The Impact of Cover Crop Biomass Introduction on the Dynamics of Nutrient Changes and Crop Productivity in Sandy-Clay Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “agronomy-3537120” should be revised for publication due to major errors. This study analyzes the impact three tipes of cover crops in the soil quality and potatoe performance.

ABSTRACT: the location of the study and the type of crop used should be established, the results should be shown in the same format, and the authors should highlight the most significant results.

INTRODUCTION: There are problems with the references, as well as the use of various concepts related to soil that should be analyzed and used correctly, some parts of this section should be rewritten, the similar studies mentioned should be analyzed more and others should be added, there is no research hypothesis.

METHODOLOGY: The acronyms used should be stated. There are not enough details in the methodology to be understandable, besides the lack of references, the way compounds are presented should be the same throughout the text, the experimental design used is not clear. RESULTS: Figures should be improved, information on the analyses and acronyms used in the figures should be included, as well as their statistical significance. The way of referring to the results and their units should be homogenized.

DISCUSSION: The discussion is basic and should be expanded, especially by comparing with other results of similar studies, from the same region or that have applied similar schemes to the present study. Specific comments are shown below:

 

Abstract

- L8-10 No study location.

- L 10-15. These two statements should be merged, rewrite.

- L13. The authors do not state the culture(s) used,

- L15-16. Was this increase statistically significant?

- L17-19. Why did the authors not state these results as above, in percent?

- L21. Use the symbol or word.

 

            Introduction

 

- L30-32, 35-37, 41-44, 74-75. References for this statement.

- L32-35. It is unclear where the study area is located.

- L45. Use acronym.

- L52. The authors mention many concepts, such as soil quality, soil fertility and soil health are different concepts that need to be confused if mentioned indiscreetly in the text.

- L59-61. Mention the studies and their references, as well as indicate some of the most important results.

- L59-65. This section should be rewritten.

- L67. Mention how many studies were included in the meta-analysis.

- L68. How many increments?

- L77-79. The authors state the objective of this study, but not a hypothesis to compare the results obtained.

 

 

            Materials and methods

- L82-85. Up to this point, the authors set the study region.

- L85-87. The authors need to establish the average meteorological conditions of the region.

- Tables 1 and 2. Acronyms should be given in the footnotes. Why a standard deviation has not been established for each measured parameter. How many measurements have been made for each parameter.

- L113. What type of fertilizer was used?

- L105-128. References for these two paragraphs?

- L106-107. It is necessary that the authors establish a diagram of the distribution of the crops, between the two experimental designs, and establish the sampling methods used during the study.

- L132. Are 4 m2 statistically representative of an area of 333 m2?

- L131-142. The entire methodology section needs references.

- L144-145, 162. Compounds need to be named.

- L147-150. Equations need to be numbered and acronyms need to be established.

- L154-154. How many soil samples were collected?

- L155-156. Why not homogenize all samples for each treatment?

- L159-160, 163. With what equipment was this methodology performed?

- L160. These acronyms were not used before.

- L161. This methodology needs to be improved.

- The statistical analysis needs to be improved, where is the standardization test, what psychotechnical analyses were used? What significance levels were used for the analyses?

 

            Results

- Figure 2, 3, 4. It is necessary to establish the meaning of the bars and for how many replicates were used.

- L185, 196, 279, 287. Under which posthoc method?

- Table 3, 4. It is necessary to establish how many replicates were used for sd.

- L264-265. Up to this point, the authors established post hoc tests. This type of test is not suitable for repetitive measurements over time, for the above figures.

 

Discussion

- L317, 321, 346, 373, 376. References for this statement.

- L322. The authors need to establish that this parameter was not performed.

- L323-333. Not discussed at all.

- The results need to be compared with other similar studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the reviewed article was to determine the annual dynamics (changes) of nutrient content in sandy-clay soil as a result of cultivation and the introduction of cover crop biomass into the soil. The impact of agricultural practices on the productivity of subsequent crops was determined. The article is interesting; however, before final approval for publication, several changes need to be made to improve its quality. Below are my comments:

1. In my opinion, the proposed title of the article is not precise and does not reflect the research presented in it. I suggest changing it, for example, to "The Impact of Cover Crop Biomass Introduction on the Dynamics of Nutrient Changes and Crop Productivity in Sandy-Clay Soils."

2. In the study, in addition to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilization were also used. This should also be mentioned in the introduction, describing the role of these macronutrients in crops and potential difficulties related to the fertilization with phosphorus and potassium compounds.

3. It should be explained in the manuscript what the terms "available phosphorus" and "available potassium" mean, as they are used, among others, in Tables 1 and 2. As I assume, this is a shortcut referring to the forms of these macronutrients that are water-soluble, or more precisely, soluble in soil solution?

4. It should be clarified in what form phosphorus, but primarily potassium, was introduced into the soil. Was it potassium fertilization in the sulfate form, chloride form, or perhaps another? This parameter affects the quality of potato crops. The use of KCl can significantly reduce the starch content in potato tubers, impacting crop yields. If KCl was used in this study, the reason for choosing this form of potassium fertilization for potato crops should be justified.

5. There are many inconsistencies and a lack of information regarding the analytical methods used. Why, in the case of biomass analysis, were TC (total carbon) and TN (total nitrogen) evaluated, while for the soil, SOM (soil organic matter) and nitrate nitrogen content were reported? Determining different parameters in this case may distort the assessment of the impact of returning biomass on changes in macronutrients and carbon in the soil. If SOM was evaluated based on TC, I believe this is not the best method, as TC also includes, among other things, the content of carbonates in the soil.

6. The text should specify in what form nitrogen fertilization was applied (i.e., which chemical compound was introduced into the soil, for example, ammonium nitrate, or some other nitrate salt)?

7. In the description of the analytical methods (section 2.3.1), it is necessary to refer to the appropriate literature to justify the choice of these methods in the context of the conducted research.

8. The results of the statistical analysis must be presented in more detail so that the conclusions drawn can be verified. Information about the absence or presence of significant differences based on the threshold probability value is insufficient if the statistical analysis results confirming this are not shown.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled "Annual Dynamics of Soil Nutrients Following Cover Crop Incorporation: A Case Study in Sandy Loam." The manuscript shows interesting results; however, I suggest taking the following comments into account.

In the introduction section, state a general hypothesis before stating the main objective of the research.

The authors do not indicate whether they performed normality and homoscedasticity tests in the statistical analysis. I suggest indicating this.

The authors do not indicate whether the values ​​following the mean correspond to standard error or standard deviation. Furthermore, they are not indicated in the figure legends.

In results

In tables and figures, check whether the values ​​followed by the mean represent error or standard deviation.

Line 203 -211,150, 150, etc. Standardize units "mg kg" "mg/kg". Review the units in table 3 (kg ha). I suggest reviewing the entire document.

In discussion

I suggest the authors expand their discussion, not just compare their results with other studies. I suggest they discuss in greater depth what is happening from a microbiological perspective, physical and chemical processes in the soil, etc.

The authors should update the bibliography, and their discussions should be based on current findings (2020-2025).

In Conclusion

I suggest the limitations of current studies and prospects be indicated in the discussion and conclusions section.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

 

El artícle "agronomy-3537120” should be revised for publication due to major errors. This study analyzes the impact three tipes of cover crops in the soil quality and potatoe performance. Most of the text was satisfactorily improved, only a few new comments arose that the authors should correct before publication. Specific comments are shown below:

 

NEW COMMENTS

 

- L20. Establish the acronym WW.

              - Statistical section. Authors have to put in the text the answer they put in the cover letter.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript again, as well as all the valuable comments you have provided. We have made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Please refer to the red - marked parts in the new version.
Comment 1: - L20. Establish the acronym WW.
Response 1: Acronyms have been established in the text, specifically as ' -that the winter wheat treatment (WW).
Comment 2:  - Statistical section. Authors have to put in the text the answer they put in the cover letter.
Response 2: The Statistical Analysis has been put in the text, please see Line 231-235 in red font in the revised manuscript. 

Best wishes,

Mingshou Fan

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments and answered my questions. Therefore, I consider that the submitted article can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript again, as well as all the valuable comments and constructive questions you have provided. 

Best wishes,

Mingshou Fan