Influence of Fertilizer Application Rates on Hydrologic Fluxes and Soil Health in Maize Cultivation in Southern Texas, United States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe idea behind the manuscript is intriguing, but major and several corrections are needed in data accuracy, scientific depth, and presentation jeopardise it as it is. It could add to the body of knowledge on fertiliser management with considerable adjustments, but it is unfit for publishing without such enhancements. Please check the commented manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
While a professional editing service could improve readability, thorough proofreading is required to fix mistakes and standardise terminology. To satisfy the requirements for a scientific publication, certain changes are necessary.
Author Response
Please find it attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSoil fertilization plays an important role in crop yield and soil health. The topic falls within the journal scope. However, the manuscript needs a thorough revision.
- Please enhance the novelty. Similar research has been published, and what's the research gap? The introduction should be enhanced. Now the background of this study is too long and scattered. Please focus on the topic and conduct a comprehensive review to clearly show the research gap and the novelty of this study.
- The abstract should clearly show the objective of this study. Please add some specific data to support the conclusion.
- The discussion is too shallow. Please cite other references to compare and support your results.
- Please enhance the figures with high resolution.
- Please use standard unit, such as kg, ha, etc.
Author Response
Please find it attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topics of this paper fall in the field of agrobiotechnology, having as main objective to highlight the effect of fertilizer application rate on maize cultivation in South Texas region.
After a well cited introduction on recent advances in nitrogen fertilization on various types of soils in different conditions of moisture, temperature, electrical conductivity, and soil depths, some adverse factors with negative impact are also mentioned, with the need to optimize the agricultural productivity in the studied area.
In this context, the research location was a farm in Waller Country, known for its diverse geography, climate and agricultural practices in maize cultivation.
Experimental design and fertilizer applications are quantified presented and followed by methods used for soil sensors installation data collection, and statistical analysis.
The main original contributions are related to the impact of fertilizer application rates on electrical conductivity of soil samples and its variation with the types of treatment with soil temperature and electrical conductivity, soil moisture distribution, rainfall.
In spite of these merits in the context, the text has numerous errors that must be corrected, as follows.
- Line 20: “in compare” – must be corrected.
- Line 23: the units m3/m3 – number 3 should be written as upper index (power).
- Lines 33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 46, 224, 265, 279, 336, etc. – a free space is need before the number in parenthesis.
- Line 92 – specifically, not spe-cifically.
- Line 109: “agroecological” should be “agro-ecological”.
- Lines 121, 122, 123, etc. – Cardinal points must be with capital letters.
- Line 126 – A free space must be in “maize cultivation”.
- Line 131: Figure 1 must have the title below it.
- Line 183: A free space is needed between the words: than surface.
- Line 186 – the name of the author Sheldon must begin with capital letter.
- Line 188 – a free space is need before a title.
- Line 325 – “that how” – must be rephrased.
- Line 326 – “interact” – should be “interactions”.
- Line 328 – “it’s important” – should be “it is important”.
- Line 350 – (about) – the free space must be removed.
- Lines 362 – 363 – “may guide…the fertilizer guidelines” should be reformulated; suggestion: “… may provide the development of …”
Author Response
Please find it attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for submitting the revised manuscript and for providing detailed responses to my previous comments. I have carefully reviewed the changes you have made, including the specific line references in the cleaned version of the manuscript. Overall, the revisions address all of my concerns effectively, enhancing the clarity, justification, and depth of the study. The additions provide better context for the findings, strengthen the connections to broader implications, and improve the methodological and analytical details.
Author Response
Comments: Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript and for providing detailed responses to my previous comments. I have carefully reviewed the changes you have made, including the specific line references in the cleaned version of the manuscript. Overall, the revisions address all of my concerns effectively, enhancing the clarity, justification, and depth of the study. The additions provide better context for the findings, strengthen the connections to broader implications, and improve the methodological and analytical details.
Response: We appreciate reviewer's time and efforts in helping to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed the concerns. I think it can be accepted after a minor revision. Please put the figures and tables in the corresponding places, after the text. Please revise the conclusion more clearly. Lots of treatment1, or 2 lower the readablity.
Author Response
Comments: The authors have addressed the concerns. I think it can be accepted after a minor revision.
Response: We appreciate reviewer's time and efforts in helping to improve the quality of this manuscript
Please put the figures and tables in the corresponding places, after the text.
Response: Thank you. We rearranged the figures and tables (hilighted captions) close to first citation in the text.
Please revise the conclusion more clearly. Lots of treatment1, or 2 lower the readability.
Response: Thank you. We modified the conclusion and also lowered the repeated treatment 1, 2, and 3 in the text.
