Potential Impact of Biostimulator NeOsol and Three Different Manure Types on Physical Soil Properties and Crop Status in Heavy Soils Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I found your article interesting the use of biostimulants to improve soil properties. I have appended my specific comments and questions on the manuscripts.

Somehow, I found the use of the word "variant" not to be consistent with the context of the study.  The methods of manure and NeOsol applications need to be clarified. It will be interesting to know what difference it will make if the manure and NeOsol were mixed before application as it seems to be that you applied each as a separate operation.

Overall, great study. Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The collective of authors would like to express huge thanks to you for finding the time to revise this manuscript, and for your kind and helpful comments. We have done our best to react to all the issues raised from your comments in the pdf file, and all changes that have been made in the original manuscript are highlighted using the “Track Changes” function.

• All the suggestions concerning clarity and language improvement that had been kindly provided were incorporated into the text.
• The variants were explained more elaborately with the table of variants included. We hope it will help understanding. For the treatments of manure and of NeOsol, there were indeed separate operations, as was for NPK treatment (even several for the latter). NeOsol is designed to be spread separately. There are other products, e.g. Z’fix (Olmix), that are meant to be added to the deep litter of animal housing, where they act in a similar way when the manure is applied (and decrease ammonia emissions in housing, bind nitrogen in resulting manure….).
• The formula concerning SHC was also described more in detail.
• Figure 4 was hopefully improved.
• The line concerning soil organic carbon was removed from discussion. We were not successful in finding an experiment on SOC and NeOsol relation.
• The experiment of Urbanovičová was described more in detail, and one similar added.
• The suggested part concerning VI was moved from Discussion to Results.
• Conclusions were shortened.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the manuscript submitted to MDPY Sustainability: “Potential Impact of Biostimulator NeOsol and Three Different Manure Types on Physical Soil Properties and Crop Status in Heavy Soils Conditions” by Novák et al.

General opinion: The manuscript submitted to Sustainability MDPI presents very interesting subject of the surface runoff and soil loss in Czech republic (it should be formulated as a general scientific problem, which I believe is very important for agriculture). The aim is to find a remedy in the form of a soil microbial activator (NeOsol) to be used with or without standard fertilizers such as NPK, cattle, pig or poultry manures. Treatment with NPK alone was used as a control. Although the Authors didn’t present any significant differences in terms of analysis of the measured indices, the data shows a clear trend of soil properties and crop status improvement. This however should be presented in a more clear way. The Authors should more clearly show the potential perspectives as the processes in soil can be very complex and take much more time than the experimental period (even though it lasted from 2014 to 2020).

So my general opinion is that the manuscript contains a highly interesting data which should be presented in much better manner.

Introduction: First of all the introduction should contain the information about the problem of surface runoff and soil loss and list the remedies. Following that the Authors should draw readers’ attention to the possible usage of NeOsol and clearly describe what kind of measurements would be done as an aim. Sentences starting from line 42 “Field robots…..” up to line 47 have nothing to do with the presented subject.

Materials and Methods:

Neosol vs NeOsol – please unify throughout manuscript text.

Please insert Table presenting the design of the experiment (instead of lines 114-123).

Please be specific. Make sure that the potential reader could repeat the experiments.

Lines 137-138 …”gives the information about energy necessary for tillage tools to loosen tapsoil; the same with  lines 155 -…”an important indicator of soil compaction” and line s 161-163 -…” is a staple hydrogeological parameter….” All this interpretations should be shifted to discussion section.

Remove word “initially” as it indicates different layout in the future

Line 125- what “standard local practice” means?

Line 174-175 – add type, name of producer and country of the appliance used for weighting the crop

Please write explicitly how the vegetation indices were obtained from cloud-free Sentinel-2. Were any permissions needed?

Results:

Fig 4 presents very important data in terms of crop growth and quality. The most pronounced effect even though no statistical differences is the gradual increase of vegetation indices in time. This is the “core message” in terms of application of fertilizers of different type. I would suggest to make it bigger and more clear. Please divide the figure into 3 panels (indices) so that the effect would be more exposed. Add description of error bars as it is missing…

Line 208 “ differences were generally detected…….” Should be statistical differences were founf for ??? while no differences found in the case of ???

Discussion:

Discussing the energy consumption for soil  tillage (lines 317-327) refer more to the measured changes in UD parameter.

Manuscript Layout:

Please number the Chapters and sup-chapters consecutively.

Chapter 3 Results has sup-chapters 3.1-3.5 while Chapter 2 does not have the sub-chapters numbered

Tables: please improve the layout of Tables so that it complies with the standards of Sustainability journal. Please correct the layout of units in Tables.

Figures: please improve the resolution as they are hard to read. Place the figure legends under the figures. Please place the letters indicating the results of statistical analysis in the same place (Figs 1,2, they are on top, figures 3 in between the results)

Units: correct units – kg×ha^-1  instead of kg.ha-1; the same with t×ha^-1, l.ha, g.cm, mmol.kg etc. -unify units notation throughout the text.

 

References: Format the references. Note that Refs 23,24, 31 - different font used in titles. Ref 48 different font used in Names

Use appropriate abbreviations for Journal names in all references. It is proper only in ref 30

Refs 20, 29,31,34, 53 Proceedings of…… write name in italics

Line 134 in situ should be in situ

Line 164 Bagarello et al. ([32]  - remove left round bracket;

line 173 Elrick et al.[33] – insert space before bracket

Author Response

The collective of authors would like to express huge thanks to you for finding the time to revise this manuscript, and for your thorough and precise comments. We have done our best to react to all the issues raised from your comment, and all changes that have been made in the original manuscript are highlighted using the “Track Changes” function.

• All the suggestions concerning clarity, and language improvement that had been kindly provided were incorporated into the text.
• Introduction was extended as suggested, and unrelated part removed on the opposite. The aim of the work is mentioned at the end of Introduction, as is suggested by the journal’s guide.
• In Materials and Methods, the variants were explained more elaborately with the table of variants included. We hope it will help understanding. Suggested parts were moved to Discussion.
• “Standard local practice”, the appliance used for weighting the crop, and the way the vegetation indices were obtained were all added.
• Figure 4 was reworked in Results.
• Statistical differences concerning UD were described more in detail.
• Discussion concerning UD was extended.
• All subchapters were numbered, and table layout changed also.
• The resolution and all the other requirements concerning figures were corrected.
• Concerning format of units, there are no suggestions from the journal’s part to be found. Going through articles published in Sustainability, we chose the most common form.
• Concerning references, we are grateful for your examination. We used an automatic Mendeley system with Sustainability template and relayed on that. Errors were corrected and journal names abbreviated if indexed by PubMed/MEDLINE. This, however, is not highlighted in “Track Changes”, because it is not compatible with Mendeley app.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments (second Round) on the manuscript titled: „Potential Impact of Biostimulator NeOsol and Three Different Manure Types on Physical Soil Properties and Crop Status in Heavy Soils Conditions” by Václav Novák , Petr Šařec , Kateřina Křížová, Petr Novák and Oldřich Látal

               The revised version of the manuscript is now characterized by much greater clarity and scientific soundness. Introduction was extended as suggested, and unrelated part was removed. The Materials and Methods section has been improved significantly. The authors added/changed Tables 2 and 3, which now clearly define the layout of the experiment. Extra information has been added concerning the designed experimental variants as well as the application of fertilizer/ activator. The wording “local practice” has been clarified in terms of used crop rotation.

As I noticed in the first round of review that a lot of information was hidden under figure 4. The Authors added the description of data acquisition by means of Sentinel-2 satellite with help of European Space Agency. The obtained data was then computed to obtain the indices of crop performance. I consider this multispectral data very valuable. The method is also very innovative.

Resolution of figs1-3 has been improved, but Fig 4 is still not-sharp enough although it has been  changed considerably and re-worked in Results section. All the suggestions concerning clarity, and language improvement that had been kindly provided were incorporated into the text. Results were improved. Statistical differences concerning UD were described more in detail and discussion concerning UD was extended.

Corrections in that layout of the manuscript:

1. All subchapters were numbered.
2. Layout of the Tables and References has been changed so that in it comprises with Sustainability Journal.

Other corrections:

1. name of NeOsol has been unified throughout the text.
2. Necessary english corrections have been made.