Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp Applications for Enhancing Soil Fertility and Crop Nutritional Qualities: A Review
, Michael Adesokan 2, Segun Fawole 2, Busie Maziya-Dixon 2, Tesfai Mehreteab 3 and David Chikoye 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focuses the importance of Gliricidia sepium as beneficial specie to improve soil fertility and crop nutritional properties. It is a very interesting subject however I have some comments:
It is important in the introduction to give a thorough description of the specie Gliricidia sepia, perhaps a photo will help, this is a relatively unknown specie in Europe. If you intend to use this species as a beneficial specie it would be interesting if you include a brief revision about the propagation problems. One of the concerns I have with this kind of species is his potential to become an infesting specie. So, it would be important to refer this concern in the text and to cite a couple of relevant articles about this problem.
I think The material and Methods section is unnecessary, unless it is a rule from the journal.
Line 91 – CH4 emissions – I believe these are animal emissions…should be more clear
101 – biochar from gliricidia is much different from other biochar’s? Perhaps it would be interesting to explore, if possible, a little more this subject.
Author Response
WE have uploaded our responses in word format.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a review on the applications of G. sepium for enhancing soil fertility and crop nutritional qualities. The topic is not new as there are several explorations of the uses and applications of G. sepium. However, It could provide additional and evolving information on its use in recent times if the review is diligently done. As it is the review only captured its importance in improving soil fertility and yield of crops. The current manuscript seems not to adequately capture some key areas it was proposed to cover as given in the objectives. For example, the soil microbial composition, soil carbon, and nitrogen-fixing in soils it proposes to address, and the synthesis of the knowledge gaps in Gliricidia sepium utilization for crop production were not addressed or not discussed.
The review needs to be significantly rewritten. There should be subsections dealing with its impact on microbial composition, its effect on soil C, and adequate information on its role in N fixation for the use of crops. Another section should be dedicated to the synthesis of the knowledge gaps that have been extracted from literature. These properly written sections will make the manuscript clearer.
The following concerns should also be addressed to improve the manuscript.
Line 43: G. sepium should be written in full at first mention in the introduction
Line 57: ‘Aulanni’am et al. 2021’ is an improper way of citation. Correct it accordingly
Line 71: …..application of gliricidia agroforestry? Rephrase the sentence to make it clearer
Line 90-91: ‘Méndez-Bautista et al. 2009’ is an improper way of citation. Correct it accordingly
Line 91-92: CH4, CO2, and N2O should be written in full at first mention
Line 102: put a space between 300 and 0C. Do the same for other similar ones on the line and the entire manuscript where applicable
Line 132-133: A. auriculiformis, A. zygia, A. indica, B. nitida, G. sepium, L. leucocephala, T. diversifolia, S. spectabilis, and Z. mays should all be written in full at first mention. Do the same for all Scientific names on line 135 and all through the manuscript.
Line 165: write ‘N’ in full at first mention and be consistent across the manuscript.
Line 201: write Cr, Ni, and Mn in full at first mention. This is important as non-scientists could benefit from the content of the review if they find it useful.
Line 249: ‘Tesfai et al., 2022’ is an improper way of citation. Correct it accordingly
The conclusion and recommendations should not have citations and should be summarized to capture the key findings of the review while highlighting areas that need further attention
Author Response
We have uploaded our responses in word format.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did a good job in addressing the comments raised. The current version has been significantly improved.
The authors need to make some minor edits and carefully read through the entire manuscript for any typographic or syntax errors, eg.
Check for these issues in the clean manuscript you attached as a supplementary document,
Line 89, 150: the “s” in soil should be in uppercase
Line 233: Italicize Gliricidia sepium
Author Response
The authors did a good job in addressing the comments raised. The current version has been significantly improved.
Response: Thank you for the positive comments, and we appreciate the time taken to review our manuscript
Comment 2
The authors need to make some minor edits and carefully read through the entire manuscript for any typographic or syntax errors, eg.
Check for these issues in the clean manuscript you attached as a supplementary document,
Line 89, 150: the “s” in soil should be in uppercase
Line 233: Italicize Gliricidia sepium
Response: We have carefully read the manuscript and corrected all typos and syntax errors. Also, our science editor has a final quick edit. We have made corrections to Lines 89, 150 and 233 as advised.
All corrections are shown in track changes in the revised version uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
