your comments and suggestions!
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your comments and suggestions!
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral note:
The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance.
The introduction is presented correctly and in accordance with the subject. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance with the topic of the study, were consulted.
The obtained results have been analyzed and interpreted correctly, in accordance with the current methodology.
There are some minor changes I am suggesting in the detailed comments below.
What is the novelty of this work? The authors must present their novelty and the added value of their work in a more precise way.
Line 116 - In addition to the total P content in the soil, the authors should provide the content of the available form of P (with an indication of the test that was used)
The tested "fertilizers" had different chemical compositions. Did the authors use any additives aimed at equalizing the doses of individual macro-, and microelements?
Conclusion needs to be revised, please write the main results and two to three lines about the application of this study at the end of the Conclusion.
Authors should revise the reference list by following the rules described in the guidelines for authors.
Author Response
thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe researchers evaluated under pot conditions the inter- and intraspecific P efficiency of small-grain legumes supplied with different P-recycling fertilizers, eight accessions of alfalfa and red clover.
P recycling in legumes is an interesting topic as they are demanding plants for the macronutrient. The introduction of the research is not clear about the novelty of the research in relation to previous studies. The research does not provide a hypothesis that could better guide the discussion of the manuscript. The lack of a multivariate analysis hindered the in-depth discussion. The researchers did not adequately defend the results obtained by emphasizing the underlying effects of the materials and cultivars studied and their interaction.
There is a methodological error that compromised the validity of the research. When studying different sources of P, the authors did not apply these sources according to the available P levels of these materials. Research of this nature would have to establish the optimal dose of P recommended for crops and with the levels of P available from each source, it would be possible to establish a different dose from each source according to the availability of P. This way, the amount of material from each source it will be higher for materials with low levels of available P and lower doses from the source for material that would have lower values of available P. In this way, all treatments would receive the same doses of available P and thus only the nature of the source would vary and therefore, it would be possible to discover the source with the best agronomic efficiency.
Author Response
thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
