The Effect of Balanced N, P and K Fertilization on Fine Root Traits and Soil Properties in Sapindus mukorossi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research question is relevant, and significant, and has the potential to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your field. I recommend consolidating the results and discussion parts to ensure a coherent text. If you prefer to maintain separate sections for Results and Discussion, please avoid redundancy and adhere to the sequential order of the findings.

Abstract:
- Please provide fertilizer treatment information (fertilizer rates).
Introduction:
- Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 (lines 57-88), require reorganization. Please consider this: The content could be divided into three paragraphs: the first addressing plant root traits and the impact of fertilization on these traits and subsequent plant production, the second discussing soil properties and the influence of fertilization on these properties, consequently affecting plant production, and the third paragraph should provide the significance and the aims of the study based on what you provided in paragraphs 1 and 2. Additionally, take into account the comments provided below.
- Line 61, if applicable please provide information on Sapindus mukorossi as well.
- Line 65, and 66 moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer… However, applying too much fertilizer…. Please provide numbers. How much is moderate and how much is too much Be specific to the species you investigate in this study if applicable.
- Line 70-73, This statement is not clear. Please revise it to improve the clarity and flow of the sentence.
- Lines 73-76, The study does not focus on crop yield and groundwater quality; instead, replace these aspects with elements related to the main topic, such as root traits and soil properties.
- Lines 76-78, Therefore, exploring scientific… this statement is misplaced. It can be incorporated into line 94.
- Lines 78-81, In addition, unscientific fertilization… this statement is too long and not grammatically correct. Revise it please and move it to paragraph 3 where you are talking about the significance of your study on Sapindus mukorossi and the effect of fertilizer (see the first comment on the Introduction).
- Line 87, Therefore, a reasonable combination… this statement is misplaced. It can be integrated into line 94.
Materials and Methods
- Lines 108-113 Soil characteristics need to be showcased in a table, and reference to the table should be made within this paragraph
- Line 115, this is repeating line 111.
- Line 119 fertilizers(…., Space between fertilizers and parentheses
- Line 123, “was no fertilization”, no need to mention this.
- Lines 124-130 fertilizer was applied…, This sentence is lengthy; kindly split it into two separate sentences.
Results
- Line 162, here you can identify abbreviations. Abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently thereafter. So, you can use abbreviations in the rest of the manuscript like in line 215 (SOC instead of Soil organic carbon). There are several lines you can check and revise. Please check all the text for this issue.
- Table 1, space between Table and 1. Also, why this table is divided into 2 tables?
- Line 134 line spacing
Equations Please use the Equation tool If you are using Word. Please use either the Microsoft Equation Editor or the MathType add-on. Equations are better to be numbered.
- Line 185, …Sapindus mukorossi were significantly…, p value?
- Fig. 1, and 2 treatments in the legend box are not clear. Boxes and patterns should be larger and clear.
- Line 221, … decreased significantly…, p value?
- Lines 231-234, the statement requires to be divided into 2 clear sentences.
- Line 231-234, RDA analysis showed that 41.10% and 5.64%....; …explained by 35.79% and 9.17% in…, refer to the associated figure (e.g. Fig. 3a).
- Fig. 3, legend content are very small. What is the reason for the asterisks above soil properties (e.g., AP**)?
- Line 238, As can be seen from the figure…, which figure, fig. 3? 3.a or 3.b?
- Line 241, Interestingly, fine root biomass and average…., which depth/fig?
- Line 259, were significantly and positively correlated…, Insert the p value in the text.
- Line 262, significantly negatively correlated, p value? and r2?
- Line 264, significantly and positively correlated…, p value and r squared value?
- Table 3. is not fitted to the page. Asterisks in the rows or columns represent significance?
Discussion
     I recommend consolidating the results and discussion parts to ensure a coherent text. If you prefer to maintain separate sections for Results and Discussion, please avoid redundancy and adhere to the sequential order of the findings.
- Lines 279-285, excessively long sentence. Split it into 2-3 sentences. Line 282, space between cm and parentheses.
- Lines 306, In conclusion… this statement is better to be moved to the Conclusion section.
- Lines 311-313. This is misplaced. Here the effect of fertilizer on soil properties is discussed. So, remove it please.
- Lines 316-317, you can use abbreviations. See the comment above.
- Line 319, double spaced between words. Citrus reticulata Blanco in Italic.
- Lines 320-323, this is duplicated. Please note that the discussion section should not duplicate the study results.
- Line 324, check for the space between words.
- Lines 326-330, not a clear statement. Too long. Divide it into 2-3 clear statements. Why etc.?
- Lines 331-333, this is duplicated. Please see the above comment.
- Lines 357-360, same issue. Repeating the study findings.
- Lines 369-373, this is not aligned with the previous statement (lines 366-373). Please double-check if this is true.
- Lines 373-374, not relevant to this section. Remove it please.
- Line 384, S Sapindus?

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In scientific papers, statements should generally be simple, clear, and precise. Clarity is crucial to ensure that the intended message is accurately communicated and that readers can comprehend the research findings or arguments presented in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-Chief:

We have revised our previously-submitted manuscript entitled “Effect of balanced N, P and K fertilization on fine root traits and soil properties in “Sapindus mukorossi” (Manuscript ID: 2777974) by carefully following the comments by the two reviewers and the editor. Now, we resubmit the new manuscript based on the suggestions.

In this revised version we have responded to each of the issues raised by the reviewers to improve both the scope and expression of the work. The major changes in the current revision include:

• We have revised the figures to make them more clearly, as suggested by the Reviewer #1.
• We made an explanation to the question “Why maximum proportion of fertilizer was not applied as basal dose or at flowering stage instead of applying 40% at post-harvest stage”, raised by Reviewer #2.
• We have removed the citation of the publications from Forests and reduced the duplication rate according to the suggestions of the editor.

The detailed responses to specific comments are listed below.

Yours Sincerely,

Juntao Liu

Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer #1:

The research question is relevant, and significant, and has the potential to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your field. I recommend consolidating the results and discussion parts to ensure a coherent text. If you prefer to maintain separate sections for Results and Discussion, please avoid redundancy and adhere to the sequential order of the findings.

Response: Thank you for your recognition to our work. We have responded to your comments very carefully. The detailed responses to specific comments are listed below.

1. Abstract:- Please provide fertilizer treatment information (fertilizer rates).

Response: We agree with your insightful points, we have provided the information of fertilizer treatment in Abstract.  The specific modifications are as follows.

A completely randomized block design experiment was conducted in a Sapindus mukorossi plantation using combinations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) fertilizers at different levels (Control: 0 kg·ha-2 of N, P and K; level 1: 300 kg·ha-2 of N, 250 kg·ha-2 of P, and 200 kg·ha-2 of K; level 2: 600 kg·ha-2 of N, 500 kg·ha-2 of P, and 400 kg·ha-2 of K; and level 3: 900 kg·ha-2 of N, 750 kg·ha-2 of P, and 600 kg·ha-2 of K) in a field trial.

2. Introduction: - Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 (lines 57-88), require reorganization. Please consider this: The content could be divided into three paragraphs: the first addressing plant root traits and the impact of fertilization on these traits and subsequent plant production, the second discussing soil properties and the influence of fertilization on these properties, consequently affecting plant production, and the third paragraph should provide the significance and the aims of the study based on what you provided in paragraphs 1 and 2. Additionally, take into account the comments provided below.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the Introduction according to your suggestion. Please see the L 42-97.

3. - Line 61,if applicable please provide information on Sapindus mukorossi as well.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have provided more information about root research on Sapindus mukorossi. Please see the L59-61.

For example, Yang et al. investigated the effects of substrate and moisture on the root growth of Sapindus mukorossi seedlings, and the results showed that the root biomass, total root length, and root surface area of the seedlings decreased with the decrease of moisture content.

4. -Line 65, and 66 moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer… However, applying too much fertilizer…. Please provide numbers. How much is moderate and how much is too much Be specific to the species you investigate in this study if applicable.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion.  Modify the following: Noguchi et al. found the effect of high N (336 kg ha⁻¹ a⁻¹) load was more evident in fine root morphology than in fine root biomass. Fine root biomass tended to increase under high N load, although the effect was not statistically significant. The increase in SRL in the surface soil may reflect a cost-effective means of acquiring soil resources from N-rich patches. Zhu et al. demonstrate that medium nitrogen addition (moderate 10 kg ha⁻¹ a⁻¹) is conducive to the development of fine root morphology, while excessive nitrogen can suppress the growth of root systems.

5. - Line 70-73, This statement is not clear. Please revise it to improve the clarity and flow of the sentence.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue.

Balanced fertilization is application technology of fertilizer in a reasonable amount, which maintain a balance between soil fertilizer performance and nutrients demand of crops, based on the fertilizer characteristics [19,20].

6. - Lines 73-76, The study does not focus on crop yield and groundwater quality; instead, replace these aspects with elements related to the main topic, such as root traits and soil properties.
   Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this question. We deleted the crop yield and groundwater quality, which are not our focus of attention.
7. - Lines 76-78, Therefore, exploring scientific… this statement is misplaced. It can be incorporated into line 94.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised this part, please see the L.86-89

8.- Lines 78-81, In addition, unscientific fertilization… this statement is too long and not grammatically correct. Revise it please and move it to paragraph 3 where you are talking about the significance of your study on Sapindus mukorossi and the effect of fertilizer (see the first comment on the Introduction).

Response: Thanks for your suggestion.

In addition, unreasonable fertilization can lead to a poor plant growth and reduce flowering and fruit production [20].

9. - Line 87, Therefore, a reasonable combination… this statement is misplaced. It can be integrated into line 94.

Response: Thank you. We have revised this part, please see the L.86-89

10.Materials and Methods- Lines 108-113 Soil characteristics need to be showcased in a table, and reference to the table should be made within this paragraph

Response: Thanks. We have adjusted the soil properties as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Soil properties in different soil layers

Soil layer (cm)	SOC（g/kg）	TN（g/kg）	TP（g/kg）	TK（g/kg）	AK (mg/kg)	AP (mg/kg)	AN (mg/kg)
0-20	10.61	1.90	0.39	27.86	58.63	1.81	43.35
20-40	7.40	1.26	0.35	27.72	49.93	1.12	34.26
40-60	5.24	1.05	0.34	28.27	35.91	1.03	30.43

Note: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus; TK, total potassium; AN, available nitrogen; AP, available phosphorus; AK, available potassium

11. - Line 115, this is repeating line 111.

Response: Thank you. We have deleted the redundant sentence.

12. - Line 119 fertilizers (…., Space between fertilizers and parentheses

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have deleted the space between fertilizers and parentheses.

13.- Line 123, “was no fertilization”, no need to mention this.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have deleted the redundant sentence.

14. - Lines 124-130 fertilizer was applied…, This sentence is lengthy; kindly split it into two separate sentences.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion and we have revised this part, please see the L.120-125.

15.Results- Line 162, here you can identify abbreviations. Abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently thereafter. So, you can use abbreviations in the rest of the manuscript like in line 215 (SOC instead of Soil organic carbon). There are several lines you can check and revise. Please check all the text for this issue.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised according to your suggestion. Please see the revised new manuscript.  

16. - Table 1,space between Table and 1. Also, why this table is divided into 2 tables?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the space between Table and adjusted the format of table 1

17.- Line 134 line spacing Equations Please use the Equation tool If you are using Word. Please use either the Microsoft Equation Editor or the MathType add-on. Equations are better to be numbered.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified the equation.

18. - Line 185, …Sapindus mukorossi were significantly…, p value?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the sentences in new manuscripts

19. - Fig. 1, and 2treatments in the legend box are not clear. Boxes and patterns should be larger and clear.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified Figures 1 and 2 to make them larger and clearer.

20.- Line 221, … decreased significantly…, p value?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the sentences in new manuscripts

21. - Lines 231-234, the statement requires to be divided into 2 clear sentences.

Response: Thanks. We rewrote this sentence.

 

22. - Line 231-234, RDA analysis showed that 41.10% and 5.64%....; …explained by 35.79% and 9.17% in…, refer to the associated figure (e.g. Fig. 3a).

Response: Thank you. We have revised this sentence, please see the L.252-254.

23. - Fig. 3, legend content are very small. What is the reason for the asterisks above soil properties (e.g., AP**)?

Response: Thank you. We have modified and made larger and clearer in Figure 3, where Table 2 is a specific interpretation of the asterisked AP** in Figure 3, showing that soil properties have significant effect on fine root traits.

24. - Line 238, As can be seen from the figure…, which figure, fig. 3? 3.a or 3.b?
    Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have revised this part.
25. - Line 241, Interestingly, fine root biomass and average…., which depth/fig?
    Response: Thank you. We have added the figure 3b in this sentence, please see the L.262-263.
26. - Line 259, were significantly and positively correlated…, Insert the p value in the text.
    Response: Thank you. We have inserted the p value in the tex.
27. - Line 262, significantly negatively correlated, p value? and r2?

Response: Thank you. We have added P<0.05 and P<0.01, this part does the correlation analysis between soil properties and fine root traits. Note: *P<0.05, ** P<0.01. Note: 0-20 cm soil layer in the upper right corner, 20-40 cm soil layer in the lower left corner.

28. - Line 264, significantly and positively correlated…, p value and r squared value?
    Response: Thank you. We have added P<0.05 and P<0.01, this part does the correlation analysis between soil properties and fine root traits. Note: *P<0.05, ** P<0.01. Note: 0-20 cm soil layer in the upper right corner, 20-40 cm soil layer in the lower left corner.
29. - Table 3. is not fitted to the page. Asterisks in the rows or columns represent significance?
    Response: Thank you. Note: 0-20 cm soil layer in the upper right corner, 20-40 cm soil layer in the lower left corner.

30.Discussion I recommend consolidating the results and discussion parts to ensure a coherent text. If you prefer to maintain separate sections for Results and Discussion, please avoid redundancy and adhere to the sequential order of the findings.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We think that the original framework of discussion and conclusions should be retained after we removed redundancies in the discussion to improve the organization and readability of the text.
31. - Lines 279-285, excessively long sentence. Split it into 2-3 sentences. Line 282, space between cm and parentheses.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We've reworked the statements to simplify the language and avoid redundancy. We have deleted the space between cm and parentheses.

32. - Lines 306, In conclusion… this statement is better to be moved to the Conclusion section.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have removed this sentence to the Conclusion section.

33. - Lines 311-313. This is misplaced. Here the effect of fertilizer on soil properties is discussed. So, remove it please.

Response: Thank you, we corrected it.

34. - Lines 316-317, you can use abbreviations. See the comment above.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

35. - Line 319, double spaced between words. Citrus reticulata Blanco in Italic.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the double spaced between words and revised the Citrus reticulata Blanco in Italic.

36. - Lines 320-323, this is duplicated. Please note that the discussion section should not duplicate the study results.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We rewrote the statements to simplify the language and avoid redundancy.

37. - Line 324, check for the space between words.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the space between words.

38. - Lines 326-330,not a clear statement. Too long. Divide it into 2-3 clear statements. Why etc.?

Response: Thank you for your guidance. We rewrote the statements to avoid redundancy of this sentence. We have deleted the etc.

39. - Lines 331-333, this is duplicated. Please see the above comment.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have deleted redundant part.

40. - Lines 357-360, same issue. Repeating the study findings.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised this statement.

41. - Lines 369-373, this is not aligned with the previous statement (lines 366-373). Please double-check if this is true.

Response: Thank you for your positive comment and helpful suggestions. We have checked it carefully.

42. - Lines 373-374, not relevant to this section. Remove it please.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have removed it.

43. - Line 384, S Sapindus?

Response: Thank you. We have deleted the S.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review report is attached herewith. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-Chief:

We have revised our previously-submitted manuscript entitled “Effect of balanced N, P and K fertilization on fine root traits and soil properties in “Sapindus mukorossi” (Manuscript ID: 2777974) by carefully following the comments by the two reviewers and the editor. Now, we resubmit the new manuscript based on the suggestions.

In this revised version we have responded to each of the issues raised by the reviewers to improve both the scope and expression of the work. The major changes in the current revision include:

• We have revised the figures to make them more clearly, as suggested by the Reviewer #1.
• We made an explanation to the question “Why maximum proportion of fertilizer was not applied as basal dose or at flowering stage instead of applying 40% at post-harvest stage”, raised by Reviewer #2.
• We have removed the citation of the publications from Forests and reduced the duplication rate according to the suggestions of the editor.

The detailed responses to specific comments are listed below.

Yours Sincerely,

Juntao Liu

Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer #2:

The morphological characteristics of fine roots and their spatial configuration plays key role in nutrient transfer and nutrient use efficiency of plants. Moreover; these characteristics can also be used as indicators of soil environmental variations. The present study investigates effect of different fertilizer doses on fine root traits and soil properties in a high medicinal and economic value species. All the sections of the manuscript are well written and the manuscript may be accepted for publication after the authors consider following few points:

1.Line no. 61: Reference no. is missing for Huang et al.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised this part.

2.Line no. 66: Mention the full form of SRL. Is it FSRL?

Response: Yes, it is.

3.Line no. 84: Reference no. is missing for Li et. al.

Response: Thank you. We have revised this part.

4.Line no. 126: Why maximum proportion of fertilizer was not applied as basal dose or at flowering stage instead of applying 40% at postharvest stage. Please mention the reason.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. Because this study applies fertilizer three times throughout the year: post-harvest fertilization (40%), flower-promoting fertilization (30%), and fruit-enhancing fertilization (30%). Post-harvest fertilization is used in the largest proportion because it serves as the base fertilizer, providing comprehensive nutrition and a larger quantity. After fruit harvest, it is necessary to timely replenish fertilizer to restore tree vigor for the subsequent spring budding, rooting, flowering, and fruit setting. Flower-promoting and fruit-enhancing fertilizers are used as supplementary fertilization, focusing on concentrated and timely nutrition. The former is used to promote flower bud differentiation, flowering, and fruit setting, while the latter is used to ensure the nutrients needed for fruit enlargement. In practical production, the amount of base fertilizer is often higher than that of supplementary fertilizers. Therefore, the proportion of flower-promoting and fruit-enhancing fertilizers is slightly lower than post-harvest fertilization. For the year-round fertilizer application in this experiment on Sapindus mukorossi, specific fertilization proportions for each stage need to be further studied.

5.Fig 1. and Fig 2.: Letters indicating significant difference between the treatments are overlapping, if possible consider improving the figures.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified Figures 1 and 2 to make them larger and clearer.

6.Line no. 297: Statement should not start with "And"

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the "And".

7.Line no. 300-304: The sentence is not clear. Consider rephrasing the sentence.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We rewrote the statements, please see L.321-325

8.Line no. 319: The scientific names should be written in italics.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf