Mineral Fertilizers Improves the Quality of Turmeric and Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In Tabke1: Please change the “Size of mechanical particle/mm” Particle size distribution?

In Table 4, please do not use statistical analysis, because this table contain values of pH, and it is not correct to analysis?? Also, in this Table the N (mg kg-1) was 351.60h, please check again??

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Report

• In Tabke1: Please change the “Size of mechanical particle/mm” Particle size distribution?

Author Response: Changed

• In Table 4, please do not use statistical analysis, because this table contains values of pH, and it is not correct to analyze?? Also, in this Table the N (mg kg-1) was 351.60 h, please check again??

Author Response: Agreed and revised accordingly

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

P2 L77-81. For sustainable production, this can be reached by organic fertilisation (animal manure for example). Authors shoudl state clearly about this choice.

 

Statistical analyses are not sounds.

I think that authours should consider two factors in the anova analyses. Level of NPK as a main factor, and supply or not of NZnFe. In this case authors should correct their experimental design and switch to split plot insted of randomized blocks. Moreover why authors did not experiment N125P100K100+B3Zn6Fe6 ?

This is the main shortcoming in this manuscript which allows to the modification of the results presentation and obvuisly th discussion and conclusion.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

• P2 L77-81. For sustainable production, this can be reached by organic fertilisation (animal manure for example). Authors shoudl state clearly about this choice.

Author Response: Agreed and the new text has been added. Line 81-83

• Statistical analyses are not sounds. I think that authors should consider two factors in the ANOVA analyses. Level of NPK as the main factor, and supply or not of NZnFe. In this case authors should correct their experimental design and switch to split plot insted of randomized blocks. Moreover why authors did not experiment N125P100K100+B3Zn6Fe6 ?

Author Response: Agreed and corrected as a split-plot design [Line No, 96]. The authors intended to study the effect of mineral fertilizers

• This is the main shortcoming in this manuscript which allows for the modification of the presentation of the results and obviously the discussion and conclusion.

Author Response: The results and Discussion have been presented in the light of the effect of various combinations of mineral fertilizers

• In Table 4, please do not use statistical analysis, because this table contains values of pH, and it is not correct to analyze?? Also, in this Table the N (mg kg-1) was 351.60 h, please check again??

Author Response: Agreed and corrected. h is removed now

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the paper did not follow the relevant review comments - I stand by the comments in the manuscript (three versions of the manuscript). I believe that the following elements need to be clarified or corrected in the publication:

1. statistical analysis was performed using two parametric tests Tykey and Dankan. The Tukey test is more rigorous and gives different relationships than the less rigorous Dancan test. Tukey's test can also be used to determine homogeneous groups. One of these tests should be chosen to statistically process the results.

2. In tables units were changed, but data were not changed, what in some cases looks absurd and raises serious doubts about reliability of research and presented results, e.g.: total nitrogen and organic carbon content. The results in some tables in comparison with the first original version differ significantly (it results from an error made during the table transcription, which the Authors do not want to notice).

3. The results of humus and organic carbon (Tiurin's method) were not explained and corrected. In this method we always obtain more humus than organic carbon by about two times. The authors obtained the opposite relationship. If the results are well determined then it must be explained why this is so. In the soil test before setting up the experiment, the humus and organic carbon results are already well represented (more humus than organic carbon).

4. The discussion is at an inadequately high standard, there is too little cited related thematic literature. Most of the cited literature refers to generally known statements and should rather be in the introduction.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the paper did not follow the relevant review comments - I stand by the comments in the manuscript (three versions of the manuscript). I believe that the following elements need to be clarified or corrected in the publication:

• statistical analysis was performed using two parametric tests Tykey and Dancan. The Tukey test is more rigorous and gives different relationships than the less rigorous Dancan test. Tukey's test can also be used to determine homogeneous groups. One of these tests should be chosen to statistically process the results.

Author Response: Agreed. Duncan’s test is now removed from the text. Line 157, 174, 189, 198, 214, 221

• In tables, units were changed, but data were not changed, which in some cases looks absurd and raises serious doubts about the reliability of research and presented results, e.g.: total nitrogen and organic carbon content. The results in some tables in comparison with the first original version differ significantly (it results from an error made during the table transcription, which the Authors do not want to notice).

Author Response: The authors have now retained Table 4 from the first version

• The results of humus and organic carbon (Tiurin's method) were not explained and corrected. In this method, we always obtain more humus than organic carbon by about two times. The authors obtained the opposite relationship. If the results are well determined then it must be explained why this is so. In the soil test before setting up the experiment, the humus and organic carbon results are already well represented (more humus than organic carbon).

Author Response: The results of humus and organic carbon are now corrected and explained. Line No. 195, 201, 203, and Table 4

• The discussion is at an inadequately high standard, there is too little cited related thematic literature. Most of the cited literature refers to generally known statements and should rather be in the introduction.

Author Response: The discussion part is made more relevant. General statements [Line No. 296-303 and 311-312] have been removed from the discussion part.

 

 

 

 

Authors’ response to the Comments marked in the pdf file

• Remove last column from Table 1

Authors’ response : Removed

• Line 1`50-155 - Select one of the statistical tests: Tukey or Dancan. These tests differ in their sensitivity of analysis and give different correlations (Tukey's test is more stringent than Dancan's). There is no duplication of tests in the statistical analysis of results

Authors’ response : Agreed. Dunca’s test is now removed

• This paragraph informs about the same thing as above? T4 (NPK 100:75:75:3:6:6 kg/ha) = NPK +_BZnFe (100:75:75:3:6:6 kg/ha)

Authors’ response : This paragraph[h is removed [Line 164-166]

• in this table the results from the table that was in the first version of the publication were mistakenly copied - please check carefully. This table was incorrectly transcribed from the table that was in the first version of the publication - please check carefully.For example, the content of N-NO3 in the first version of the publication was 89.10 mg/kg and it is 0.18 mg/kg, the content of P2O5 was 0.18 mg/kg and it is 1.80% and it is 1.86, etc.

Authors’ response :

• add % in the first version of the publication were %, in the table values were not converted to mg/kg. Unit conversion is poorly done (e.g.: 2.24 mg/kg is 0.000224%). There just cannot be more C than organic matter -in the Tiurin method, organic carbon is about twice less than humus, never the other way around. Check the original C results for errors in processing. In the first version of the publication, before setting up the experiment, humus content was 1.697% and organic carbon 0.984%, while after the experiment, humus content decreased (1.436 - 1.580%) and organic carbon increased (2.24 - 2.72%).  Organic carbon cannot increase twice when the humus content of the soil decreased. Without organic fertilisation, such an increase of C in the soil is not possible.

 

Authors’ response: Unit conversion is now done properly (Table 6). Increase in mineral content is now properly mentioned.Humus content and organic carbon before experiment lower i.e. 1.971% and 0.981% while after treatment (fertilization) humus and organic carbon increased to 2.697 and 1.351% respectively. Corrections have been made in Table 4 and Table 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was greatly improved by considering all recommendations.

Author Response

• The manuscript was greatly improved by considering all recommendations.

Authors response: The authors are thankful to the reviewers for the excellent evaluation and comments that helped in the significant improvement of the MSS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did not correct the important observations mentioned in the three previous reviews. The results of the chemical properties of soils need to be carefully reviewed again.
1. In Table 4, some test results were not corrected properly (the first version of the manuscript has different measurement units and test results). 
2. In tables 4 and 5 nitrogen, organic matter and organic carbon are given in wrong units of measure - they should be given as in the first version of the manuscript in % or well converted to mg/kg
(e.g. organic matter: 3.85 mg/kg = 0.000385%) there cannot be so little humus in the crop horizon.
The information about the Dankan test was removed and the homogeneous groups calculated with the Dankan test were left in the tables. Homogeneous groups must be calculated using Tukey's test.
In table 6 results are wrongly counted. Furthermore in the first version of the manuscript there were different units of measurement. Subsequent versions of the manuscript changed the units of measurement but did not change the values of the results. This made the presented results absurd.
5. Fertilization variants are presented incorrectly in Table 6 - please compare with the above table or with the research methods.
6. In Table 2, the unit mg/kg content of K, Ca, P, Mg, Na should be replaced by g/kg.

Author Response

The authors did not correct the important observations mentioned in the three previous reviews. The results of the chemical properties of soils need to be carefully reviewed again.

• In Table 4, some test results were not corrected properly (the first version of the manuscript has different measurement units and test results). 

 

Authors Response: The following table was given the first version of the manuscript. One of the reviewer said to remove this table and put other data (pH, EC and soil nutrients).

 

Table 2. The effect of mineral fertilizers on mechanical composition of irrigated soil.

Treatments	Fractions (%)							Physical mud, %
	1 - 0.25	0.25-0.1	0.1-0.05	0.05-0.01	0.01-0.005	0.005-0.001	<0.001
Control	3.62	4.40	15.30	23.00	13.50	21.96	18.22	53.68
N75P50K50	4.01	4.52	19.88	20.14	18.21	15.10	18.22	51.53
N125P100K100	3.82	4.47	19.40	21.41	19.20	19.40	12.30	50.90
N100P75K75 + B3Zn6Fe6	4.21	4.62	17.44	22.44	15.5	14.19	21.6	51.29

 In tables 4 and 5 nitrogen, organic matter and organic carbon are given in wrong units of measure - they should be given as in the first version of the manuscript in % or well converted to mg/kg

• (e.g. organic matter: 3.85 mg/kg = 0.000385%) there cannot be so little humus in the crop horizon.

Authors Response : In tables 4 and 5 nitrogen, organic matter and organic carbon are now corrected and mentioned as %

The authors are thankful to the reviewer for such a vigilant and very close reviewing of each aspect. Agreed to the comment that the crop horizon has sufficient humus. The correct values of organic matter are now mentioned in Table 4

• The information about the Dankan test was removed and the homogeneous groups calculated with the Dankan test were left in the tables. Homogeneous groups must be calculated using Tukey's test.

Authors Response : The data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparisons of HSD employing Tukey’s test

• In table 6 results are wrongly counted. Furthermore in the first version of the manuscript there were different units of measurement. Subsequent versions of the manuscript changed the units of measurement but did not change the values of the results. This made the presented results absurd.

Authors Response : We have given the table in the first version of the manuscript

Table 7. The effect of mineral fertilizers on chemical properties of irrigated soil.

Treatments	СО2  %	Alkalinity		Cl		SO4		Ca		Mg
		Total НСО3, (%)	Total НСО3, (mg/eq)	(%)	(mg/eq)	(%)	(mg/eq)	(%)	(mg/eq)	(%)	(mg/eq)
Control	8.25	0.014	0.33	0.008	1.26	0.200	2.66	0.140	30.00	6.25	0.014
N75P50K50	6.01	0.012	0.28	0.008	1.21	0.28	2.14	0.13	28.77	6.01	0.012
N125P100K100	6.00	0.01	0.27	0.008	1.01	0.24	2.01	0.11	22.44	6	0.01
N100P75K75 + B3Zn6Fe6	5.80	0.009	0.25	0.007	0.95	0.200	1.98	0.090	28.75	5.80	0.009

• Fertilization variants are presented incorrectly in Table 6 - please compare with the above table or with the research methods.

Authors Response : Fertilization variants are now properly mentioned in Table 6

• In Table 2, the unit mg/kg content of K, Ca, P, Mg, Na should be replaced by g/kg.

Authors Response : In Table 2, the unit mg/kg content of K, Ca, P, Mg, Na are now corrected as g/kg.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I regret to say that the authors have not sufficiently improved their manuscript. They have only selectively taken into account some of the less important comments. Since the authors do not want to comply with the important comments on the research results.

The significant comments that the authors do not want to correct are:

1. In Table 2, the macronutrient results are converted to g/kg and are signed mg/kg.
2. In Table 4, the units of measurement have not been changed (they should be as in the first version of the manuscript). Also, the values of some elements are different than in the first version of the manuscript.
3. In Table 5, the units of measurement of N, organic matter and C have not been changed (it is in mg/kg and should be in %).
4. Homogeneous groups were not determined by Tukey's test but were left as calculated by Dancan's test. Moreover, homogeneous groups in some cases are ill-defined especially in tables 5 and 6 e.g.: N-NO3 cannot have homogeneous groups a; c; de; gh. In order to form a homogeneous group e.g: (de) then group (d) and (e) must be defined, (homogeneous group d and e not defined?). Also the same average values create different homogeneous groups e.g. Sn: control - 0.055 a and N125P100K100 - 0.055 b. Similar errors in describing homogeneous groups are common. In addition, asterisks (significant difference) were left in the tables next to the test results. These asterisks indicate different relationships than the designated homogeneous groups. Statistical analysis of test results must be performed again.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Round 3

 sustainability-1306713

Effect of Different Mineral Fertilizers on Turmeric Rhizome Mineral Nutrients and Soil Properties under Field Condition 

1. In Table 2, the macronutrient results are converted to g/kg and are signed mg/kg.

Authors response : In Table 2, the macronutrient results are now signed as g/kg

2. In Table 4, the units of measurement have not been changed (they should be as in the first version of the manuscript). Also, the values of some elements are different than in the first version of the manuscript.

 Authors response : In Table 4, the units of measurement have been changed and are now as per the first version of the manuscript. Also, the values of all the elements are now as per the first version of the manuscript.

 3. In Table 5, the units of measurement of N, organic matter and C have not been changed (it is in mg/kg and should be in %)

 Authors response : In Table 5, the units of measurement of N, organic matter and C are now revised as %).

4. Homogeneous groups were not determined by Tukey's test but were left as calculated by Dancan's test. Moreover, homogeneous groups in some cases are ill-defined especially in tables 5 and 6 e.g.: N-NO3 cannot have homogeneous groups a; c; de; gh. In order to form a homogeneous group e.g: (de) then group (d) and (e) must be defined, (homogeneous group d and e not defined?). Also the same average values create different homogeneous groups e.g. Sn: control - 0.055 a and N125P100K100 - 0.055 b. Similar errors in describing homogeneous groups are common. In addition, asterisks (significant difference) were left in the tables next to the test results. These asterisks indicate different relationships than the designated homogeneous groups. Statistical analysis of test results must be performed again.

 Authors response: Statistical analysis of the test Results is now mentioned properly

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Effect of Different Mineral Fertilizers on Turmeric Rhizome Mineral Nutrients and Soil Properties under Field Condition

 

The MS still suffers from several problems, which let me say “Reject” like the following points:

1- Which kind of applied mineral fertilizers did the author used in this study??

2- The author measured the soil enzymes related the studied nutrients like urease for N, catalase for Zn but why the authors did NOT measure the phosphatase (even in acid or alkaline form!!!)

3- You added for Table 5: “Values are the mean of three replicates and were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD and 172 Duncan’s test. Different letters and asterisk indicate significant differences in the values at p < 0.05.” Where the statistical analyses in this Table???

4- Lines 231-232: the authors mentioned “Reddy et al. [43], reported that significantly higher enzyme activities and 232 was on par with the treatment (N150P125K250 – 100% UAS (B) rec. + MC).” Please explain the abbreviations???

5- Authors must read about the SI unit? Not anything like (mg/ eq) or others? The authors must use the official units like EC (µc/cm) should be in dS m^-1, Organic matter or C in (%), should be in g kg^-1, and others, please

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript deals with effect of mineral fertilizer applied at different combinations on rhizome production and its mineral content and impact on soil properties.

several questions remain without answers in this manuscript.

1- is there any relationship between mineral supply and mineral content in rhizomes ? this point, even presents in the title, is not diplayed in the manuscript.

2-how authors, mechanistically, studied the effect of fertilizers on soil propreties ?

3- waht authors mean by soil properties ?

Furthermore, the manuscript is presented as listing. A echanistic approch is more requested.

4- statistical analyses are not presented. Did authors used any means' comparison test (Duncan, Fisher...)? this is not presnetd in M&M section. however, in  tables 1 and 4 as well as figure 1, authors mention that means comparison tests were used. Please modify and explain the tests choices.

5- Another shortcomming of this manuscript is the one experiment results. This fact cannot used to make conclusion.

6- mineral uptake by plant is highly dependant on climatic conditions. Authors did not supply these data here. These data are necessary to explain the results obtained. this point support the listing presentation instead of mechanistic one.

7- what is the relationship between soil enzymes (that expression is more dependent on water availability, temperature, oxygen and mineral content) and fertilizer supply. If authors modify mineral content, the other influencing parameters are not studied here. Therefore authors cannot make a conclusion.

8- why authors did not measure plant enzymes involved in mineral intake and trnasformation (nitrate reductase for example)?

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Tables with results should be corrected in the publication, as the published results differ from those in the first version - comment in the text of the paper
2. Add information about the granulometric composition of soil.
3. Extend and improve the discussion of the results - comment in the text of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf