Accumulation of Na⁺ in Cotton Field under Mulched Drip Irrigation of Brackish Water in Arid Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors - some suggestions and/or feedback-remarks:

- I am missing some important details like pH of the soil, scientific name and botanic family of Cotton plants, soil-type, results of the sieving (fractions and distribution

- Na+ ... cm2 .... +,2 have to be superscript

- I am not familiar with hm2 (e.g. line 99)

- moist-body (and other things) force the use of which (and not whose).

- Have you measured the electric conductivity of soil water? Have you determined the water-available fraction (for plants)?

- why did you measure short wave radiation? Usually we measure global radiation and / or PAR.

- Have you determined evapotranspiration? That would have been very interesting with regard to translocation of Sodium.

- Avoid 'salt' - or as long as you just talk about mineral salts. Better prefer Sodiumchloride

- Maybe I have missed it - but I miss results of Cl- concentrations

- The legends should be in a box. And the graphs might be layouted in different colours

- Na+ accumulation is NOT a complex process (and in line 161 canion obviously is a mistake; there are several in the text - please employ proof-reading)

- As fas as I know - cotton-plants do not have rhizomes (fibrous roots they have)

-  Materials and Methods MUST be worked over. This is not precise enough.

- Results can be worked over - it is really hard to follow the text. Use shorter sentences and give more detailed data in these.

- What is the final consequence and outcome for farming of cotton - with regard to your research?

- In the Introduction you should mention, that farming of cotton is very important in China, and that China is the second largest producer in the world.

- Also in the introduction - why is the management of Sodium and Chloride essential in growing cotton and of course in the context of soil-health?

Good luck and I hope my comments are helpful for you!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Dear reviewer:

We have carefully revised all your suggestions and opinions. In the process of revision and discussion, our scope of knowledge has been expanded, the level of the article has been rapidly improved. Thank you again.

Yours sincerely,

Rui Dong, Wenkai Liu, Jihong Qu, Wengeng Cao

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript addresses the monitoring of soil moisture, TDS and Na+ contents according to soil depth, in a cotton field, before and after a set of different irrigation scenarios. Although the manuscript structure and Introduction seem adequate to me, some methodological aspects should be better explained and/or improved. Furthermore, it seems to be lacking sufficient statistical validation for the assumptions presented in the results and discussion. Therefore, I recommend for a major revision to be performed before being considered for publication.

The main issues that should be delt with are presented in the attached reviewer file, encompassing the following:

· The notation of some physical properties’ units should be revised.

· Some sentences lack clearness and should be reformulated.

· The choice of the analyzed irrigation process should be further explained.

· References to a few performed methods are lacking.

· A statistical analysis should be employed to validate the statistical significance of the differences found.

· The authors should elaborate more on the limitations of the present study.

· Graphs should be improved, as they are difficult to read.

· The discussion of the results should be improved according to the questions raised in the reviewer file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Dear reviewer:

We have carefully revised all your suggestions and opinions. In the process of revision and discussion, our scope of knowledge has been expanded, the level of the article has been rapidly improved. Thank you again.

Yours sincerely,

Rui Dong, Wenkai Liu, Jihong Qu, Wengeng Cao

Point 1: The notation of some physical properties’ units should be revised.

Response 1: We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from the reviewers. The notation of some physical properties’ units have been revised in the WORD attachment using the “Track Changes” function. 

Point 2: Some sentences lack clearness and should be reformulated.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your reminding. We have made modifications in each corresponding position according to your review comments, please check the WORD attachment.

Point 3: The choice of the analyzed irrigation process should be further explained.

Response 3: Thank you very much! We have go a step further in explaining the irrigation process.

Point 4: References to a few performed methods are lacking.

Response 4: Thank you. We have supplemented, please check the WORD attachment using the “Track Changes” function.

Point 5: A statistical analysis should be employed to validate the statistical significance of the differences found.

Response 5: We agree, we have not used a statistical analysis to validate the statistical significance of the differences found. In fact, we did not find much different from the references, but a systematic summary of the sodium ion transport process, which is also our innovation. The problems you pointed out are very helpful to our improvement.

Point 6: The authors should elaborate more on the limitations of the present study.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your reminding. We have supplemented the conclusions with limitations of the current findings and suggested directions for future research

Point 7: Graphs should be improved, as they are difficult to read.

Response 7: Thank you. We have improved and illustrated the diagram

Point 8: The discussion of the results should be improved according to the questions raised in the reviewer file.

Response 8: Thank you. We have made improvements according to your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thanks so much for your kind responses and reflecting on my suggestions! This is highly appreciated.

I read through the paper under some pressure by lack of time, honestly. Your paper has improved significantly!

Just two minor comments, which I noticed: line 89: pH instead of PH; line 99 (total...) instead of (Total....)

Kind regards to China and all the best for your next steps!

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We have carefully revised the two suggestions. Please see the revised manuscript. Thank you again.

Yours sincerely,

Rui Dong, Wenkai Liu, Jihong Qu, Wengeng Cao

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript addressed most of the issues raised in the prior revision, although a few ones could still be further clarified in the revised manuscript. Again, a statistical validation for the assumptions presented in the results and discussion, and a careful modification of the presented graphs for clarity reasons, would greatly improve the revised manuscript. Nonetheless, I believe that the revised manuscript has been sufficiently improved from the previous version.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We have carefully revised Fig2, Fig3 and Fig4 for clarity reasons. Please see the revised manuscript. All your reviews are my motivation to improve quickly. Thank you again.

Yours sincerely,

Rui Dong, Wenkai Liu, Jihong Qu, Wengeng Cao