Evaluating the Nutrient Contents and Nutritive Value of Taif’s Rose (Rosa damascena Mill var. trigintipetala) Waste to Be Used as Animal Forage or Soil Organic Fertilizers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

 

                 The Quality of paper is outstanding. But it needs some minor corrections. Please incorporate the suggestions. Good Luck for your manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1

This work describes the nutrient contents and nutritional value of Taif rose residues (Rosa damascena Mill var. trigintipetala) for use as animal feed or as an organic soil fertilizer. The topic is novel and has practical importance for the use of agricultural waste for several purposes. In my opinion, one of the main aspects claimed in the paper is paraphrasing of some sentences and linking them together. The methods used in the manuscript were good and the experimental design was also nice.

First of all, we would like to thank you and the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. Also, the authors thank the reviewer for the big laud and positive feedback!

The authors can take into account the following points to improve the quality of the manuscript paper, which can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

Response: The manuscript has been reviewed by experts and native speakers to improve its content from both scientific and grammatical points of view. We did our best to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors. On the other hand, we hope our corrections fit your recommendations.

Please revise the abbreviations in the whole part of MS.

Response: We checked and corrected the abbreviations in the whole MS.

I suggest rephrasing some words because keywords should not repeat words from the title.

Response: thank you, the keywords were edited to avoid repeating the title words.

L 117: mg kg-1 make -1 superscript

Response: thank you, It was edited.

L 159: replace "plant-soil relationship" with "Data analysis" or "Multivariate analysis"

Response: Thank you; we replaced "Plant-soil relationship" with "Multivariate analysis"

L 167: replace "Data analysis" with "Statistical analysis"

Response: Thank you; we replaced "Data analysis" with "Statistical analysis"

Tables and figures are very clear to the reader and understandable.

Thank you very much for the big laud and positive feedback! # Thanks so much.

Main results and ideas are well documented, justified and supported by relative references.

Thank you very much for the big laud and positive feedback! We appreciate your opinion

L 195: mS cm-1 instead of mS/cm

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. It was edited.

L 422: Are the authors' names complete?

Response: Thank you very much for these questions. The authors names were completed.

Conclusions; the conclusion part is long. So pls do not repeat the above sentences in the conclusion part.

Response: Thank you; we updated the conclusions and rewritten them as recommended by Reviewer 1 and reduced them as recommended here.

References 11 and 12 with different style

Response: Thank you; the two references were edited with the same style.

Once again, the authors are thankful to the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We thoroughly and carefully revised the relevant sections in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Need specific research writing based on laboratory research data or analysis. Regarding animal forage, there are requirements such as Pearson's Square Calculation, and Feed Consumption Rate (FCR) study that need to be carried out before it can claim suitable for animal feed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2

First of all, we would like to thank you and the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We also did our best to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors in the text.

My suggestion this title should focus on soil organic fertilizer

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we edited the title as well.

Please include all the best results achievement base on this research work.

Response: Thank you; The best results were included in the abstract accordingly.

In this Introduction, the literature survey did not show why the Taif's Rose wastes is critical for animal forage or soil organic fertilizers. Need to revamp this section.

Response: Thank you; we revised the introduction section, synthesized, and avoided all possible redundancies and repetitions. On the other hand, the introduction was revamped to explain the justification for using Taif's Rose wastes as organic fertilizers or animal forage as shown in blue colour.

Please state what is the objectives to select this four farms?

Response: Thank you; the objective was described in the text as the selected farms had the same soil and climatic conditions as well as the same agricultural practices.

From this results, there are not shown the Control/Standard results. How you signify the overall results without compared with Control/Standard results? Please explain.

Response: Thank you; The present investigation was carried out in the field and not under controlled conditions. Besides, we compared the nutrient budget of different age plants. Therefore, no need for control in this investigation. The results were compared with the other sources of organic fertilizers and animal fodder.

From this results, there are not shown the Control/Standard results. How you signify the overall results without compared with Control/Standard results? Please explain.

Response: Thank you; the same as mentioned above.

From this results, there are not shown the Control/Standard results. How you signify the overall results without comparing with Control/Standard results? Please explain.

Response: Thank you; the same as mentioned above.

From these results, there are not shown the Control/Standard results. How you signify the overall results without comparing with Control/Standard results? Please explain.

Response: Thank you; the same as mentioned above.

Please include the results from actual protein content through laboratory analysis. By using protein results through theory calculation, there must be different compared to the actual results.

Response: we agree with the reviewer that protein results through theory calculation must be different compared to actual result. However, we did not analyze protein in the laboratory, but we calculated it from Nitrogen. Thus, we compared these results with similar calculated values in different plant species.

Please revamp this conclusion based on the previous comment.

Response: Thank you; we revised the conclusion part and revamped it as recommended, and also shortened it as recommended by reviewer 3.

Once again, the authors are thankful to the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We thoroughly and carefully revised the relevant sections in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

I have only small suggestions for improving the manuscript:

L70: Delete parenthesis: (, the effect...

L97: ...rate of 3 kg/hill... Meaning, how much is that per ha?

 

L161: CCA to analyse plant-soil relationships: Please check the statements on this to see if they are generally understandable.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #3

Agriculture-1856110

First of all, we would like to thank you and the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments and the detailed  corrections are listed below point by point. We also did our best to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors in the text. Thank you very much for the big laud!

I have only small suggestions for improving the manuscript:

L70: Delete parenthesis: (, the effect...

Response: thank you very much, the parenthesis was deleted.

L97: ...rate of 3 kg/hill... Meaning, how much is that per ha?

Response: We made the correction as per suggestion. The rate was clarified as 7.5 t per ha (1 ha includes 2500 hills).

L161: CCA to analyse plant-soil relationships: Please check the statements on this to see if they are generally understandable.

Response: Thank you; we updated the sentence accordingly and the sentence was rewritten to be understandable.

Once again, the authors are thankful to the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We thoroughly and carefully revised the relevant sections in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors tent to evaluate the value and possibility of Taif’s Rose wastes used as animal forge or organic fertilizers. In my opinion, I think the experiment design is not appropriate. To answer the question, the authors should not compare the differences between samples collected from different farms which have different ages, that only tell us the effect of planting years on the plant nutrient contents, but need to compare the effects of Taif’s Rose wastes (maybe collected in different farms) used in the field somewhere, to compare the differences between with and without the application of waste.  

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #4

Agriculture-1856110

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tent to evaluate the value and possibility of Taif’s Rose wastes used as animal forge or organic fertilizers. In my opinion, I think the experiment design is not appropriate. To answer the question, the authors should not compare the differences between samples collected from different farms which have different ages, that only tell us the effect of planting years on the plant nutrient contents, but need to compare the effects of Taif’s Rose wastes (maybe collected in different farms) used in the field somewhere, to compare the differences between with and without the application of waste.  

First of all, we would like to thank you and the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We also did our best to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors in the text. Thank you very much for the big laud!

Response: The selected farms had the same climatic and edaphic conditions and only the ecological factor is the plant age. In such studies, we can consider the four farms as replicates to evaluate the nutrient budget of a plant. However, the plant age is an environmental factor to increase the research value. The results were compared with roses from different areas and promising species for animal forage and bio-fertilizers. In Saudi Arabia, this is a pioneer study on the nutrient budget of Taif rose plants.  

Response: We agree with you that we can compare the differences between with and without the application of waste, but the main aim of the study is to treat the problem of pruning wastes via their recycling.  

Once again, the authors are thankful to the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We thoroughly and carefully revised the relevant sections in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

Best regards,

The authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

For results comparison, is a must to add Control results for every single parameter in this study

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2-R2

Agriculture-1856110

First of all, we would like to thank you and the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We also did our best to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors in the text. Thank you very much for the big laud!

I have only small suggestions for improving the manuscript:

L70: Delete parenthesis: (, the effect...

Response: thank you very much, the parenthesis was deleted.

L97: ...rate of 3 kg/hill... Meaning, how much is that per ha?

Response: We made the correction as per your suggestion. The rate was clarified as 7.5 t per ha (1 ha includes 2500 hills).

L161: CCA to analyse plant-soil relationships: Please check the statements on this to see if they are generally understandable.

Response: Thank you; we updated the sentence accordingly and the sentence was rewritten to be understood.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment for results comparison, is a must to add Control results for every single parameter in this study –R3

Thanks so much for your comment

Thanks so much for your valuable comments. I agree with you that providing control results is important for comparisons in the studies using certain variables such as pollution (polluted sites and unpolluted ones as control); chemical treatments using untreated as control; soil amendments using unamended soil as control; etc. However, in our study plant age is the main factor, so what age can we use as control? Therefore, our study depended on plant factor, and we compared the different ages since each plant age differs in its nutrient requirement and its sequestration potential. The selected farms had the same climatic and edaphic conditions and only the ecological factor is the plant age. Besides, plant age is an important factor in the determination of the nutrient content of plants. This is a field study with the selected farms that differ only in their age and it did not make sense to take control for such a field investigation.

Once again, the authors are thankful to the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We thoroughly and carefully revised the relevant sections in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions. Besides, the whole MS was revised carefully for English.

Best regards,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Even the authors said they want to evaluate the effect of waster and "farm age" can be looked as replicates, I still think it is better to do the evaluation by applying the waste from different farms to the field to compare its effects on soil properties or plants, because we want to "use" the waste in the field, it is necessary and important to compare the effect of waste on different aspects of the "real" field. There are many interactions between the waste and the soil. Only discussing its potential effects "away" from the field  is not enough to get a whole picture.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #4

Agriculture-1856110

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tent to evaluate the value and possibility of Taif’s Rose wastes used as animal forge or organic fertilizers. In my opinion, I think the experiment design is not appropriate. To answer the question, the authors should not compare the differences between samples collected from different farms which have different ages, that only tell us the effect of planting years on the plant nutrient contents, but need to compare the effects of Taif’s Rose wastes (maybe collected in different farms) used in the field somewhere, to compare the differences between with and without the application of waste.  

First of all, we would like to thank you and the reviewer for the careful, constructive, and helpful reviews as well as for their useful comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your valuable comments and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. We also did our best to improve the readability and avoid possible grammatical and syntax errors in the text. Thank you very much for the big laud!

Response:

The selected farms had the same climatic and edaphic conditions and only the ecological factor is the plant age. Plant age is an important factor in the determination of the nutrient content of plants, but practically when plant wastes will be added to the soil upon our suggestion to improve its nutrient characteristics, it will not be sorted and pruning does not select only old branches but old and new. Consequently, the wastes of Rosa in any farm are represented by different ages of branches. The results were compared with roses from different areas and promising species for animal forage and bio-fertilizers. The main target of this study is to evaluate the nutritive contents of rosa pruning wastes not to test it practically in the field. This suggested work from your side potentially will be a good independent study that monitor changes in growth and physiological parameters inside plants and physicochemical characteristics of soil after application of the wastes.

 

Another Comment and Suggestion for Authors

Even though the authors said they want to evaluate the effect of wastes and "farm age" can be looked at as replicates, I still think it is better to do the evaluation by applying the waste from different farms to the field to compare its effects on soil properties or plants because we want to "use" the waste in the field, it is necessary and important to compare the effect of waste on different aspects of the "real" field. There are many interactions between waste and soil. Only discussing its potential effects "away" from the field is not enough to get a whole picture.

We completely agree with this comment, but our study evaluates the possibility of using Taif’s rose wastes as a soil amendment. The application of plant wastes in the field is under investigation in the next study of our series on Taif’s rose project.

Once again, the authors are thankful to the reviewer for providing us with valuable feedback/suggestions on the manuscript to improve. We thoroughly and carefully revised the relevant sections in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions. Besides, the whole MS was revised carefully for English.

Best regards,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx