Effects of Organic, Organomineral, and Mineral Fertilization on Soil Macronutrients in Chrysanthemum Cultivar Singelo Cultivation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entiled “Macronutrients content in soil cultivated with chrysanthemum under organic and mineral fertilization with and without liming” evaluates the impact of different fertilization practices (organic, organo-mineral, and mineral) and liming treatments on the macronutrient (P, K, Ca, Mg, S) content in soils cultivated with chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum sp.). Conducted under greenhouse conditions, the study emphasizes the sustainability potential of wood ash-based fertilizers to improve soil fertility and reduce dependency on synthetic fertilizers.

The manuscript is methodologically sound, addressing a relevant and timely topic in sustainable agriculture. It is well-organized, and the data presentation is systematic. However, the manuscript would benefit significantly from language polishing, improved figure clarity, concise summarization of results, clearer articulation of the novelty, and a more critical comparison with previous studies. Statistical reporting and discussion depth also need enhancement. Overall, this is a solid study with strong potential but requiring moderate to major revision for clarity, precision, and scientific impact.

General and Specific Comments

Title: Add clarity by specifying the plant species (Chrysanthemum cultivar) and that the focus is on soil macronutrient availability.

Abstract: Avoid excessive repetition of numerical results; focus more on key findings and their broader significance.

Abstract Conclusion: Include a concluding sentence clearly stating the practical agricultural implications.

Introduction: The background is comprehensive but overly lengthy; trim redundant information to sharpen focus.

Research Gap: The gap between previous work and the current study is not clearly highlighted; explicitly mention this at the end of the Introduction.

Objective Clarity: Rewrite the objective using action verbs (e.g., "to assess," "to compare") and make it more targeted.

Hypothesis: State the working hypothesis more clearly and link it logically to the treatments tested.

Materials and Methods – Soil Characterization: Good detail, but include soil texture class explicitly (e.g., clay loam).

Experimental Design Description: Clarify the factorial design structure early in the methods for easier reader understanding.

Statistical Methods: Mention which post hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons (Tukey test is mentioned later but should be declared upfront).

Data Presentation: Figures are useful but overly dense. Consider summarizing in a table where practical.

Units Consistency: Standardize unit presentation throughout (e.g., "mg dm⁻³" should be consistently formatted).

Figures: Improve the resolution and enlarge fonts in all figures for better readability.

Legends of Figures: Some figure legends are repetitive; make them more interpretative (explain the trend, not just state "bars represent").

Grammar and Style: Minor grammatical mistakes are frequent (e.g., missing articles, plural forms). A thorough English language revision is recommended.

Tables: Label tables more informatively. For example, Table 1 could be titled "Chemical Properties of the Experimental Soil."

Results – Sulfur: Emphasize why sulfur availability matters more critically rather than just listing the figures.

PCA or Multivariate Analysis: Although means are compared, consider suggesting or applying multivariate analysis to strengthen interpretations.

Discussion – Broader Context: Deepen the discussion by comparing results with at least 2–3 other similar studies internationally.

Discussion – Mechanistic Insights: Link findings more with soil chemical processes (e.g., wood ash alkalinity affecting cation exchange capacity).

Limitation Statement: Acknowledge that the study is limited to pot experiments and might differ in field conditions.

Conclusion: The conclusion restates findings well but could be stronger if linked to broader goals (e.g., sustainable agriculture, circular economy).

 

Author Response

 

Dear, i hope i find you well! We are very happy and grateful to you for taking the time to read our manuscript and for your kind suggestions. As far as possible, we have accepted them and added to the work according to your requests, and in line with your other requests.

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

Title: Add clarity by specifying the plant species (Chrysanthemum cultivar) and that the focus is on soil macronutrient availability.

R: The title has been changed to take account of the suggestion.

 

Abstract: Avoid excessive repetition of numerical results; focus more on key findings and their broader significance.

R: The authors are grateful for the feedback, but three other reviewers suggested adding numerical data, which is why the authors chose to take on board the suggestions of the majority of reviewers.

 

Abstract Conclusion: Include a concluding sentence clearly stating the practical agricultural implications.

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

Introduction: The background is comprehensive but overly lengthy; trim redundant information to sharpen focus.

R: It was organized, but it was necessary to add other information to the introduction that the other reviewers suggested.

 

Research Gap: The gap between previous work and the current study is not clearly highlighted; explicitly mention this at the end of the Introduction.

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

Objective Clarity: Rewrite the objective using action verbs (e.g.," to assess," "to compare") and make it more targeted.

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

Hypothesis: State the working hypothesis more clearly and link it logically to the treatments tested.

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

Materials and Methods – Soil Characterization: Good detail, but include soil texture class explicitly (e.g., clay loam).

R: The Oxisol used in the experiment has a clayey texture. The data has been incorporated into the manuscript.

 

Experimental Design Description: Clarify the factorial design structure early in the methods for easier reader understanding.

R: suggestion accepted and added to the article.

 

Statistical Methods: Mention which post hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons (Tukey test is mentioned later but should be declared upfront).

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

Data Presentation: Figures are useful but overly dense. Consider summarizing in a table where practical.

R: The authors are grateful for the feedback, but following the suggestion of the majority of reviewers, the figures have been kept in place of the table.

 

Units Consistency: Standardize unit presentation throughout(e.g., "mg dm⁻³" should be consistently formatted).

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

Figures: Improve the resolution and enlarge fonts in all figures for better readability. Legends of Figures: Some figure legends are repetitive; make them more interpretative (explain the trend, not just state "bars represent"). Grammar and Style: Minor grammatical mistakes are frequent (e.g., missing articles, plural forms). A thorough English language revision is recommended.

R: Figure resolutions and fonts have been enlarged. Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

Tables: Label tables more informatively. For example, Table 1could be titled "Chemical Properties of the Experimental Soil."

R: The suggestion has been incorporated into the text.

 

Results – Sulfur: Emphasize why sulfur availability matters more critically rather than just listing the figures.

R: The suggestion has been incorporated into the text in the discussion.

 

PCA or Multivariate Analysis: Although means are compared, consider suggesting or applying multivariate analysis to strengthen interpretations.

R: The authors are grateful for the feedback, but all the statistics in the article were carried out on a univariate basis; to carry out a multivariate analysis would be a different matter and could be done in future articles.

 

Discussion – Broader Context: Deepen the discussion by comparing results with at least 2–3 other similar studies internationally.

R: The suggestion has been incorporated into the text.

 

Discussion – Mechanistic Insights: Link findings more with soil chemical processes (e.g., wood ash alkalinity affecting cation exchange capacity).

R: The suggestion has been incorporated into the text.

 

Limitation Statement: Acknowledge that the study is limited to pot experiments and might differ in field conditions.

R: The authors are grateful for the feedback. However, we understand that this experiment in the greenhouse is a preliminary that precedes a larger experiment in field conditions. The results in the greenhouse are very important for planning and defining doses, as they give an indication of what would happen in field conditions, saving money for large-scale decision-making. Organominerals, even under controlled conditions, do not invalidate what would happen in the field, only the magnitude changes in most cases. Furthermore, from a scientific point of view, it is advisable to carry out experiments on a smaller scale (in a greenhouse) so as not to cause damage, which is why it is coherent to carry out the experiment initially in a greenhouse.

 

Conclusion: The conclusion restates findings well but could be stronger if linked to broader goals (e.g., sustainable agriculture, circular economy).

R: The suggestion has been incorporated into the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This manuscript, titled “Macronutrient content in soil cultivated with chrysanthemum under organic and mineral fertilization with and without liming” is interesting for the reader’s horticulturae. But still, there are a lot of concerns about novelty, the structure of the manuscript, specifically experimental design,n and figures in results.

Please revise and encourage to resubmit.

Some comments for your manuscript

-26% plagiarism is not acceptable.

Title

-Can improve with attractive findings.

Abstract

-Better to present significant results (values) in the abstract and then details in the results section of the manuscript.

-Too general.

-Please specify the methodology, treatments, dand uration.

-Results (values), findings?

-Please check and revise.

Introduction

-Not enough. Provide more details with the relevant literature for your study.

-Add more recent references.

-Mention your objectives

Materials and methods

-No references for using methods? Please provide references as well.

-Too many treatments. Better to focus on significant and related to specific goals.

-“Of the ten treatments tested”? 10 treatments, then how did you prepare figures 1, 2, and 3? It should be consistent throughout your manuscript.

Results and discussion

-Improve English editing.

-Figures quality also not good. Check figure 2, a and b are in the same format?

- What are the criteria for figures for comparison? What basis?

-Improve accordingly.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can improve

Author Response

Dear, i hope i find you well! We are very happy and grateful to you for taking the time to read our manuscript and for your kind suggestions. As far as possible, we have accepted them and added to the work according to your requests, and in line with your other requests.

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

 

26% plagiarism is not acceptable.

R: The entire article, except the references at the end, has been subjected to Grammarly's check for AI text & plagiarism and there is no more than 2% plagiarism, which is just terms. If necessary, the authors can send the Grammarly report.

Title

-Can improve with attractive findings.

R: The title has been changed.

Abstract

-Better to present significant results (values) in the abstract and then details in the results section of the manuscript.

-Too general.

-Please specify the methodology, treatments, danduration.

-Results (values), findings?

-Please check and revise.

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

Introduction

-Not enough. Provide more details with the relevant literature for your study.

-Add more recent references.

-Mention your objectives

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

Materials and methods

No references for using methods? Please provide references as well.

-Too many treatments. Better to focus on significant and related to specific goals.

-“Of the ten treatments tested”? 10 treatments, then how did you prepare figures 1, 2, and 3? It should be consistent throughout your manuscript.

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

Results and discussion

-Improve English editing.

-Figures quality also not good. Check figure 2, a and b are in thesame format?

- What are the criteria for figures for comparison? What basis?

-Improve accordingly.

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study demonstrates the value of wood ash as an industrial byproduct in resource recycling, aligning with the "circular economy" and "2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)." Its conclusions provide a feasible solution for improving acidic infertile soils in tropical regions (e.g., Brazil). While the manuscript shows publication potential, the following concerns must be addressed:

Lines 15-31: The abstract should explicitly state the experimental duration. Additionally, specific results are lacking—authors must supplement key data ranges (e.g., phosphorus and potassium concentration ranges under wood ash treatments) to strengthen the conclusions.

Lines 44-50: The mechanisms of "wood ash as a soil amendment" (e.g., pH regulation, nutrient release dynamics) require deeper elaboration. Cite recent literature (post-2020 studies) to better support hypotheses.

Lines 90-92: Include detailed information about wood ash sources, such as pretreatment methods and ashing temperatures, as these factors may influence nutrient availability.

Lines 105-106: Clarify the rationale for selecting "70% base saturation"—whether based on Brazilian agricultural standards or prior studies.

Lines 140-142: Specify the normality test method (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance test (e.g., Levene test), including their results.

Lines 350-364: The mechanism by which wood ash enhances phosphorus availability (e.g., reducing aluminum/iron fixation through pH elevation) should be discussed in depth in the context of Oxisol properties.

Lines 400-402: If wood ash originates from industrial waste, address potential risks of long-term application (e.g., heavy metal accumulation, salt stress) to demonstrate comprehensive analysis.

Moreover, the Discussion section is overly fragmented. Consolidate scattered paragraphs to improve coherence and logical flow.

Author Response

Dear, i hope i find you well! We are very happy and grateful to you for taking the time to read our manuscript and for your kind suggestions. As far as possible, we have accepted them and added to the work according to your requests, and in line with your other requests.

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

 

This study demonstrates the value of wood ash as an industrial byproduct in resource recycling, aligning with the "circular economy" and "2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)."Its conclusions provide a feasible solution for improving acidic infertile soils in tropical regions (e.g., Brazil). While the manuscript shows publication potential, the following concerns must be addressed:

Lines 15-31: The abstract should explicitly state the experimental duration. Additionally, specific results are lacking authors must supplement key data ranges (e.g., phosphorus and potassium)

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

Lines 44-50: The mechanisms of "wood ash as a soil amendment" (e.g., pH regulation, nutrient release dynamics) require deeper elaboration. Cite recent literature (post-2020studies) to better support hypotheses.

R: More recent literature on ash and its influence on pH regulation and nutrient release dynamics has been added.

 

Lines 90-92: Include detailed information about wood ash sources, such as pretreatment methods and ashing temperatures, as these factors may influence nutrient availability.

R: There are no details such as pre-treatment methods and incineration temperatures, as wood ash is an agro-industrial residue, there is no control of these variables.

 

Lines 105-106: Clarify the rationale for selecting "70% base saturation"—whether based on Brazilian agricultural standards or prior studies.

Lines 140-142: Specify the normality test method (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance test (e.g., Levene test), including their results.

Lines 350-364: The mechanism by which wood ash enhances phosphorus availability (e.g., reducing aluminum/iron fixation through pH elevation) should be discussed in depth in the context of Oxisol properties.

R: The authors are grateful for the feedback. The reference material to increase base saturation to 70% was added to the methodology. In addition, the tests were also added to the manuscript, and as supplementary material, we added the ANOVA. The discussion on the mechanism of increased phosphorus availability promoted by wood ash was adjusted. The Oxisol is highly weathered and with a predominance of iron and aluminum oxides, and has a high phosphorus adsorption capacity, which limits its availability. Thus, an explanation was included on how the increase in pH caused by the application of ash reduces the activity of Al³⁺ and Fe in solution, decreasing phosphorus fixation and increasing its fraction available to plants.

 

Lines 400-402: If wood ash originates from industrial waste, address potential risks of long-term application (e.g., heavy metal accumulation, salt stress) to demonstrate comprehensive analysis.

R: A paragraph has been added explaining the risks and importance of analyzing the ash before using it in the field.

 

Moreover, the Discussion section is overly fragmented. Consolidate scattered paragraphs to improve coherence and logical flow.

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The paper is solid and relevant for Horticulturae MDPI, especially considering the journal's scope on sustainable agriculture, soil fertility, and plant nutrition. But need some revision;

Some parts are still repetitive or too "descriptive" and can be written more concisely. Small grammatical errors (e.g., "fertilization with wood ash is another promising bias" → "approach" instead of "bias".

 

The title is slightly too descriptive. Suggest making it sharper

I suggest new title for your paper: Effects of Organic, Organo-Mineral, and Mineral Fertilization on Soil Macronutrients in Chrysanthemum Cultivation

 

Abstract is informative but could better highlight novelty and key quantitative results (e.g., "potassium increased by 77% with wood ash compared to mineral fertilizer").

Add a small paragraph at the end of the Introduction clearly stating the novelty: While there are numerous works focusing on biomass ash, comparatively few track its assessment with organo-mineral fertilizers under Oxisol status during chrysanthemum cultivation.

 

More explanations on mechanisms could help deepen the discussion. For instance, why does wood ash improve macronutrient retention at the chemical level (i.e., cation exchange and buffering effect) could be elaborated on and compared with 2-3 more recent studies from Horticulturae or Agronomy MDPI journals.

Add practical recommendations in conclusion : Future studies should investigate the long-term impact on crop yield and soil microbial activity." This kind of suggestion shows depth of your paper

Good references overall. Maybe add a few very recent articles (2023-2024) if possible, especially on ash fertilization trends

 

Some other minor issues to correct iis bellow :

  In Abstract:
Add 1–2 quantified results (e.g., % increase of nutrients compared to control).

In Discussion:

Expand mechanisms: e.g., "Wood ash provides oxides and hydroxides that enhance cation retention, thereby stabilizing soil fertility."

In Conclusion:
Add a recommendation for future studies, e.g., "field-scale validations" or "impact on crop productivity."

Language polishing:

Use more "scientific formal English": "promising bias" → "promising approach"; "tends to" → "can"; "emphasizes" → "highlights".

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

 

 

Dear, i hope i find you well! We are very happy and grateful to you for taking the time to read our manuscript and for your kind suggestions. As far as possible, we have accepted them and added to the work according to your requests, and in line with your other requests.

 

Thank you in advance for your time.

 

The paper is solid and relevant for Horticulturae MDPI, especially considering the journal's scope on sustainable agriculture, soil fertility, and plant nutrition. But need some revision; Some parts are still repetitive or too "descriptive" and can be written more concisely. Small grammatical errors (e.g., "fertilization with wood ash is another promising bias" →"approach" instead of "bias".

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

 

The title is slightly too descriptive. Suggest making it sharper. I suggest new title for your paper: Effects of Organic, Organo-Mineral, and Mineral Fertilization on Soil Macronutrients in Chrysanthemum Cultivation.

R: The title was adjusted as suggested.

 

Abstract is informative but could better highlight novelty and key quantitative results (e.g., "potassium increased by 77% with wood ash compared to mineral fertilizer").

Add a small paragraph at the end of the Introduction clearly stating the novelty: While there are numerous works focusing on biomass ash, comparatively few track its assessment with organomineral fertilizers under Oxisol status during chrysanthemum cultivation.

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

More explanations on mechanisms could help deepen the discussion. For instance, why does wood ash improve macronutrient retention at the chemical level (i.e., cation exchange and buffering effect) could be elaborated on and compared with 2-3 more recent studies from Horticulturae or Agronomy MDPI journals.

R: The authors are grateful for the feedback. We expanded the discussion on the chemical mechanisms responsible for improving macronutrient retention after applying wood ash. Specifically, we detailed how the compounds present in the ash (oxides, hydroxides, and carbonates of Ca and Mg) increase soil pH, activate negative charges in colloids, and, consequently, increase the cation exchange capacity (CEC), favoring the retention of cations such as K⁺, Ca²⁺, and Mg²⁺. In addition, we discussed the role of ash as a buffering agent, highlighting its ability to neutralize the release of H⁺ and maintain a stable pH, which contributes to the stability of exchangeable charges and prolongs nutrient availability.

 

Add practical recommendations in conclusion: Future studies should investigate the long-term impact on crop yield and soil microbial activity." This kind of suggestion shows depth of your paper.

Good references overall. Maybe add a few very recent articles (2023-2024) if possible, especially on ash fertilization trends.

R: Suggestion accepted and incorporated into the text.

 

In Abstract: Add 1–2 quantified results (e.g., % increase of nutrients compared to control). In Discussion: Expand mechanisms: e.g., "Wood ash provides oxides and hydroxides that enhance cation retention, thereby stabilizing soil fertility." In Conclusion: Add a recommendation for future studies, e.g., "field-scale validations" or "impact on crop productivity." Language polishing: Use more "scientific formal English": "promising bias" →"promising approach"; "tends to" → "can"; "emphasizes" → "highlights".

R: Corrections have been made to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements to the quality of the manuscript; however, a few points still require attention before final publication:

1. The authors should clearly state the hypothesis using past tense.

2. Additionally, the quality of the results could be further enhanced by including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and correlation analysis.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

We really appreciate your feedback, your time spent correcting our manuscript and your suggestions.

The authors should clearly state the hypothesis using past tense.

Additionally, the quality of the results could be further enhanced by including Principal Component Analysis (PCA)and correlation analysis.

R: The authors fixed the hypothesis by leaving it in the past tense. The authors performed correlation analysis and PCA. All these analyses were incorporated into the results and discussion of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to all authors for all their considerations. However, there is still a need to improve before the final publication.

-Despite incorporated comments in the manuscript, kindly also answer all comments properly to get more clarity. 

-In revised title, Chrysanthemum cv. Singelo  Cultivation, cv means? Or is it vs? Make it clearer.

-Introduction
-Not enough. Provide more details with the relevant literature for your study.
-Add more recent references.

-“Of the ten treatments tested”? 10 treatments, then how did you prepare figures 1, 2, and 3? It should be consistent throughout your manuscript.

 

Where and how? How about figures?

-In table 1, the units and format seem too messy, please revise them with simple and better consistent units (good for comparison).

Author Response

 

-Despite incorporated comments in the manuscript, kindly also answer all comments properly to get more clarity.

-In revised title, Chrysanthemum cv. Singelo Cultivation, cv means? Or is it vs? Make it clearer.

R: In the title, “cv” means “cultivar”. For clarity, we have left cultivar unabbreviated in the title.

 

-Introduction- Not enough. Provide more details with the relevant literature for your study. -Add more recent references.

R: As suggested, more relevant and recent literature on the study has been incorporated into the introduction.

 

-“Of the ten treatments tested”? 10 treatments, then how did you prepare figures 1, 2, and 3? It should be consistent throughout your manuscript. Where and how? How about figures?

R: The experiment was a 5x2 factorial design, with 5 types of fertilizer (incubated ash, unincubated ash, organomineral, mineral and control) and 2 types of liming (with and without liming), for a total of 10 treatments. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show that there was significance in the two factors in isolation, which is why there is only a representation of the values as a function of the fertilizer types in isolation in one figure (1a, 2a and 3a) and liming types in isolation in the other figure (1b, 2b and 3b), and not all 10 treatments in the same figure, as for example in the magnesium variable (Figure 4) where there was an interaction between the factors. This information can also be seen in the supplementary file with the ANOVA showing the isolated effect of the treatments and, as a result, isolated graphs for the treatments.

We really appreciate your feedback, your time spent correcting our manuscript and your suggestions.

-In table 1, the units and format seem too messy, please revise them with simple and better consistent units (good for comparison).

R: The authors would like to thank you for your feedback. As suggested by the reviewer, table 1 has been reorganized using as a reference the measurement units of an article already published in the journal Horticulturae (https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11050521).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully revised the manuscript, and the revised version is now acceptable.

Author Response

We really appreciate your feedback, your time spent correcting our manuscript and your suggestions.