Different Soil Properties, Wolfberry Yields, and Quality Responses to Organic Fertilizer Levels in Two Fields with Varying Fertility Levels in Qaidam
, Youliang Wang 4, Shouzhong Xie 4, Tahir Shah 2, Chi Zhang 2, Hangle Ren 2, Chongpeng Zheng 2, Rong Zhang 3,*, Haiyan Sheng 1,5,* and Yajun Gao 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have endeavours an interesting work of validating influence of organic farming in woflberry. The following information were needed for making the manuscript more interesting.
L99-103: Specify the criteria for selecting doses of application as treatment, especially the highest one?
L120-122: Why the depth of soil sampling was different in two fertility regime? How the representative soil samples were prepared for soil analysis? What was the recommended fertilizer dose of wolfberry?
L124-129: Cite the references of different soil parameter analysis.
L157: Which design was used for ANOVA?
Table2: Number of picking of fruits was different in two fertility situation. How the author compared the yield between two situations?
Table 5: Provide the year wise nutrient composition data of wolfberry.
Table 6: Provide the year wise antioxidant activity data of wolfberry.
Author must do combine Redundancy analysis (RDA) of two fertility status for identifying key variables.
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 1:
Authors have endeavours an interesting work of validating influence of organic farming in woflberry. The following information were needed for making the manuscript more interesting.
Response: Thanks for the recognition of our work.
L99-103: Specify the criteria for selecting doses of application as treatment, especially the highest one?
Response: Before the start of the field experiments, we investigated the fertilization situation in this area. We found that the most of the farmers applies to 2-8 kg organic manure/plant and very few farmers applies to more than 10 kg organic manure/plant in the higher fertility soils while the most of the farmers applies to 5-13 kg organic manure/plant in the lower fertility soils. Based on this information, we setup 10 and 15 (equal or little more than the local maximum dose) as the maximum dose of organic manure as treatments for high fertility field and low fertility field respectively.
L120-122: Why the depth of soil sampling was different in two fertility regime? How the representative soil samples were prepared for soil analysis? What was the recommended fertilizer dose of wolfberry?
Response: In this area, wolfberry is grown in two kinds of fields, one is mature soils with higher fertility, which account for roughly two thirds of the total orchards, and another one is gobi desert with very low fertility, which account for one thirds of the total orchards. That is also why we choose two fields to conduct the experiment. In the field with high fertility, we can sample soils up to the 200 cm depth because soil is not so hard, however, we only can sample soils up to 100 cm depth in the field with low fertility because the subsoil is actually not real soil, is sand plus stones.
The whole soil preparation process, including soil sampling in the fields, soil airdrying, grinding and sieving in the lab is according to the protocol (Lu, R.Q. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis methods; Chinese Agriculture Science and Technology Press: Beijing China, 2000; pp12-163).
We could not find the recommended organic fertilizer dose from the local agricultural technology extension department.
L124-129: Cite the references of different soil parameter analysis.
Response: We cite the reference “Lu, R.Q. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis methods; Chinese Agriculture Science and Technology Press: Beijing China, 2000; pp12-163” of soil analysis methods in the manuscript.
L157: Which design was used for ANOVA?
Response: The experiment was arranged in random block design.
Table2: Number of picking of fruits was different in two fertility situation. How the author compared the yield between two situations?
Response: We used the different method to harvest the fruits and estimated the fruits yield. So, there is no comparison between the yield data of two fertility situations. However, this does not affect the theme of the manuscript. The purpose of the manuscript is to find the optimal manure dose in the two situations. It is not necessary to compare the yield or other properties of fruits or soils.
Table 5: Provide the year wise nutrient composition data of wolfberry.
Response: We only measured nutrient composition of the second crop in 2021. So, we could not provide the year wise data. We revised the related information in Line 137-138, 2.3.2, Material and Methods.
Table 6: Provide the year wise antioxidant activity data of wolfberry.
Response: We only measured antioxidant activity of the second crop in 2021. So, we could not provide the year wise data. We revised the related information in Line 137-138, 2.3.2, Material and Methods.
Author must do combine Redundancy analysis (RDA) of two fertility status for identifying key variables.
Response: That is fine. We add this information in the end of Line 291.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Keyword should be very short
- Need to add more about introduction with recent references
- Write discussion one by one with all parameter it is like materials and method
- Reference not enough need to add more reference
- Figure 1 and Figure 2 not clear
- Write conclusion in separate headlines
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 2:
- Keyword should be very short
Response: We change some of Keywords.
- Need to add more about introduction with recent references
Response: We add more about introduction with recent references in Line 78.
- Write discussion one by one with all parameter it is like materials and method
Response: In discussion, we combined the main results of wolfberry yield, nutrient composition of fruits and soil properties, analyzed the relationship between organic manure dose and soil properties, wolfberry yield and nutrient composition of fruits. Finally, we presented the recommendation of organic manure dose in orchard with different fertility. We don’t think it is necessary to write discussion one by one with all parameters.
- Reference not enough need to add more reference
Response: We add more recent references.
- Figure 1 and Figure 2 not clear
Response: We replace the Fig.1 and Fig.2 with higher resolution pictures.
- Write conclusion in separate headlines
Response: We add conclusion in separate headline.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is well-written, and the results are presented in order. However, there are some improvements needed to be made. This article can be polished in terms of the discussion (as I commented in the article) and needs some addition of relevant references.
I am aware that in this article there is no section on Conclusion. I suggest this section should be prepared.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 3:
This article is well-written, and the results are presented in order. However, there are some
improvements needed to be made. This article can be polished in terms of the discussion (as I commented in the article(attached)) and needs some addition of relevant references.
Line 101: Please briefly explain why choose this time
Response: “The organic fertilizer was applied in mid-May every year”. This is the normal operation in local area. In mid-May, wolfberry tree begins to sprout, large amount of nutrition is required so that it is the time to apple to base manure.
Line 105-109: Why use different suppliers for fertiliser? Are the NPK element percentages comparable?
Response: In this research, we use two field to conduct experiment, only because they represent two kinds of typical wolfberry orchards in this area. One is mature soils with higher fertility, which account for roughly two thirds of the total orchards, and another one is gobi desert with very low fertility, which account for one thirds of the total orchards. These two kinds of orchards not only have quite different soil fertility, but also have different cropping pattern, and different management methods as well. So, there is no comparison between two fields.
Line 110-113: Why are the plant ages, row spacings, and plant spacings used in this study different in high fertility fields and low fertility fields? Please explain & justify
Response: In this research, we use two field to conduct experiment, only because they represent two kinds of typical wolfberry orchards in this area. One is mature soils with higher fertility, which account for roughly two thirds of the total orchards, and another one is gobi desert with very low fertility, which account for one thirds of the total orchards. These two kinds of orchards not only have quite different soil fertility, but also have different cropping pattern, and different management methods as well. So, there is no comparison between two fields.
Line 120-122: Why don't you standardise the sampling of soil between these two fields
Response: In this area, wolfberry is grown in two kinds of fields, one is mature soils with higher fertility, which account for roughly two thirds of the total orchards, and another one is gobi desert with very low fertility, which account for one thirds of the total orchards. That is also why we choose two fields to conduct the experiment. In the field with high fertility, we can sample soils up to the 200 cm depth because soil is not so hard, however, we only can sample soils up to 100 cm depth in the field with low fertility because the subsoil is actually not real soil, is sand plus stones.
Line 156-157: Please explain these two abbreviations (DPS, LSD)
Response: DPS---Data Processing System, a statistic analysis software developed by a Chinese company. LSD---Least Significance Difference, one of the multiple comparison methods based on F test.
Line 303-304: Does SOM and OM same?
Response: SOM is same as OM.
Line 334-337: Please provide the relevant references for this statement
Response: We add relevant references.
Line 338: Change important to potential
Response: We replace “important” with “potential”.
Line 343-344: Please provide related reference
Response: We add relevant references.
Line 346-348: Please do discuss your results with related study
Response: We add relevant references to show the relationship between wolfberry fruit composition and human health.
Line 355-358: I reckon this statement does not relevant to this study...
Response: This statement shows the importance of flavonoids, polysaccharides content for human health. Combined this sentence and the next sentence, we want to express that increase of flavonoids, polysaccharides content by appropriate dose of organic fertilizer is a valuable result.
Line 364-368: You should cite more than 1 reference based on the first sentence "Some studies... (Rodriguez-Ortiz et al. 2022)
Response: This is a mistake. In fact, there is only one reference shows this result. So, we change the expression of this sentence.
I am aware that in this article there is no section on Conclusion. I suggest this section should be prepared.
Response: We add conclusion in separate headline.
More references are needed to support some of the statements given in this article. However, many of the references cited are less than 5 years old. Please do add other relevant references as commented in the article.
Response: We add more recent references.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLetter to Authors
Dear Authors,
below the suggestions.
Abstract: You should delete the words and letters related to the topic of the sentences. In addition, you should specify the plant species, the types of analyses you performed and give some numerical results. Also, you should provide a reason why you stated in conclusion, being less general.
Line 36: provide the scientific name of the plant species with author (example: Solanum lycopersicum L.)
Line 38: add reference
Line 87: 2790 m above sea level? Please add
Line 89: add reference
Lines 91-96: add coordinates of the experimental sites.
The experimental design is not clear. Please make it simpler to understand.
Report the references for all the measurements you performed.
Line 160: delete the word “analysis” and follow the template provided by the journal. Format also the references as requested.
The quality of all the figures (that do not report the units) needs to be checked. They are not clear. What do you mean for first, second and third? Mention them before and in the captions.
In the Methods the detailed sampled depths are not clear.
RDA is not present in the Methods.
The Discussion does not provide relevant comparisons with the current literature and the conclusions are not present. Please re-write.
Regards
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 4:
Abstract: You should delete the words and letters related to the topic of the sentences. In addition, you should specify the plant species, the types of analyses you performed and give some numerical results. Also, you should provide a reason why you stated in conclusion, being less general.
Response: We revised the abstract according to the comments.
Line 36: provide the scientific name of the plant species with author (example: Solanum
lycopersicum L.)
Response: We add the scientific name.
Line 38: add reference
Response: We add relevant reference.
Line 87: 2790 m above sea level? Please add
Response: yes, we add it.
Line 89: add reference
Response: We add relevant reference.
Lines 91-96: add coordinates of the experimental sites.
Response: We add coordinates of the experimental sites.
The experimental design is not clear. Please make it simpler to understand.
Response: We describe the experiment design following the professional requirement.
Report the references for all the measurements you performed.
Response: We add relevant reference.
Line 160: delete the word “analysis” and follow the template provided by the journal. Format also the references as requested.
Response: We revise the format of the title and references.
The quality of all the figures (that do not report the units) needs to be checked. They are not clear.
Response: We replace the figures with new ones.
What do you mean for first, second and third? Mention them before and in the captions.
Response: We mention them in “material and methods” and in the captions of figures or tables.
In the Methods the detailed sampled depths are not clear.
Response: We revise it in 2.3.1.
RDA is not present in the Methods.
Response: We add it in 2.3.4.
The Discussion does not provide relevant comparisons with the current literature and the
conclusions are not present. Please re-write.
Response: We re-write it.
The references should be improved.
Response: We add more recent references.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, my suggestions have not been applied.
Discussion still lacks in comparisons with relevant literature and Conclusions are not written right.
Author Response
Discussion still lacks in comparisons with relevant literature and Conclusions are not written right.
Response: We revised the Discussion and Conclusions again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the Discussion section does not report Figures or Tables.
Also, more comparisons with your results with current literature are needed, especially for Section 4.2: see and compare also with https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01552-y and https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7020038.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English must be revised.
Author Response
(1)the Discussion section does not report Figures or Tables.
Response: We delete the redundant description of Figures or Tables in Discussion.
(2)Also, more comparisons with your results with current literature are needed, especially for Section 4.2: see and compare also with https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01552-y and https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7020038.
Response: We revised the Discussion again, especially for Section 4.2. More literatures are cited to compare with our results.
