Magnetized Saline Water Modulates Soil Salinization and Enhances Forage Productivity: Genotype-Specific Responses of Lotus corniculatus L.
, Luis Ángel González-Espíndola 1, María del Rosario Jacobo-Salcedo 2, Isaac Gramillo-Ávila 1 and José Antonio Miranda-Rojas 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study addresses the agricultural challenges of salinized soils and saline water irrigation in arid regions, exploring the potential of synergistic application of magnetized water technology and salt-tolerant genotypes, with significant ecological and economic value. However, further details on the methodology, deeper data analysis, and a more robust discussion of mechanisms should be added to enhance the scientific rigor and application impact of the paper. The specific revision suggestions are as follows:
Line 2: Title
The core elements of the paper title (magnetized saline water, genotypic differences, arid environment) are disjointed, resulting in weak logical connections. Consider revising to: "Magnetized Saline Water Modulates Soil Salinization and Enhances Forage Productivity: Genotype-Specific Responses of Lotus corniculatus L. in Arid Agroecosystems".
Line 16: Abstract
(1) Redundant descriptions (e.g., experimental design details) should be removed.
(2) Repetitive information (e.g., soil parameter reductions) should be consolidated using percentage comparisons.
(3) Critical metrics (e.g., EC↓23%, SAR↓26%, Na⁺↓41%) and genotypic yield differences (15.8%, 56.8%) should be explicitly quantified.
(4) Emphasize dual conclusions: "magnetized water inhibits salinization" and "genotype-driven productivity."
Suggested Revision:
Irrigation water salinity poses escalating threats to agricultural sustainability in degraded agroecosystems. This study investigated the effects of magnetized versus non-magnetized saline water on soil physicochemical properties and forage productivity of three Lotus corniculatus L. genotypes (salt-sensitive ecotype 232098, moderately tolerant San Gabriel, and salt-tolerant Estanzuela Ganador) in arid northern Mexico. A split-plot randomized block design with three replicates assigned saline water treatments (magnetized [WMT] vs. non-magnetized [NWMT]) to main plots and genotypes to subplots. After one year of irrigation, WMT significantly attenuated soil salinization, evidenced by 23% lower electrical conductivity (5.8 vs. 7.2 dS·m⁻¹), 26% reduced sodium adsorption ratio (6.2 vs. 8.4), and 41% decreased sodium concentration (20.7 vs. 35.4 meq·L⁻¹) compared to NWMT (P < 0.05). Although agronomic traits (stem dimensions, leaf area index, and rhizome proliferation) exhibited salt sensitivity from the third season onward, fresh biomass yield remained unaffected by water treatment. Genotypic differences dominated productivity: Estanzuela Ganador achieved superior biomass in both seasons (288.9 g/rhizome in fall; 184.2 g in winter), outperforming San Gabriel by 15.8% and ecotype 232098 by 56.8% (P < 0.05). These findings demonstrate that magnetized saline water irrigation effectively mitigates soil salinity progression, while genotype selection critically determines forage productivity under arid conditions. Estanzuela Ganador emerges as the optimal cultivar for saline irrigation systems in water-scarce regions.
Line 37: Keywords
(1) Redundancy: "salinity" vs. "salinity tolerance."
(2) "Environmental pollution" is too broad; focus on salinization.
(3) "Fodder" is vague; specify "forage production."
(4) Missing key elements: magnetized water technology, genotypic differences.
Suggested Keywords:
Salinity mitigation; Magnetized water irrigation; Forage production; Salt-tolerant genotypes; Arid agroecosystems; Lotus corniculatus L.; Soil physicochemical properties
Line 39: Introduction
The research gap and novelty are not clearly articulated. Existing studies’ limitations and this study’s contributions should be explicitly stated.
Line 99: Supplement with:（1）Soil type: Textural class, organic matter content. （2）Groundwater quality parameters.
Line 138：Provide critical parameters: (1) Magnetic device specifications (flux density, exposure time, flow rate etc.). (2) Physicochemical comparisons between magnetized and non-magnetized water.
Line 200: The relevance of Figure 2a to the paper’s focus is unclear. Clarify its purpose or remove it.
Line 204：Clarify the roles of statistical tools.
Line 208: Conduct a variance component analysis to quantify contributions of genotype, treatment, and season to phenotypic variation.
Line 302：The relationship between agronomic traits (e.g., 169.5 stems/rhizome in Estanzuela Ganador) and biomass yield (15.3% higher than San Gabriel) requires further explanation. Address whether compensatory mechanisms (e.g., resource allocation) underlie this discrepancy.
Line 330: The conclusion merely describes phenomena. Explain the paradox: Why did magnetized water reduce soil EC but fail to enhance yield? Propose hypotheses (e.g., threshold effects, energy trade-offs in perennial plants).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have attatched my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
This article needs very extensive edits to the English language. There are issues with subject verb agreements throughout the manuscript. Also, there are many run on sentences that should be split into multiple sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made substantial revisions and enhancements in response to the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. I have no further remarks regarding the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made the revision I suggested and the manuscript is greatly improved. I suggest acceptance after the few comments that I made.
Line102-104 Add depth that these soil properties were measured at?
Figures. It appears there are some issues with numbers and letters above columns in graphs. Some of the numbers overlap making them hard to interpret and look ugly. Prior to publishing these figures should be fixed so they look better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
