The Effect of Different Carrier Materials on the Growth and Yield of Spinach under Pot and Field Experimental Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report Manuscript ID: sustainability-1932202

Manuscript Title: Effect of different carrier materials on the growth and yield of spinach under pot and field experimental conditions

The manuscript I received for review entitled “Effect of different carrier materials on the growth and yield of spinach under pot and field experimental conditions” is an emerging topic of the World’s Agriculture due to malnutrition of the young population and the outbreak of malnutrition related diseases. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to biofortify our vegetables, fruits and grain crops through environment friendly approaches. The authors have done the great job in this regard and utilize the organic wastes to make the biofertilizers and spike these fertilizers with micronutrient sources and related micronutrient solubilizing PGPR. The paper is in line with the standards of the language and English Grammar quality. The data presented show that a comprehensive work is done which enhance the worth of this work. I appreciate the efforts of the authors and recommend the article for publication after fulfilment of the general observation as described below:

Abstract: Abstract is well structured starting with importance, methodology, results and concluding remarks in mind.

Introduction: İntroduction portion is well written and reflect the grip of the authors on knowledge of their field.

Methodology: Needs to check the value of Available Potassium in Table-1 specifically for peat and biochar it seems typo error.

Results: The results presented in tables should be limited to one digit after decimal where values are more than 10. Whereas the treatments description should be provided below caption under figures.

 

Discussion: The discussion portion is also well organized and provides proper justification of the findings.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1 Comments

Review Report Manuscript ID: sustainability-1932202

Manuscript Title: Effect of different carrier materials on the growth and yield of spinach under pot and field experimental conditions

The manuscript I received for review entitled “Effect of different carrier materials on the growth and yield of spinach under pot and field experimental conditions” is an emerging topic of the World’s Agriculture due to malnutrition of the young population and the outbreak of malnutrition related diseases. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to biofortify our vegetables, fruits and grain crops through environment friendly approaches. The authors have done the great job in this regard and utilize the organic wastes to make the biofertilizers and spike these fertilizers with micronutrient sources and related micronutrient solubilizing PGPR. The paper is in line with the standards of the language and English Grammar quality. The data presented show that a comprehensive work is done which enhance the worth of this work. I appreciate the efforts of the authors and recommend the article for publication after fulfilment of the general observation as described below:

Response:  Thanks for your appreciation. We have incorporated all the suggestions made by the reviewer

Comment:  Abstract: Abstract is well structured starting with importance, methodology, results and concluding remarks in mind.

Response:  The reviewer admired the authors for the well-structured abstract.

Comment:  Introduction: İntroduction portion is well written and reflects the grip of the authors on knowledge of their field.

Response:  The reviewer admired the authors for their grip of knowledge in their research area.

Comment:  Methodology: Needs to check the value of Available Potassium in Table-1 specifically for peat and biochar it seems typo error.

Response:  Yes, these were typographic errors which have been corrected now.

Comment:  Results: The results presented in tables should be limited to one digit after decimal where values are more than 10. Whereas the treatments description should be provided below caption under figures.

Response: The results section is modified as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment:  Discussion: The discussion portion is also well organized and provides proper justification of the findings.

Response:  The reviewer showed his satisfaction regarding the discussion portion of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor Sustainability

I am sharing my suggestions about the manuscript “1932202 -Effect of different carrier materials on the growth and yield of spinach under pot and field experimental conditions”. The reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers is a world practice, because these has been appointment as big caused of environmental pollution (Soil and Atmosphere), and this manuscript show like different carrier organic can increase the quality and yield of the spinach. There are some lacks of information in the methodology, but the results show clearly what it is the best treatment. In the conclusion, the authors could indicate the best carrier, because your results didn’t leave doubts. Doubts and commentaries are in the manuscript.

Best Regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Editor Sustainability

I am sharing my suggestions about the manuscript “1932202 -Effect of different carrier materials on the growth and yield of spinach under pot and field experimental conditions”. The reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers is a world practice, because these has been appointment as big caused of environmental pollution (Soil and Atmosphere), and this manuscript show like different carrier organic can increase the quality and yield of the spinach. There are some lacks of information in the methodology, but the results show clearly what it is the best treatment. In the conclusion, the authors could indicate the best carrier, because your results didn’t leave doubts. Doubts and commentaries are in the manuscript.

Best Regards!

Comment: Describe with more details this analysis, because the reference [45] is unknown.

Response: The reference represents the manual that is suggested for soil and plant analysis related to crop production. The manual includes the basic physicochemical analysis for fertilizers estimations in soil that’s why the reference was added for all the physicochemical analyses. Moreover, these analyses are the most common, and specified determinations of nutrients such as Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium are already described in the manuscript under heading 2.9 “Inorganic nutrient contents”.

Comment: is ECE=cation exchange capacity? is Saturation percentage=base saturation? It is necessary to remember this a international journals and readers in differ places go to read. So, You should write with more details.

Response: ECe is the Electrical Conductivity of the soil/carrier extract which is abbreviated as ECe Internationally.

Comment: Is wire house or a greenhouse?

Response: Yes, it is a wirehouse to protect against rodents and birds, but the natural conditions remain the same.

Comment: How were these values determined?

Response: These values are recommended doses of fertilizer for spinach in the semiarid climate.

Comment: Did you put all potassium in at once?

Response: Yes, the Potassium fertilizer was applied as a basal dose before sowing at once.

Comment: Do you use common water? Why didn't you use deionized water or distilled water? How was purity of this water?

Response: The common tap water available at the wirehouse was applied as irrigation which was of enough irrigation quality in terms of electrical conductivity.

Comment: What is EC? All times you write an abbreviation in the first times you must write its meaning.

Response: EC represents the Electrical Conductivity and the full form is added in the manuscript.

Comment: Once again, you wrote the abbreviation, but you didn't write its meaning.

Response: The full form of CFU is added to the manuscript before the abbreviation.

Comment: "Peat" is the best in your results. Why didn't you appointment only "PGPR consortium application with peat"?

Response: As described in the treatment portion of the tables the PGPRS were inoculated by using peat as carrier material. In Treatment T_2.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 3 Comments

In this study, authors compared various carrier material to measure the physiological and mineral parameters and the yield of spinach. By reviewing this manuscript, I have found some flaws in the conducted research. In my point of view, depending on the concerns that I have, this manuscript is not suitable to publish in its present form and it should be revised.

Main comments

Comment: Line 39-40: On which estimated soil parameters, the authors concluded that the peat improves soil quality?

Response: Peat improves soil quality in terms of improving the microbial biomass and nutritional status of the spinach which is an indication of soil quality improvement.

Comment: In the introduction part, the authors only explained the physical and chemical properties of different organic carrier materials. The authors did not discuss their applicability in crops and their impact on growth and yield. Moreover, the authors should clearly describe the research gap and why this study was conducted. The novelty of this study should be explained. Furthermore, in the last paragraph, it should be briefly mentioned how the research objectives were achieved.

Response: The relevant case studies are incorporated into the introduction section where needed. Moreover, the research gap and objective achievements are described.

Comment: In the result section, the authors did not show statistical significance but in the material and method section, they mentioned that statistical analyses were performed. Section 3.4 onward, why the authors are switching from table to figures? Figure 1 could be merged into table 8.

Response: Statistical Significance in terms of standard errors is also incorporated in the tables, moreover the different letters with values also represent the significant difference among treatments. The switching from tables to figures is due to the difference in macro and micronutrients as the macronutrients are represented in Tables while micronutrients are in Figures otherwise the tables seem too congested.

Comment: In the discussion part, the author should discuss each finding and relate it to the recent research.

Response: The discussion has been modified as suggested.

Comment: The limitation or drawback of this field study is missing and what authors would recommend for future research in this direction.

Response: Future directions have been added in the conclusion portion.

Comment: In the reference section, the DOI of each cited article is missing. Please add them.

Response: The references have been formatted as per the journal style.

Other comments

Comment: Section 2.5: for how long was the pot experiment carried out? What were the environmental conditions in the pot experiment facility?

Response: Pot experiment was for 90 days and prevailed under natural conditions as a field experiment whereas the wirehouse provided protection against birds and rodents.

Comment: Line149: which physiological attributes were measured?

Response: The measured physiological attributes are added in the respective portion.

Comment: Section 2.6: Lines 158-159 are replicate of lines 149-150. Use different wordings.

Response: The sentence has been modified as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment: Section 2.7: the label eq. 1 is missing

Response: The equation label has been added.

Comment: Section 2.10: briefly explain the method to count the microbial population.

Response: The method of the microbial population has been added in section 2.10.

Comment: Line 198: did you take soil samples? Please clarify.

Response: The nutrient contents were taken from spinach as nutritional status, not from the soil samples.

Comment: Section 3.2: the authors did not describe how did they determine these growth parameters in the material and method section. Please add these in the material and method section.

Response: The methods regarding section 3.2 have been added in section 2.9.

Comment: Table 3: Are these mean values, if yes, add the standard deviation of each measured parameter. Is the measured root length total? It is only 3 cm in the pot and 4 cm in the field, please double-check it. And the Same for shoot length.

Response: Spinach is a shallow-rooted crop and contains a fibrous root system that’s why there is not a huge difference in the root lengths at field and pot studies.

Comment: Section 3.3, line 236 delete ‘spinach plant’ it is already mentioned at the start of the paragraph.

Response: The word ‘spinach plant’ has been deleted from the text.

Comment: The authors did not describe how did they measure chlorophyll contents in the material and method section. Please add it in the materials and methods section.

Response: The procedure for chlorophyll determination has been added in the materials and methods section.

Comment: Table 1-8: add the standard deviation to each measured parameter.

Response: We have added

Comment: Section 3.5, line 295: what is CFU, please write the full name of this unit

Response: The full form of CFU has been incorporated in the relevant section.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript and have incorporated all comments. By revising this manuscript, I accept it in its present form and is now suitable for publication.