Nutrient Management of Shallot Farming in Sandy Loam Soil in Tegalrejo, Gunungkidul, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study obtained macronutrients that are claimed to be the limiting factors for shallot growth and production and to determine the feasibility of shallot farming in dry sandy loam land, so that appropriate macronutrient management can be determined for shallot cultivation in these soil types. Main issue with this paper is to align it with the aims and scope of this journal; for this purpose, the following comments are needed to be addressed before the second round of revision.

1. Which physical characteristics of sandy loam are important for the cultivation of Shallot, please explain it to the readers and provide important physical characteristics of sandy loam used in this study for the convenience of the reader.

2. This topic is not ne in the literature as sandy loam has been used for the cultivation of similar crops. Please highlight the novelty of the current study.

3. Line 103 please use the appropriate set of symbols for degree centigrade

4. Line 257 needs revision as there is grammatical mistake in it

5. Please exert space between number and unit

6. Since your target journal is sustainability, therefore please explain the economic benefit of cultivating shallot in sandy loam. Further explain input quantity, logistics and cost to cultivate shallot in sandy loam as per the proposed solution in this study and compare it with the output quantity and worth so that sustainability-related aspects of this solution could be discerned. For guidelines please read the field implication sections of the following paper and cite them in the revised manuscript:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148746

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16912-w

Albeit these papers are not directly related to your study but they could give you a good idea about highlighting the sustainability of a proposed solution. Please write a sustainability-related section and discuss all the aforementioned aspects. This will align the current paper with the aim and scope of the journal. 

Author Response

August 26^th, 2022

 

 

Dear Editor, Sustainability Journal Reviewer.

Good morning  and thank you for your thoughts on our manuscript (the title: Soil Nutrients Management of Shallots Farming in Sandy Loam Soil ). We have corrected the manuscript according to the input of 3 reviewers. The parts that we have repaired are marked with a yellow block. Here are some points that have been improved of Reviewer 1:

1. English has been improved and fixed
2. Which physical characteristics of sandy loam are important for the cultivation of Shallot, please explain it to the readers and provide important physical characteristics of sandy loam used in this study for the convenience of the reader
3. Novelty of the current study has been added to result (yellow block)
4. Fixed in line 103 regarding symbols for degree centigrade.
5. Line 257 is grammatical has been fixed
6. Already given a space between number and unit.
7. The economic benefit of cultivating shallot in sandy loam with quantity, logistics and cost to cultivate shallot in sandy loam has been added and has followed the given guideline

Thank you for your cooperation, we sincerely hope that it will be published in this journal. If there is still an error, please ask permission to fix it again. Thank you for the help.

Best regards

Sutardi and other authors

  

Reviewer 2 Report

attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

August 26^th, 2022

 

 

Dear Editor, Sustainability Journal Reviewer.

Good morning  and thank you for your thoughts on our manuscript (the title: Soil Nutrients Management of Shallots Farming in Sandy Loam Soil ). We have corrected the manuscript according to the input of 3 reviewers. The parts that we have repaired are marked with a yellow block. Here are some points that have been improved f (Reviewer 2) namely:

      1.English has been improved and fixed

2. The authors have been checked and corrected according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions in the text (yellow block)

Thank you for your cooperation, we sincerely hope that it will be published in this journal. If there is still an error, please ask permission to fix it again. Thank you for the help.

Best regards

Sutardi and other authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, the manuscript "Soil Nutrients Management of Shallot Farming in Sandy Loam Soil" by its topic may generate an interest in the scientific society, but only if the paper is of acceptable scientific quality. Unfortunately, it cannot be attributed to this manuscript as too many unclear details and mistakes are obvious; here are mentioned several of them:

1) Abstract. Already starting to read the paper faced difficulties understanding the purpose of the study. Chosen designation 'minus N (-N), minus P (-P)', etc., is inappropriate as it makes reading the text very complicated, especially later in the main text, e.g., in lines 217-222. Indicated limiting factors - mild and moderate are fine, but how to understand 'weight limiting factor, which is later called 'severe'? Hectare or ha should be written in lowercase. What does it mean R/C ratio? Also, English grammar is very poor in understanding the idea properly.

2) Introduction. The manner of the writing is non-scientific and must be improved. An expression like 'so that' is used so often, and it sounds so unprofessional. The use of capital letters and units is inconsistent, e.g., chemical elements are not human names and are not written with the first capital letter; if you start to use the units as g/kg, you have to do that in the same style throughout the manuscript. Even the font used is inconsistent. The introduction generally represents only superficial information and must be improved by relating to advanced references.

3) Methodology. Indicated methodology for the research implementation, according to the listed references, is unclear as it is not based on internationally recognized guidance or peer-reviewed studies. On the other hand, it could be acceptable if all the experimental steps would be described in the main text. The field experiment is somehow described, but control and validation are missing at all. The selected shallot variety is questionable. Applied fertilizers are not described (lines 121-122), e.g., full title, purity, and the producer is missing. It is not clear why the application rate is chosen as 3 t/ha, and the total area of the field experiment also is not indicated. Description of plant analysis is absolutely missing. Description of soil analysis is mentioned, but as they are based on local references, they are unclear. Chosen designation "minus - N, minus - P", etc. is inappropriate as it makes reading the text very complicated, e.g., in lines 217-222. Data analysis is described chaotically and must be improved, adding a clearly understandable transcript of abbreviations. Many grammar and style mistakes appear. The past sense should be applied to describe the experiment.

4) Results. The text involves many non-scientific and non-grammatic expressions, such as 'will have a good influence', 'because according to', etc. The description is very chaotic and hard to read and understand. Subchapter 'environmental conditions' speaks only about soil, not the general conditions. It is not indicated in which part of the year the dry season in Indonesia begins and ends. The study description should be more arranged and explanatory, as, by international scientific publishing that MDPI provides, it has to reach the audience on the global scale, not only regionally. Expressions such as 'K element' or 'P nutrient' are very weird, as instead, one can simply say K and P. Table 4 in the footer indicates * and **, but they are missing; instead, there are 'a, b, c' but they are not reflected. What means CV and TN? What is meant by 'stover'? Subchapter 3.5 regarding feasibility is redundant or should be recalculated in an international currency such as USD, also indicating the values for general comparison such as average salary or income in the country. Currently, it does not make sense to include such a subchapter in the paper.

5) Discussion. My suggestion is not to repeat the results twice; thus, it would be better to combine result and discussion chapters. Furthermore, better linking with the references should be reflected. But it is not a good style to write 'according to [55]', instead you have to write 'according to Rajmi et al. [55]' Similar to indicated for the result part, here also the scientific importance of subchapter 4.3 regarding feasibility is doubtful.

6) Conclusions. Inconsistency and distraction are obviously present here. It's not understandable why 'sandy loam soil' here is called 'dry sandy clay soil'. In general, existing conclusions do not reflect the essence of the study and must be rewritten.

7) References. Although the total number of references is impressive, many of them are not international. It could be acceptable at a certain level and conditions. For instance, Indonesian references need translation into English. In general, there are very many style mistakes in the list of references, as well as in their reflection in the main text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

August 26^th, 2022

Dear Editor, Sustainability Journal Reviewer.

Good morning  and thank you for your thoughts on our manuscript (the title: Soil Nutrients Management of Shallots Farming in Sandy Loam Soil ). We have corrected the manuscript according to the input of 3 reviewers. The parts that we have repaired are marked with a yellow block. Here are some points that have been improved (Reviewer 3), namely:

1. English has been improved and fixed
2. We have fixed the abstract including the purpose of the study, writing -N (minus N) is fixed to N-omitted and others. Including line 2017-222 has been fixed
3. The introduction has been improved according to the reviewer's suggestions
4. In line 121-122 the information in Table 1 (currently becomes Table 2 due to input from other reviewers so that it becomes table 2), the table has also been corrected according to the type of fertilizer given is the element of fertilizer, not commercial fertilizer .We have corrected the word minus - N, minus - P", (including in lines 217-222) according to standard terms
5. Results has been corrected according to the reviewer's suggestions including Table 4, CV, TN, USD and others
6. Conclusions has been improved
7. References has been corrected

Thank you for your cooperation, we sincerely hope that it will be published in this journal. If there is still an error, please ask permission to fix it again. Thank you for the help.

Best regards

Sutardi and other authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors just mentioned that they have addressed the comment but they didn't. Therefore I again suggest to address following comment in true spirit provide a separate section for this purpose and also cite all the below given articles to acknowledge the guidance to address sustainability related aspect in this paper.

Comment to be addressed: Since your target journal is sustainability, therefore please explain the economic benefit of cultivating shallot in sandy loam. Further explain input quantity, logistics and cost to cultivate shallot in sandy loam as per the proposed solution in this study and compare it with the output quantity and worth so that sustainability-related aspects of this solution could be discerned. For guidelines please read the field implication sections of the following paper and cite them in the revised manuscript:

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148746

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16912-w

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-0159-2

 

Albeit these papers are not directly related to your study but they could give you a good idea about highlighting the sustainability of a proposed solution. Please write a sustainability-related section and discuss all the aforementioned aspects. This will align the current paper with the aim and scope of the journal. 

Author Response

Reviewer#1. The authors just mentioned that they have addressed the comment but they didn't. Therefore I again suggest to address following comment in true spirit provide a separate section for this purpose and also cite all the below given articles to acknowledge the guidance to address sustainability related aspect in this paper.

Response : Thanks for the comments. We have done our best to address the comments from the reviewer

Reviewer#1. Comment to be addressed: Since your target journal is sustainability, therefore please explain the economic benefit of cultivating shallot in sandy loam. Further explain input quantity, logistics and cost to cultivate shallot in sandy loam as per the proposed solution in this study and compare it with the output quantity and worth so that sustainability-related aspects of this solution could be discerned. For guidelines please read the field implication sections of the following paper and cite them in the revised manuscript:

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148746

 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16912-w

 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-0159-2

Response : Thanks for the help to get the supporting journal of our paper. We have gone through to read the field implication sections of the paper” Reuse of COVID-19 face mask for the amelioration of mechanical properties of fat clay: A novel solution to an emerging waste problem” by Rehman and Khalid (2021). We can see that there is no relation of using face mask waste and shallot productivity in sandy soils in our study. Hence we may cite this information from this paper for our next paper, and not in the present paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, I see that the manuscript is somehow improved, but it still needs corrections and clarifications. In my opinion, the term N-omitted for substitution of minus N anyway is not a good choice. It was still not indicated what dry season means - you have to take into account that the article is published internationally on a global scale, and the terms should be understandable for a reader from any region of the world. Still, there are quite enough grammar and style errors, and scientific soundness still needs improvement. All figures need a unified style, but Figure 3 needs corrections. For me, it seems that the title should be specified, indicating the region of the study. Still, incorrect entry style of units can be noticed (e.g., in Table 6) that must be corrected. Table 6 is not fitting on the page. Chapters discussing the costs are debatable, and regionality should be emphasized; it should be better presented as an example of Indonesia because such costs worldwide are very various, especially at the current time. Also, the discussion should be improved avoiding unnecessary verbosity and daily language phrases but using a formal and scientific style. Previously I indicated not to write, e.g., "K element" or "K nutrient" - I still see that it is not corrected. The list of references needs style revision according to the journal's requirements.

Author Response

Response to the comments form Reviewer#3.

Reviewer#3. In my opinion, the term N-omitted for substitution of minus N anyway is not a good choice.

Response: Thanks for the comment. We use the term N-omitted for substitution of minus N treatment in the previous version of our paper because the “omission” is recognized as scientific term for describing the reduction of one element test in the fertilizer experiment. This term is already used in International publication, see an example (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Girijesh-Sharma/publication/346123933_Crop_Response_Based_Assessment_of_Soil_Fertility_through_Nutrient_Omission_Technique_in_Alfisol_of_Bastar_District_of_Chhattisgarh_State_in_India/links/5fe80368299bf140884aaf61/Crop-Response-Based-Assessment-of-Soil-Fertility-through-Nutrient-Omission-Technique-in-Alfisol-of-Bastar-District-of-Chhattisgarh-State-in-India.pdf).

.

Reviewer#3. It was still not indicated what dry season means - you have to take into account that the article is published internationally on a global scale, and the terms should be understandable for a reader from any region of the world.

Response: Thanks for remind us to clarify the dry season. We have provided the information of the climate condition (temperature and rainfall) in the revised manuscript. see section: 2.1. Description of the study area

 

Reviewer#3. Still, there are quite enough grammar and style errors, and scientific soundness still needs improvement.

Response: We have made correction/editing of English grammatical error of the present revision

Reviewer#3. All figures need a unified style, but Figure 3 needs corrections.

Response: The unified style of figures has been made. Figure 3 has been corrected.

Reviewer#3. For me, it seems that the title should be specified, indicating the region of the study.

Response: The title has been revised as suggested, from previous title: “Soil Nutrient Management of Shallot Farming in Sandy Loam Soil” to “Nutrient Management of Shallot Farming in Sandy Loam Soil in Tegalrejo, Gunungkidul, Indonesia”

 

Reviewer#3. Still, incorrect entry style of units can be noticed (e.g., in Table 6) that must be corrected. Table 6 is not fitting on the page.

Response: The units of in tables have been corrected, and that Table 6 has been adjusted to fit the page.

Reviewer#3. Chapters discussing the costs are debatable, and regionality should be emphasized; it should be better presented as an example of Indonesia because such costs worldwide are very various, especially at the current time.

Response: The discussion on costs has been revised and the emphasized to Indonesian situation has been given.

Reviewer#3.  Also, the discussion should be improved avoiding unnecessary verbosity and daily language phrases but using a formal and scientific style.

Response: The discussion has been improved and the English has been edited accordingly.

Reviewer#3.  Previously I indicated not to write, e.g., "K element" or "K nutrient" - I still see that it is not corrected.

Response: Thanks for reminder, the expression e.g., "K element" or "K nutrient" has been changed from “K element" or "K nutrient  to “K”.

Reviewer#3.  The list of references needs style revision according to the journal's requirements.

Response: The list of references has been revised according to the journal's style

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper can be accepted for publication. Congratulations to the authors.

Author Response

Dear Editors of Sustainability  Journal,

            We are happy send the second revision of manuscript entitled “Nutrient Management of Shallot Farming in Sandy Loam Soil in Tegalrejo, Gunungkidul, Indonesia” to be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal. 

The parts that we have corrected are marked with a yellow block. Here are some points that have been improved:

1. REVIEWER 1

Reviewer #1 : paper can be accepted for publication.

Author : thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, considering your answers to my previous comments:

Reviewer#3. Still, there are quite enough grammar and style errors, and scientific soundness still needs improvement. Response: We have made correction/editing of English grammatical error of the present revision

– English proofreading is still compulsorily needed; style is improved somehow, but not completely; you should also reconsider using Past tense instead of Present tense in several places of the main text. 

Reviewer#3. All figures need a unified style, but Figure 3 needs corrections. Response: The unified style of figures has been made. Figure 3 has been corrected.

– I don't see that the style of the figures was corrected, e.g., fonts are different for Fig.1 and Fig.2,3.

Reviewer#3. Still, incorrect entry style of units can be noticed (e.g., in Table 6) that must be corrected. Table 6 is not fitting on the page. Response: The units of in tables have been corrected, and that Table 6 has been adjusted to fit the page.

– Not completed - Table 6 still has various unit styles.

Reviewer#3. Chapters discussing the costs are debatable, and regionality should be emphasized; it should be better presented as an example of Indonesia because such costs worldwide are very various, especially at the current time. Response: The discussion on costs has been revised and the emphasized to Indonesian situation has been given.

– I don't see it in Subchapter 4.5. In subchapter 3.5, instead of strange sentence in line 290, you could just indicate that the calculations are related to prices and costs in the Indonesian region.

Reviewer#3.  Also, the discussion should be improved avoiding unnecessary verbosity and daily language phrases but using a formal and scientific style. Response: The discussion has been improved and the English has been edited accordingly.

Reviewer#3.  Previously I indicated not to write, e.g., "K element" or "K nutrient" - I still see that it is not corrected. Response: Thanks for reminder, the expression e.g., "K element" or "K nutrient" has been changed from “K element" or "K nutrient  to “K”.

– Not completed fully, e.g., in several places of the manuscript still it can be seen something like "Mg nutrient" or "S fertilizer", it is enough with writing just Mg or S.

Reviewer#3.  The list of references needs style revision according to the journal's requirements. Response: The list of references has been revised according to the journal's style

– Not completed - I don't see that the reference style is uniform.

Additional remarks – line 51 needs a reference. It has to be explained what is SP 36 and ZA as indicated in line 76. Units should not be divided from values; use Ctrl+Shift+Space. Money denomination should be applied in a uniform manner - USD or $, but not both.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

September 11^th, 2022

 

 

Dear Editors of Sustainability  Journal,

            We are happy send the second revision of manuscript entitled “Nutrient Management of Shallot Farming in Sandy Loam Soil in Tegalrejo, Gunungkidul, Indonesia” to be considered for publication in Sustainability Journal. We thank you the Editor and Reviewer#3 for valuable comments/suggestions allowing us to further improving the quality of our manuscript for the second round of review. We have addressed the Reviewer comments/suggestions in the revised manuscript. The English has been carefully edited as suggested.

The parts that we have corrected are marked with a yellow block. Here are some points that have been improved:

1. REVIEWER 3

Reviewer#3. English proofreading is still compulsorily needed; style is improved somehow, but not completely; you should also reconsider using Past tense instead of Present tense in several places of the main text. Past tense instead of Present tense

Author: The results have been written in past tense.

 

Reviewer#3. All figures need a unified style, but Figure 3 needs corrections. Response: The unified style of figures has been made. Figure 3 has been corrected.

– I don't see that the style of the figures was corrected, e.g., fonts are different for Fig.1 and Fig.2,3.

Author : Fig 3, Fig 1and Fig. 2,3 has been corrected

 

Reviewer#3. Not completed - Table 6 still has various unit styles.

Author: Table 6 has been revised in uniform unit style.

 

Reviewer#3. I don't see it in Subchapter 4.5. In subchapter 3.5, instead of strange sentence in line 290, you could just indicate that the calculations are related to prices and costs in the Indonesian region.

Author: Thanks for the correction/suggestion. We have revised the sentence into “Economic feasibility analysis was based on the prices and costs in the Indonesian region

 

Reviewer#3.  Also, the discussion should be improved avoiding unnecessary verbosity and daily language phrases but using a formal and scientific style.

Author: The discussion has been improved and the English has been edited accordingly.

Reviewer#3. I don't see that the reference style is uniform.

Author: The reference style has been made uniformly

Reviewer#3. Additional remarks – line 51 needs a reference. It has to be explained what is SP 36 and ZA as indicated in line 76. Units should not be divided from values; use Ctrl+Shift+Space. Money denomination should be applied in a uniform manner - USD or $, but not both.

Author:

• For line 51, thank you for the correction. The reference of line 51 is the same as the line 50 (reference no 2). Now it has been shifted to line 51.
• The SP 36 and ZA have been clarified as follows” These nutrients can be supplied from urea, SP 36 (Super Phosphate, 36% P₂O₅), KCl (Kalium Chloride), Mg and ZA (Ammonium Sulphate) fertilizers” (line 76)
• The currency denomination has been applied uniformly using USD .

 

We hope that our revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in Sustainability Journal and look forward to seeing the manuscript in accepted information.

Yours sincerely,

Sutardi and other authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx