Nutrient Characterization in Soil Aggregate Fractions with Different Fertilizer Treatments in Greenhouse Vegetable Cultivation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper contains interesting studies on, Nutrient Characterization of Soil Aggregates in Greenhouse 2 Vegetable Cultivation Treated with Different Fertilizers.  Although many studies have been conducted on that is still lacking in English and information has related the topics, it must provide. In addition, this study is significant for the experimental regions. However, this manuscript still needs improving in writing logic and the analysis of the discussion are not clear. It is recommended to modify   for a better version. Moreover the discussion section is not deep enough, the sentence structure is simple, and there is much repetition.

Title:

- It needs to be modified to make it attractive..

Abstract:

-it is good; but.it should consider the proposed changes for improving clarity of the contents with focusing good findings with briefing

Abbreviations: should arrange

Introduction:

-Introduction part is appropriate but few things needed for further improvements especially study hypothesis should be added for the last 5 years.

-Add some studies about the study with highlighting research gaps, which necessitated conducting this trial.

Materials and methods:

-this part needs to describe very well by using suitable subheadings. However, it needs more  of the data and information’s for the investigations  regards the  conditions of growth. It is suggested to prepare good and standard the methodology with more details. . In the revised version to enhance clarity.

Results and Discussion

-Both parts needs to combine and it needs major revision.

The figures needs more modifying to be more clear and understanding.

In tables, add SE. essential

Conclusion:

-Improve this part with respect to formulated objectives.

-the 2st para. are not clear.

References:

-Cross check the references in the text and reference cite. Few references are not as per journal style in the text as well reference section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

ID: agriculture-1618908

Title: Nutrient Characterization of Soil Aggregates in Greenhouse Vegetable Cultivation Treated with Different Fertilizers

In this research, the authors compare the impact of three types of fertilization (1) chemical fertilizer (CF), (2) organic fertilizer (OF), and (3) chemical fertilizer plus organic fertilizer (CO).) on soil physiochemical soil properties. I appreciate the time authors spend in the laboratory to come up with all these results.  Even though the output (i.e., statistical analysis) of this research could be expected, this research remains interesting and could support agricultural development. I have the following comments

The title is confusing, please enhance it.

Abstract

This section is well elaborated; however, authors are recommended to report whether the treatments have a significant difference or not.

Introduction:

This section is good, but some modifications should be added:

1-     Authors started their work with greenhouse cultivation, it is good to add some examples and numbers of this type of agriculture in China and worldwide.

2-     It is good to add some ideas about the impact of SOM and OF on soil properties and crop production

3-     L73 more previous research should be added.

4-     L97-105: study goals are not clear, please state clearly the objective of your study.

Materials and methods

1-     Some pictures of the Experimental design should be added.

2-     L175: please check again the units of the equations

3-     Data statistical analysis this section needs to be rewritten, why researchers used ANOVA, RDA…authors should support their goals with the proper statistical analysis. However, this section is just showing the software that was used! Please enhance this section.

Results:

1-     The output of Table 2 is unsurprising! Different soil treatments will lead to different results and Sig. different!

2-     Fig 1 the unit of SOC (a), TN (b), and TP (c) is g/kg, it should be ppm, please elaborate.

3-     L321 Pearson double variable was not mentioned before.

4-     Table 4, please try to present the data in a different way

Discussion

1-     “formation of aggregate aggregates [39].”?

2-     This section should be broken down into subsections and linked directly to the goals and results instead of repeating the other researcher's

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I commend the authors of the manuscript titled “Nutrient Characterization of Soil Aggregates in Greenhouse Vegetable Cultivation Treated with Different Fertilizers” for their work on soil water-stable aggregates and their stability indices, and aggregate nutrient stoichiometry characteristics.

 There are several things need to be addressed or corrected:

• In the abstract, the abstract is very long and need to be short and concise.
• In the introduction:
• The introduction is comprehensive and no changes need to be done there

• In the results
• Table 2 and 3 need to be converted to figures.
•  
• In the discussion part: I feel the discussion is long and need to be shortened
• In the material and methods:

 section 2.1 :  We don’t care about the average temperature of the area, we need to know the temperature during the experiment to  guarantee the reproducibility of the data. The same applies to precipitation and humidity.

Section 2.5, line 170, a citation should be mentioned here.

• The conclusion, the prospect of the work should be added to the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this version, the authors presented their work in an adequate and readable way. Most parts of the MS were improved, especially the introduction, method, results, and Figures. Changing tables to figures adds a special scientific touch to this work.   However, I have the following concerns:
1- The discussion section is a bit generic, authors -in most cases- repeat the results with shallow explanations. Please try to add more scientific insights to each result.
2-     More comparison with other research work is requested
3-     RDA is important, however, the authors didn’t give an adequate explanation for the obtained results. Please elaborate.
All in all, this work is interesting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted for me

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf