Maximizing Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Productivity Through Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers in Alkaline Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

I have carefully reviewed this manuscript on common bean productivity using organic and inorganic fertilizers in alkaline soil. While the results show promise, with yields increasing upon application of 5,000 kg/ha organic fertilizer, the study lacks novelty and fails to explain the mechanisms behind common bean growth and physiological responses to fertilizers. Although yield and yield components are essential parameters, the absence of physiological data to explain underlying mechanisms is a critical limitation. Therefore, I recommend author add more results and resubmit this manuscript in Applied Biosciences again.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

   Table 1; rewrite the title of this table.

·         Fig 5, image one title should be ‘’experiment 1’’ 2020.

·         Line 156, the first word must be capital.

·         Need more literature in this introduction section.

·         Write the main objectives at the end of the introduction section.

·         The significance of the research is missing in the introduction section.

·         The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors.

·         Please add more previous research in the discussion section and compare their research for scientific results.

·         Write future recommendations in conclusion.

·         The conclusion needs to be rearranged.

 

·         Rewrite the Conclusion section and the author must more clearly highlight the theoretical and practical implications of your research and discuss research contributions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Many sentences do not mean any sense. Moreover, there are several sloppy errors that should be fixed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The manuscript has been significantly improved. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript is well-readable and interesting, but somewhere, the manuscript should be improved. Furthermore, the manuscript contains several types and grammatical mistakes that should be double-checked. The main issues that I would like the authors to clarify concern:

1. Abstract: The abstract, although useful, may improve its impact by including a succinct conclusion comment regarding the larger significance of the findings, such as implications for sustainable agriculture.

2. Introduction: It is advisable to simplify the narrative to reduce redundancy, especially concerning the advantages of organic fertilizers and biological nitrogen fixation, as these aspects are reiterated several times.

3. The presentation of the research methodology lacks clarity. Provide a rationale for the selected fertilizer amounts. Given that beans are leguminous plants, why did you use such a high amount of N? A comprehensive description of the statistical analysis methods, including a software version and specific tests, would improve reproducibility.

4. Results

The authors should enhance the presented results. When presenting findings, include additional interpretative commentary. Provide context regarding the statistical significance of the findings. Examine the reasons behind the superior performance of certain fertilization applications, such as O5000N60D50, compared to others. Graphical data presentations, such as figures depicting growth/yield trends, could use error bars or confidence intervals for enhanced clarity. Emphasize the practical implications for farmers, especially in resource-limited environments.

Generally, the tables (e.g., Table 2—growth parameters) are dense with data but lack immediate interpretability due to formatting. Condensing and highlighting key findings would aid reader comprehension

5. Discussion

Certain sections contain excessive detail, and the citations could be streamlined. Emphasize the wider implications of the study's impact on agricultural science and policy.

6. Conclusions

Emphasize the findings' scalability and relevance to other crops or regions with similar soil and climate characteristics.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The manuscript has been significantly improved. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report

General

This manuscript was to investigate the impact of organic and inorganic fertilizers combined application on common bean growth and yield. The result showed that the the O5000N60D50, O5000N60D100, and O5000N90D100 treatments significantly (p<0.05) increased the grain yield compared to control. Organic and inorganic fertilizers combined application increase soybean yield by increasing SPAD value, number of pods per plant and number of seeds per pod. The O5000N60D50 treatment, containing low nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer rates compared to other effective treatments, shows the potential to considerably enhance common bean productivity by incorporating organic fertilizer and result in mitigating inorganic fertilizer applications. I believe that the study is relevant to the aims and scope of the “Applied Biosciences”. However, the manuscript needs manor revision before it can be accepted for publication in this journal.

 

Specific comments will follow below.

Abstract: 

L19, Two-year experiments (2020 and 2021) , L25, L27, In experiment I, in experiment II. There's essentially only one trial, so why describe it in terms of experiment I and experiment II.

L29-32, The results show the same rule, combine the two, the result will be more condensed.

 

Keywords: 

DAP, DAP was not previously defined and the acronym needed to be defined.

 

Materials and Methods:

L105, A field trial experiment was conducted from 2020 (experiment I) to 2021 (experiment II). It is just an experiment done for two years, why the use of experiment I and experiment II, really can not understand.

L122, l124, Move the nutrient content of L130 urea to here, and supplement the nutrient content of phosphate fertilizer.

A three-line table is added to more clearly show all the treatments in the manuscript, and clarify the nutrient content of each treatment, especially the NPK nutrient content of organic fertilizer, which is not explained in the manuscript.

Table 1, CaCO3, CaCO₃.

Fig. 2, Delete the experiment and keep only the year.

Statistical analysis: The statistical analysis of the experimental results in the manuscript is not rigorous, since the same experiment has been conducted for two years, the results of the two years should be analyzed together in the statistical analysis, rather than the results of each year. In addition, this was a three-factor trial, and the authors did not take into account the interaction effects between the experimental factors.

 

Results: 

The author further improves the method of statistical analysis and reorganizes the results. The results of two years of test are analyzed together, and it is unnecessary to describe the test results separately according to the year.

L194, Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited. What’s mean?

Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Delete the experiment and keep only the year.

Too much emphasis on experiments I and II gives the impression that they are two different experiments, when in fact the same experiment was conducted for two years.

 

Discussion:

Similar problems also exist in the Discussion section, which needs to be written according to the new results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The manuscript has been significantly improved. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authurs,

Thank you for your response.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

sorry for the delay.

in its present form, the manuscript is well readable, the ideas presented by the authors are easy to follow, and the new facts brought to the readers can be understandable.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Key words: Common bean; Organic and inorganic fertilizers; Yield; Productivity; Alkaline soil

Table 1, Add comments for graphs and tables.

The "year" part of the reference is bold, and the part is not bold.

Author Response

No	Comments	Responses
1	Suggested Keywords: Common bean; Organic and inorganic fertilizers; Yield; Productivity; Alkaline soil	Thank you very much. Suggested keywords were added to the Manuscript and highlighted (line 36).
2	Table 1, Add comments for graphs and tables.	Thanks. The graphs and tables now have further details. The highlighted words are new information added to the manuscript.
3	The "year" part of the reference is bold, and the part is not bold.	Thanks. All remaining parts of the year were bolded in the reference part.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf