Effects of Fertilization Types and Base Saturation on the Growth and Water Productivity in Panicum maximum cv. BRS Zuri

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I thank you for the work. There is some correction that you need to make.

Here is attached

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

no

Author Response

We are grateful for your suggestions.

 1. Line 3: Zuri grass (scientific name is interesting)

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

2. Line 22: productivity of Zuri grass (scientific name Panicum maximum cv. BRS Zuri or Megathyrsus maximus).

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

3. Line 25: (Control 0, 25%, and 50%). Leaf area, SPAD? index, shoot and root dry mass, water…(what is SPAD? You could indicated SPAD (Soil Plant Analysis Development)

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

4. Line 78: there is an evident scarcity

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

5. Line 125: an external height of 0.18 m; an internal height of 0.14 m; upper diameter of 0.215 m

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

6. Line 172, 176: where is seed resources(Panicum maximum cv. BRS Zuri) and to show it ? What was germination percentage? If you used 50seeds. After, 1 thinning you leaved ~20 seedlings, when the size pot was 5.1L?

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

7. Line 199: what is reference of LI 3100 leaf area?

 R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

8. Line 213-217: statistical analyses is not very clear and which way of analyse variance used you?

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

9. Line 220: SPAD index, shoot dry (what is SPAD?),

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

10. Line 268: units (Figure 1 2b)

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

11. Line 294-295,309,310,316,318, 328, 333, 335, 381,389,394,395,… etc : and 19.1 g .pot ^-1 , respectively, while the organomineral treatment had the lowest value of 15.5 g . pot ^-1

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

 This manuscript titled ‘Effects of fertilization types and base saturation on the growth and water Productivity of Zuri grass' is written clearly and concisely. It has high scientific value and the conclusions reached by the authors are satisfying. The Introduction briefly places the study in a broad context and highlights  why it is important. It define the purpose of the research and its significance. The methods and results are sufficient described. The most valuable chapter is the Discussion. The authors meticulously and critically referred to the results obtained and used properly selected references. The conclusions correspond to the aim of the research and are supported by the obtained results. However, I have some comments that should be taken into account by the Authors when revising this manuscript.

1.      The phrases 'According to [14]....'; ‘obtained by [34]…’ should include the name of the author in addition to the references number. – e.g. ‘According to Rawal et al. [14]……’ –lines 61, 157, 533

2.      Table 3. The word 'index' in the phrase 'SDM index' should be removed.

3.      The sentence in lines 234-236 is redundant, it repeats the description of the results in the previous paragraph.

4.      The sentence in lines 237-238 should be deleted or moved to Discussion section.

5.      On Figures 2 and 3 colors should be differentiated so that people with visual impairments have no difficulty in reading them.

6.      On Figures 2 and 3 the colors should be differentiated to more clearly separate the individual bars.

7.      The sentence in lines 277-280 is part of the discussion. It is redundant in the 'Results' section.

8.      Table 5 - The table title must match the data it contains.

Author Response

We are grateful for your suggestions.

1. The phrases 'According to [14]....'; ‘obtained by [34]…’ should include the name of the author in addition to the references number. – e.g. ‘According to Rawal et al. [14]……’ –lines 61, 157, 533

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

2. Table 3. The word 'index' in the phrase 'SDM index' should be removed.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

3. The sentence in lines 234-236 is redundant, it repeats the description of the results in the previous paragraph

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

4. The sentence in lines 237-238 should be deleted or moved to Discussion section.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

5. On Figures 2 and 3 colors should be differentiated so that people with visual impairments have no difficulty in reading them.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

6. On Figures 2 and 3 the colors should be differentiated to more clearly separate the individual bars.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

7. The sentence in lines 277-280 is part of the discussion. It is redundant in the 'Results' section

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

8. Table 5 - The table title must match the data it contains.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Agriculture (ISSN 2077-0472)

Manuscript ID: agriculture-2580909

Manuscript Title: "Effects of fertilization types and base saturation on the growth and water Productivity of Zuri grass"

Reviewer comments:

In this study, the authors studied “Effects of fertilization types and base saturation on the growth and water Productivity of Zuri grass” The topic in the scope of Agriculture-MDPI, and manuscript findings may add to the existing knowledge. However, the following suggestions and comments may further enhance its quality. Major revision is suggested, and other minor comments were listed below.

• I think that this important experiment, if it were conducted in the soil instead of in pots, would have more applied value in terms of practical benefit from its results, and this is a weak point in the current manuscript. My question her is; Why the authors did not conduct this experiment in the soil instead of carrying it in the greenhouse (in pots)?  Especially since this grass under study is strong and fast-growing, and its growth in the soil is completely different from its growth in pots with limited space.
• The names of the authors, just below the title, must reset their numbering, as well as adjust the titles of the authors, as the first researcher is numbered with the number 2, not 1, and this does not agree with the instructions of the journal, so please adjust the numbering of the researchers accordingly.
• L 21, 24, 28, ………: “organomineral” This term was mentioned 78 times throughout the manuscript, and the abbreviation was only done in some sites. Please write the whole term and its abbreviation only for the first time, then type the abbreviation only throughout the entire manuscript. All other abbreviations in the manuscript need to be reviewed and adjusted
• L 17: “Management and fertilization” Do the authors mean fertilization management? Or management and fertilization? I think the first meaning is correct
• L 26: Results (Abstract): Please, numerical data or percentages should be added to the most important results obtained from the current study, because it shows the reader the importance of the research and its results.
• Keywords: please do not write abbreviations in the keywords. Fertility is not the focus of this research.
• L 58-61: “It is worth noting that base saturation levels serve as an efficient indicator in characterizing soil fertility, and when associated with different types of fertilizers, they can be an effective tool in identifying fertilizers with greater capacities to improve soil fertility [13]” long sentence, pls shorten
• L 61, L 157, L 493, and …..: “According to [14]” “According to [21]” According to what? “The author or authors names”.
• L 66-67: “The proposed hypothesis is that alternative fertilizers like wood ash and organomineral (wood ash + potassium and phosphorus)” Why potassium and phosphorous specifically without other nutrients?
• In Tables (1 &2), What do the authors mean by CaCl₂, that written in the row below pH???
• L 106: “Eucalyptus sp.” All scientific names have to be italic in the entire manuscript.
• L 112: “PRNT: Relative power of neutralization” I think the abbreviation is not correct.  I think “RPNT”
• L 115-116: “(Wood ash (WA), Organomineral (OM), 115 and Mineral (M))” The outer brackets are not correct. Correct to [Wood ash (WA), Organomineral (OM), 115 and Mineral (M)].
• L 167: “1st cut, …………… - 2nd” Superscript.
• The results are written clearly and the figures are good and clear, but what is striking and strange at the same time is the contrast of the effects of mineral and organic fertilizers and that it is the opposite of what is expected. The values ​​of the results of mineral fertilizers are less than those of organic ones in multiple measurements in the manuscript. Can researchers explain why?
• The discussion part should be one unit without commas, and from here the sub-headings should be removed in the entire discussion part, and a brief of the results should be written at the beginning of explaining each studied character or group of characters, then interpreting those results and then citing relevant previous studies, with a link between each part and the next until we finally get a clear vision to interpret the results of the study.
• Kindly provide few more recommendation at the end in the form of bullet points.
• L 491, L 434: “Eruca sativa” “Avena strigosa” italic.
• Conclusion needs more improvement. Please mention how the future study can complete your work. What is the lack of knowledge?
• The manuscript needs better syntax and shorter meanings but are accurate in the assumptions.
• The discussion part is long. Please shorten this section as much as possible, taking into account the lack of violation of the content and the non-repetition.
• This part should be better organized and extended. It is important to try to better deepen and explain.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We are grateful for your suggestions.

1. I think that this important experiment, if it were conducted in the soil instead of in pots, would have more applied value in terms of practical benefit from its results, and this is a weak point in the current manuscript. My question her is; Why the authors did not conduct this experiment in the soil instead of carrying it in the greenhouse (in pots)?  Especially since this grass under study is strong and fast-growing, and its growth in the soil is completely different from its growth in pots with limited space.

R= We agree with your point of view, but even though they are experiments in a greenhouse, when we study fertilization and take them to the field, they generally behave in a similar way. Organominerals are a new fertilizer that is in the process of being evaluated and patented. For this reason, the experiment was initially carried out in a greenhouse to observe the behavior of this fertilizer, which is the main objective of this research, in order to take it to the field in the future.

2. The names of the authors, just below the title, must reset their numbering, as well as adjust the titles of the authors, as the first researcher is numbered with the number 2, not 1, and this does not agree with the instructions of the journal, so please adjust the numbering of the researchers accordingly.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

3. L 21, 24, 28, ………: “organomineral” This term was mentioned 78 times throughout the manuscript, and the abbreviation was only done in some sites. Please write the whole term and its abbreviation only for the first time, then type the abbreviation only throughout the entire manuscript. All other abbreviations in the manuscript need to be reviewed and adjusted

R= The repetition of the word "organomineral" is intended to emphasize the importance of this innovative fertilizer, produced from wood ash, since it is a new fertilizer in the process of being tested and possibly patented, highlighting it as a major player, given the fact that it comes from agro-industrial waste. For the variables analyzed, abbreviations have been inserted in the manuscript.

4. L 17: “Management and fertilization” Do the authors mean fertilization management? Or management and fertilization? I think the first meaning is correct

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

5. L 26: Results (Abstract): Please, numerical data or percentages should be added to the most important results obtained from the current study, because it shows the reader the importance of the research and its results.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

6. Keywords: please do not write abbreviations in the keywords. Fertility is not the focus of this research.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

7. L 58-61: “It is worth noting that base saturation levels serve as an efficient indicator in characterizing soil fertility, and when associated with different types of fertilizers, they can be an effective tool in identifying fertilizers with greater capacities to improve soil fertility [13]” long sentence, pls shorten

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

8. L 61, L 157, L 493, and …..: “According to [14]” “According to [21]” According to what? “The author or authors names”.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

9. L 66-67: “The proposed hypothesis is that alternative fertilizers like wood ash and organomineral (wood ash + potassium and phosphorus)” Why potassium and phosphorous specifically without other nutrients?

 R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

10. In Tables (1 &2), What do the authors mean by CaCl₂, that written in the row below pH???

R= The pH analysis was conducted using calcium chloride (CaCl2) as a reagent in the test solution. This method involved the use of calcium chloride as an integral part of the reagent solution, allowing for an accurate and reliable pH assessment. The CaCL2 used as the extracting solution allows the real condition of the soil to be simulated exactly, which contributes to obtaining a pH (hydrogen potential of the soil) as close to the real one as possible.

11. L 106: “Eucalyptus sp.” All scientific names have to be italic in the entire manuscript.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

12. L 112: “PRNT: Relative power of neutralization” I think the abbreviation is not correct.  I think “RPNT”

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

13. L 115-116: “(Wood ash (WA), Organomineral (OM), 115 and Mineral (M))” The outer brackets are not correct. Correct to [Wood ash (WA), Organomineral (OM), 115 and Mineral (M)].

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

14. L 167: “1st cut, …………… - 2nd” Superscript.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

15. The results are written clearly and the figures are good and clear, but what is striking and strange at the same time is the contrast of the effects of mineral and organic fertilizers and that it is the opposite of what is expected. The values ​​of the results of mineral fertilizers are less than those of organic ones in multiple measurements in the manuscript. Can researchers explain why?

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript. This explanation was described in the 12th paragraph of the discussion.

16. The discussion part should be one unit without commas, and from here the sub-headings should be removed in the entire discussion part, and a brief of the results should be written at the beginning of explaining each studied character or group of characters, then interpreting those results and then citing relevant previous studies, with a link between each part and the next until we finally get a clear vision to interpret the results of the study.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

17. Kindly provide few more recommendation at the end in the form of bullet points.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

18. L 491, L 434: “Eruca sativa” “Avena strigosa” italic.

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

19. Conclusion needs more improvement. Please mention how the future study can complete your work. What is the lack of knowledge?

R= Suggestion accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

20. The manuscript needs better syntax and shorter meanings but are accurate in the assumptions. The discussion part is long. Please shorten this section as much as possible, taking into account the lack of violation of the content and the non-repetition. This part should be better organized and extended. It is important to try to better deepen and explain.

R= The assumptions are validated in comprehensive theoretical foundations that address and enrich the discussion, bringing a broad context encompassing the various strands, in order to emphasize the results obtained and their importance. In view of this, summarizing the discussion can lead to the loss of relevant information that is the basis for a good discussion. However, we have done our best to comply with the reviewers' request.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Agriculture (ISSN 2077-0472)-R2

Manuscript ID: agriculture-2580909

Manuscript Title: "Effects of fertilization types and base saturation on the growth and water Productivity of Zuri grass"

Reviewer comments:

After reviewing the entire corrected manuscript to find out the extent of the researchers’ response to my previous comments on it, I found that only some comments were responded to and others were neglected. I also asked several questions, which are required to be answered in a separate special file in which the authors explain the extent of their response to the reviewers’ comments, and this was not sent. It must be sent for review.

The manuscript also needs some improvement before it is accepted for publication, by responding to the following comments

• I think that this important experiment, if it were conducted in the soil instead of in pots, would have more applied value in terms of practical benefit from its results, and this is a weak point in the current manuscript. My question her is; Why the authors did not conduct this experiment in the soil instead of carrying it in the greenhouse (in pots)?  Especially since this grass under study is strong and fast-growing, and its growth in the soil is completely different from its growth in pots with limited space. Pls I need the answer of this question.
• L 21, 24, 28, ………: “organomineral” This term was mentioned 78 times throughout the manuscript, and the abbreviation was only done in some sites. Please write the whole term and its abbreviation only for the first time, then type the abbreviation only throughout the entire manuscript. All other abbreviations in the manuscript need to be reviewed and adjusted. Although the authors responded to my comment by abbreviating this term in line 24 to OM, instead of writing only the abbreviation afterwards throughout the entire manuscript, they rewrote the complete term in most other places.
• L 66-67: “The proposed hypothesis is that alternative fertilizers like wood ash and organomineral (wood ash + potassium and phosphorus)” Why potassium and phosphorous specifically without other nutrients? Pls I need the answer of this question.
• The results are written clearly and the figures are good and clear, but what is striking and strange at the same time is the contrast of the effects of mineral and organic fertilizers and that it is the opposite of what is expected. The values ​​of the results of mineral fertilizers are less than those of organic ones in multiple measurements in the manuscript. Can researchers explain why?
• L 176: “Panicum maximum” italic.
• The manuscript needs better syntax and shorter meanings but are accurate in the assumptions.
• The discussion part is long. Please shorten this section as much as possible, taking into account the lack of violation of the content and the non-repetition.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS - SECOND ROUND OF CORRECTIONS

Dear reviewer, I hope I find you well. We have done our best to take on board your suggestions and improve the manuscript.

Thank you for your enriching contributions.

1. I think that this important experiment, if it were conducted in the soil instead of in pots, would have more applied value in terms of practical benefit from its results, and this is a weak point in the current manuscript. My question her is; Why the authors did not conduct this experiment in the soil instead of carrying it in the greenhouse (in pots)?  Especially since this grass under study is strong and fast-growing, and its growth in the soil is completely different from its growth in pots with limited space. Pls I need the answer of this question.

.

R= The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse (pot) because it represents a preliminary stage before carrying out a larger experiment in field conditions. The results obtained in the greenhouse using pots are very important for planning and setting doses, as they provide results that are indicative of what would happen in field conditions, saving money for large-scale decision-making. When studying fertilizers, especially organo-minerals, even in greenhouse conditions (pots), this does not invalidate what would happen in the field; only the magnitude changes in most cases. In addition, from a scientific point of view, it is advisable to carry out experiments on a smaller scale in greenhouses using pots so as not to cause damage, which is why it is coherent to carry out the experiment initially in a greenhouse.

Although the grass is fast-growing and has different responses in field conditions when compared to greenhouses (pots), this study is fundamental to establish tests in which it is possible to define even in pots that the grasses develop well when fertilized with organomineral fertilizer sources, i.e., before going to the field it is necessary to test in a greenhouse (pot) to avoid greater economic losses in large-scale research.

2. L 21, 24, 28, ………: “organomineral” This term was mentioned 78 times throughout the manuscript, and the abbreviation was only done in some sites. Please write the whole term and its abbreviation only for the first time, then type the abbreviation only throughout the entire manuscript. All other abbreviations in the manuscript need to be reviewed and adjusted.

 R= Amendment accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

3. Although the authors responded to my comment by abbreviating this term in line 24 to OM, instead of writing only the abbreviation afterwards throughout the entire manuscript, they rewrote the complete term in most other places.

R= Amendment accepted, incorporated into the manuscript.

4. L 66-67: “The proposed hypothesis is that alternative fertilizers like wood ash and organomineral (wood ash + potassium and phosphorus)” Why potassium and phosphorous specifically without other nutrients? Pls I need the answer of this question.

R= We corrected it to clarify that micronutrients such as FTE were added in addition to P and K. The choice of potassium (K) and phosphorus (P) as nutrients in our research was based on the importance of these elements for plant growth. Our approach also included micronutrients (FTE) in the organomineral and mineral treatments. The choice of K and P is based on their importance in plant growth, as they play crucial roles in metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and biomass formation. Wood ash contains potassium, phosphorus, other essential nutrients, and micronutrients. However, it is suggested that organomineral fertilizers be obtained to maximize its availability to plants, taking advantage of the potential nutrients in wood ash and avoiding waste.

The excessive use of synthetic fertilizers is costly for farmers, often involving import costs and being unsustainable in the long term due to its intensive and exhaustible production. By incorporating wood ash into our fertilization strategy, we propose a conscious alternative that reduces dependence on synthetic fertilizers and economic costs. This is because, in many cases, wood ash is available as a waste or by-product from industry. Organomineral fertilizer can halve the volume of wood ash applied per area, just like synthetic fertilizer, resulting in substantial cost savings. The possibility of adjusting the proportions of wood ash and mineral fertilizers offers flexibility to farmers, who can adapt the mix based on the availability of wood ash in their region and their production goals. This can result in cost savings, maintaining or even surpassing yields with the exclusive use of synthetic fertilizers.

5. The results are written clearly and the figures are good and clear, but what is striking and strange at the same time is the contrast of the effects of mineral and organic fertilizers and that it is the opposite of what is expected. The values ​​of the results of mineral fertilizers are less than those of organic ones in multiple measurements in the manuscript. Can researchers explain why?

R= This atypical fact is because fertilizers obtained from wood ash have the advantage of being able to release nutrients slowly to the plants, which is in line with the mineral absorption patterns of the crops. This is in contrast to mineral (synthetic) fertilizers, which, when made available in the soil, are available to the plants immediately without necessarily being absorbed slowly and in installments, contributing decisively to the results obtained in this study.

The superior performance of organic fertilizers compared to mineral fertilizers can be explained by several complex factors. One of the notable aspects is that organomineral fertilizer, due to its hybrid nature combining organic and mineral elements, provides different benefits at different stages of the crop's growth cycle. The mineral part of this fertilizer is quickly made available to plants in the initial phase, meeting immediate nutrient needs. On the other hand, the organic part gradually releases nutrients over time (slowly in line with the plant's absorption rate), which benefits subsequent crop phases. This creates a unique combination of nutrients that adjusts to the changing demands of the crop throughout its growth cycle. In addition, the wood ash fertilizers and organo-minerals used in this study can also improve soil properties, creating a more favorable environment for plant growth. A balanced combination of nutrients, including macro and micronutrients in the wood ash, contributed to improved crop performance.

6. L 176: “Panicum maximum” italic.

R= Amendment accepted, incorporated into the manuscript

7. The manuscript needs better syntax and shorter meanings but are accurate in the assumptions.

R= We synthesized the discussion of the manuscript to meet the reviewer's requests.

8. The discussion part is long. Please shorten this section as much as possible, taking into account the lack of violation of the content and the non-repetition.

R= We have done our best to reduce this part (discussion) without losing the essence of what we want to highlight in the research. Amendment accepted, incorporated into the manuscript. This section has been reduced by almost a page.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf