Status of Essential Elements in Soil and Grain of Organically Produced Maize, Spelt, and Soybean
, Milovan Stoiljkovic 2, Milan Brankov 1, Miodrag Tolimir 1, Marijenka Tabaković 1, Margarita S. Dodevska 3 and Milena Simić 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are several English grammar and sentence making mistakes and spelling mistakes in the manuscript which have made it difficult to understand. It is therefore, suggested to get read/revised the manuscript by some professional or native speaker.
Very few research relevant data is reviewed. Most of the literature reviewed is old and research gaps have not been identified. Objectives of the study are not clear.
-The manuscript, even if it is generally well written, has a great problem with the explanation of experiment. Although results are explained in detail but are confusing. Not clear, how and when data were collected and how it was analyzed?
-Results are not properly justified by the discussion/previous studies. Use references are old and are not very relevant.
-Conclusion must be based on results and not just repetition of results. Here conclusion section is composed of methods and prospects. No conclusion based on the results presented.
-Manuscripts lacks innovative information
-Therefore, under these conditions, please revise it and submit it again
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There are several English grammar and sentence making mistakes and spelling mistakes in the manuscript which have made it difficult to understand. It is therefore, suggested to get read/revised the manuscript by some professional or native speaker.
Reply: Manuscript was edited previously by native English speaker.
Very few research relevant data is reviewed. Most of the literature reviewed is old and research gaps have not been identified. Objectives of the study are not clear.
Reply: Most of the used references are from 2015-2021, with exclusion of references used in M&M Section. The lack in proper literature exists, thus supporting novelty of the research. Gaps and objectives were defined in the last paragraph of Introduction and in Discussion.
-The manuscript, even if it is generally well written, has a great problem with the explanation of experiment. Although results are explained in detail but are confusing. Not clear, how and when data were collected and how it was analyzed?
Reply: Manuscript was corrected; table with Calendar of main cropping practices was incorporated into M&M Section. Dates with sample collection and methods used for soil and grain analysis are already described in manuscript. It is clear that a lot of traits were analysed, that complex data were shown, what present contribution and also novelty in the field.
-Results are not properly justified by the discussion/previous studies. Use references are old and are not very relevant.
Reply: Most of the used references are from 2015-2021, with exclusion of references used in M&M Section. Results achieved are complex, considering soil fertility and grain quality. The lack in proper literature exists, thus supporting novelty of the research.
-Conclusion must be based on results and not just repetition of results. Here conclusion section is composed of methods and prospects. No conclusion based on the results presented.
Reply: Conclusion was modified, emphasizing importance of obtained results.
-Manuscripts lacks innovative information
Reply: The connection between soil fertility, including mineral status and grain quality, including minerals concentration was rarely studied, particularly when low-input, and so, organic systems were considered. When climate change, i.e greater fluctuations in meteorological factors were included, the importance of examined research is of particular importance, underlinig crop resilience and what is the most important, grain quality.
-Therefore, under these conditions, please revise it and submit it again
Reply: Manuscript was corrected and improved, accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.DOCX
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I read carefully the manuscript you submitted. Unfortunately, the novelty of the work is low for this high-IM journal.
Kind Regards
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
I read carefully the manuscript you submitted. Unfortunately, the novelty of the work is low for this high-IM journal.
Reply: Manuscript was corrected and improved accordingly to the reviewers’ suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The present paper aims to evaluate the effects of organic production on soil organic matter (SOM), essential elements, grain yield, and protein content of grain through a 5yr maize-spelt-soybean rotation experiment, furthermore, explore the effects of soil-crop interactions on grain yield and plant nutrient uptake capacity. In semi-arid agro-ecological conditions of central Serbia, soil-crop crosstalk is an important strategy for macro- and micro-nutrients management in soil and grain of organically produced spelt, maize and soybean. The paper has a clear structure and novel ideas. However, the manuscript still needs further work in order to meet the requirements of “Agriculture” journal. To make the manuscript better, the following remarks should be taken into account:
For the INTRODUCTION
-The structure of the literature review is clear, but the purpose of this study is not clearly stated. The purpose of this study should be explained in the last paragraph.
For MATERIALS AND METHODS
-In your data, I only noticed that you focused on analyzing the changes of soil essential elements in the 5yr crop rotation of maize-spelt-soybean, but there was no comparison with the initial state value. It is recommended to supplement the data of soil essential elements content before the experiment and add the relevant description in Results.
-Section 2.3.2: suggest adding the specific planting calendars about the experiment design.
-Line 96 “available minerals included62.95 mg kg-1 N, available minerals included62.95 mg kg-1 N,”. There is a missing space after “included”.
-Line 102: What is “The environment was semi-arid.” Please describe the weather information of the experiment site in detail.
-Line 104: what is the macro-experiment? According to your description, the experiments design is 5yr maize-spelt-soybean rotation. 5 years is not long to crop rotation study. And it's also not a macro part of the discussion, so I think it's best to delete this.
For DISCUSSION
-Line 317: In your experiment, the yield and protein content of all three crops decreased to varying degrees. What's the advantage of organic farming?
-Line 373：suggest deleting “macro-experiment”.
-Line 373-374. Explain why organic production tests under dry-farm conditions mean that soil and crop traits are susceptible to seasonal influences. Please add relevant references.
For CONCLUSION
-In the paper, the content of available Mn, Zn, and Cu of soil in 2014 appeared sudden change, and the content of available N also showed a similar situation. Form the result, don’t come to the conclusion that fluctuations in meteorological factors could affect the content of available nutrients in the soil. So, this is not accurate.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present paper aims to evaluate the effects of organic production on soil organic matter (SOM), essential elements, grain yield, and protein content of grain through a 5yr maize-spelt-soybean rotation experiment, furthermore, explore the effects of soil-crop interactions on grain yield and plant nutrient uptake capacity. In semi-arid agro-ecological conditions of central Serbia, soil-crop crosstalk is an important strategy for macro- and micro-nutrients management in soil and grain of organically produced spelt, maize and soybean. The paper has a clear structure and novel ideas. However, the manuscript still needs further work in order to meet the requirements of “Agriculture” journal. To make the manuscript better, the following remarks should be taken into account:
Thank you for support and recognition of the importance of research presented in manuscript.
For the INTRODUCTION
-The structure of the literature review is clear, but the purpose of this study is not clearly stated. The purpose of this study should be explained in the last paragraph.
Reply: The sentence was modified accordingly: Extremes in variation of temperature and precipitation level are the main sources of production uncertainty, food insecurity and poor quality of produces. The gap between high yield and crop and agro-ecosystem sustainability, is open question. There is lack in available literature how low-input systems (considering various agro-chemicals) impact crop yield, quality and environment. Are these systems devastating for agricultural production and environment From this standpoint, the aim of this study was to examine how organic, low-input system impact soil and crop production, focusing on maize – spelt – soybean rotation considering 5yr period. The novelty of this research reflects through soil–crop crosstalk powered by crop rotation, as a strategy to imply all available ecosystem services that could potentially enhance crop efficiency and grain quality.
For MATERIALS AND METHODS
-In your data, I only noticed that you focused on analyzing the changes of soil essential elements in the 5yr crop rotation of maize-spelt-soybean, but there was no comparison with the initial state value. It is recommended to supplement the data of soil essential elements content before the experiment and add the relevant description in Results.
Reply:Thank you for notice, we forgot to provide data for initial values, prior to spelt sowing. They are now included into Table 2, including following comments in Results: When initial value of SOM and mineral nutrients in soil were compared to the 5yr average it is obvious that SOM was slightly increased. The greater differences, regarding initial status of analyzed elements were present for N, P, K, Mn and particularly for Si, toward decrease in K and Mn content and increase in Si content in soil.. Sentence in M&M section was also included: Besides the sampling for initial status, taken on October 24 2011, soil samples for analysis were taken in the spring prior to sowing maize and soybean, to estimate the impact of previous crop rotation and the status of essential nutrients in the soil.
-Section 2.3.2: suggest adding the specific planting calendars about the experiment design.
Reply: Table with calendar, including important practices applied in experiment was incorporated into 2.3.2. section.
-Line 96 “available minerals included62.95 mg kg-1 N, available minerals included62.95 mg kg-1 N,”. There is a missing space after “included”.
Reply: Thanks, it was corrected.
-Line 102: What is “The environment was semi-arid.” Please describe the weather information of the experiment site in detail.
Reply:The environment was semi-arid, including dry and hot summers, and mild to cold winters. Meteorological data (temperature and precipitation) during experimental trial are described in details in Section 2.6.
-Line 104: what is the macro-experiment? According to your description, the experiments design is 5yr maize-spelt-soybean rotation. 5 years is not long to crop rotation study. And it's also not a macro part of the discussion, so I think it's best to delete this.
Reply: It was excluded from text.
For DISCUSSION
-Line 317: In your experiment, the yield and protein content of all three crops decreased to varying degrees. What's the advantage of organic farming?
Reply: Sentence was added: Generally present trend in the reduction of grain yield and protein concentration in grains of all three crops could seemingly quality dry-farm organic production as a worthless agricultural system. But increased concentration of mineral elements, such as P, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn and Mn in maize grain, over time, evidence about greater ability of crops under this farming system to imply all available ecosystem services to enhance nutrients availability and absorption.
-Line 373：suggest deleting “macro-experiment”.
Reply: Deleted
-Line 373-374. Explain why organic production tests under dry-farm conditions mean that soil and crop traits are susceptible to seasonal influences. Please add relevant references.
Reply: Required references were added.
For CONCLUSION
-In the paper, the content of available Mn, Zn, and Cu of soil in 2014 appeared sudden change, and the content of available N also showed a similar situation. Form the result, don’t come to the conclusion that fluctuations in meteorological factors could affect the content of available nutrients in the soil. So, this is not accurate.
Reply: This part was excluded from Conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I have no remarks for the manuscript.
