Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel Residues Affect the Biomass and Soil Quality of Plantation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors and Editor,

The work is very relevant and presents a very relevant approach, especially when it presents the question of the model thinking about soil quality and plant biomass. Even now I emphasize that this is the most relevant point of the work and is shaded with experimental questions, it even deserves to be highlighted in the title for this.

Important points to review:

1. Initially at the beginning of the work, already in the abstract when talking about the treatments, only the acronyms are presented in which the reader still cannot identify, must describe the treatments or generalize the treatment approach that was used.

2. Tea tree oil (TTO) is the common name for the plant, right? The link with the acronym was not clear.

3. Still in the introduction, the authors use many acronyms that are not explained satisfactorily or their links to the work are not demonstrated (eg SQI, PCA, GIS, etc...). This should be better addressed because the work itself presents several acronyms that can confuse the reader.

4. At the end of the introduction, the treatments are presented in abbreviations as in the abstract. Must review this.

5. In material and method, treatments should be more detailed and explained. Some are processes carried out and this can be better elaborated with details of what was done to arrive at that particular treatment.

6. In the results, soil data in general deserves to be presented, even if in the form of an appendix.

7. The ANOVA of the result is not described in the material and method.

8. The approach of the biomass model in relation to soil quality deserves to be highlighted in the work.

9. It is even worth checking the possibility of putting more soil quality variables compared to each other, especially chemical variables with biological variables. Since the soil quality macro variable involves several others that can be compared with each other and not merely excluded or inserted in the variable according to statistical criteria.

10. The general discussion of the work is poor, the issue of models that present soil quality and production quality could be better worked on.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (Professor),

Thanks for your insightful comments. Your suggestions are extremely valuable for improving this paper.We read your suggestions one by one and revised in the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The conducted research is interesting and significant in its scientific nature.

A few notes:

 

1. The purpose of the research is not clearly formulated.

2. There is no map and no accurate soil sampling scheme.

3. 22 measured soil indicators were selected to construct the total data set (TDS). What kind?

4. The description of statistical data analysis in the methodology is very laconic. It must be specifically specified which indicators are calculated in which ways.

5. Line 171 refers to figure 1; Lines 189 and 192 refer to Figure 2. There is no image in the article.

5. Descriptive conclusions. Must be specific, based on results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (Professor),

Thanks for your insightful comments. Your suggestions are extremely valuable for improving this paper. We read your suggestions one by one and revised in the manuscript. 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form