Effect of Plastic Membrane and Geotextile Cloth Mulching on Soil Moisture and Spring Maize Growth in the Loess–Hilly Region of Yan’an, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 In particular, the following necessary improvements are:

 -It is recommended to accurately review the English form; example:  In order to study the effect of Plastic membrane-geotextile cloth mulching on soil moisture and crop growth in the loess hilly region; plastic embrane-geotextile

-The authors should also review the technical terms in the manuscript to meet the standard set by the Journal.

-page 2, line 95-97: “The area has an average annual precipitation of 500mm, an altitude of 1068~1309m, an average temperature of 8.8℃, a cumulative temperature of ≥10℃ of 2866℃”. Response: “a cumulative temperature” What does it refer to? To the Growing Degree Days? please change the term.

 -Page 2, line 99-100: “Soil capacity (0~2 m) ranged from 1.21 to 1.39 g·cm^-3, with the average capacity of 1.3 g·cm^-3.” Response: “Soil capacity” What does it refer to? To the soil bulk density? Please change the term.

-Page 3, line 106-107: “The treatments include: (1) plastic membrane-geotextile cloth mulching on the ridge (MB), (2) geotextile cloth mulching on the ridge (DB)”. Response: Specify the characteristics of the 2 geotextiles.

-Page 4, line 127: “Long Sheng I (LS01×AX10) hybrid maize was planted, with the average spacing of 40 cm”. Response: spacing of 40 cm on the row, with an investment of 5 plants per square meter?. The number of plants per square meter is very important for the availability of water in the soil and for production.

-Figure 5: The values of the relative humidity axis must be from 30 to 100 and not from 0.3 to 1.

-Page 5-6: Please move the paragraph “2.2.3. Data statistics and analysis” after “2.2.4. Determination of maize agronomic traits, yield and quality”. In addition, report in greater detail the data analysis performed and the statistical test used to verify the assumptions of homogeneity of variances.

-In the legends of the figures expand the abbreviations (for example: LR, MR, HR and S; VWC) and provide readers with all the necessary information.

It is recommended to accurately review the English form

Author Response

We thank you for your critical comments, which greatly contributed to the rigor and scientific of the manuscript. The manuscript is thoroughly amended based on the constructive suggestions from you. According to the requirements, the revised content has been marked in red, and the specific revisions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The experiment was set up correctly. However, the main focus was on humidity and water evaporation from the soil. Too little attention was paid to the influence of three types of mulches on the growth and quality of maize seeds. Methodological assumptions are not clearly stated in the appropriate place (not in the results). The values of changes in maize growth and yield were not provided. The discussion is the weakest part of the work, it is compared only to two other studies, one of them incorrectly (the nitrogen content was not tested). This should be thoroughly refined and the impact of various mulches on the growth and yield of other plants studied by other authors should be provided. The list of references with initials of names and surnames says nothing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language of the publication is unquestionable.

Author Response

We thank you for your critical comments, which greatly contributed to the rigor and scientific of the manuscript. The manuscript is thoroughly amended based on the constructive suggestions from you. According to the requirements, the revised content has been marked in red, and the specific revisions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is within scope of the Agronomy and may be accepted for publication after major revisions. Specially the results should be discussed and the introduction should be rewrite. The title of the figures should be more complete, more information should be included. The abstract should be reduced to the maximum of 200 words. Specific comments were done along the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank you for your critical comments, which greatly contributed to the rigor and scientific of the manuscript. The manuscript is thoroughly amended based on the constructive suggestions from you. According to the requirements, the revised content has been marked in red, and the specific revisions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The contribution is thematically focused on the issue of the effect of plastic membrane-geotextile mulching on soil moisture and spring corn growth in the loess hilly area of Yan'an, China. Overall, the contribution is done to a good standard. I recommend the authors to consistently indicate the basic SI system, i.e. mm instead of the unit, both in the text itself and also in the graphs. In the results section, I recommend that the values listed in Tables 3 and 4 be evaluated using appropriate statistical methods and that the possible evidence of the differences between the evaluated variants be evaluated. I consider it very important to complete the discussion, in which the results are insufficiently confronted with work with a similar theme. Also, the conclusion does not sufficiently characterize the achieved results. I also recommend doing a language correction. I also recommend revising the cited literature and presenting it in accordance with the standard for bibliometric citations. After processing these comments, the text can be accepted for publication.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We thank you for your critical comments, which greatly contributed to the rigor and scientific of the manuscript. The manuscript is thoroughly amended based on the constructive suggestions from you. According to the requirements, the revised content has been marked in red, and the specific revisions are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering my comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments again！

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was improved but some minor revision are necessary, according to described below:

Table 1-verify, the seedling stage last 30 days, and not 10 days.

Line 202: replace Ani et al [21] and Duncan et al [22] for Ani et al. [21] and Duncan et al. [22].

Along the manuscript, replace P < 0.05 for p < 0.05.

Line 387: replace Zhang et al [25] and Zhao et al [26] for Zhang et al. [25] and Zhao et al. [26].

The first paragraph of the discussion is too long, break it.

Line 403: insert the number of the reference in the Wu et al. [??].

Line 410: insert the number of the reference in the He et al. [??].

Line 430: insert the number of the reference in the Liang et al. [??]

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript again. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. The red part has been revised according to your comments. Thanks again!