Impact of Different Fertilizer Forms on Yield Components and Macro–Micronutrient Contents of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Impact of Different Fertilizer Forms on Yield Components and Macro-Micro Nutrient Values of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)" is an interesting field investigation and can be of good scope for journal readers but there are several issues in the manuscript for example title is not clearly defining the scope of the study. Please change the title which must be technically sound for example nutrient value is not a technically sound word.
Improve introduction with updated literature.
Materials and methods
Table 1 Leonardite (L) composition is very different from literature values especially organic matter composition please recheck
section 2.1 line 116-117 please give soil class exactly.
result section need more discussion to improve the results
please correct reference format according to journal style
Author Response
I hope you are doing well.
Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive criticism. I tried to make corrections in the full text of the article in line with your suggestions. Also, I have prepared a file in response to your suggestions.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is written more like a thesis, explaining each crop parameters differently in individual paragraphs. The research paper has to be written in a story with coherence between individual parameters. Methodology and Results-discussion section needs major improvements.
In the introduction, author should introduce the problem or hypothesis explaining the reason of need for fertilization of cowpea, a crop of fabaceae family with such a high amounts of bulky organic manures? Why this study is important for the region?
In materials and methods, if we calculate the dose of N and P supplied by bulky organic manures by using Table 1, 10,000 kg of Vermicompost and farm yard manure supplies 220 kg and 35 kg, respectively of N, while 10,000 kg Leonardite supplies 140 kg N as compared to 60 kg N per hectare of inorganic fertilizers. How the results can be compared? There is variable quantity of nutrition in different treatments.
In Table 2, soil physico-chemical properties showed that lower soil depth (60-90 cm) is having 123% O.M. Sol is sufficient fertile for cowpea cultivation. Why so much bulky organic manures are being added then?
Figure 1 contains weather parameters, these have non-significant effect on crop performance. I think, less importance can be given on this aspect.
Section 2.3, method should contain full agronomic practices followed, such as tillage, manure application, mixing in which soil depth, etc. In line 142, 10 cm may be the plant spacing? What is parceling process (line 144)?
Section 3.1.2 is written twice in lines 157 and 166. Check it.
Results and Discussion section is written in a thesis format (paragraphs on individual crop parameters). Re-write the section in a complete story with coherence amongst different crop parameters under two sub-sections of 3.1 Yield components and 3.2 Nutrient content.
The CV of the data provided in the table 3 and 4 is too low for some parameters.
For correlation studies (Table 6), why average of different organic fertilizers treatments were taken?
Conclusions are much obvious and well-established. The organic fertilizers must be used to enhance soil fertility and supply small quantities of plant nutrients over a longer period. Cowpea itself can enhance soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation. Authors should take into consideration that aspect also.
Author Response
I hope you are doing well.
Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive criticism. I tried to make corrections in the full text of the article in line with your suggestions. Also, I have prepared a file in response to your suggestions.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Author is advised to include numerical and / statistical findings in to the abstract section.
Keywords: Ok
Introduction: Economic prospective and consumption pattern can be included.
Line 92: “natural balance, and to increase the yield and especially the quality per unit area” Requires additional illustration along with data.
Materials and Methods:
3.1.2. Detection of macro and micro elements: Here validation of macro & / micronutrient content with SRMs / CRMs are must.
Results and Discussion
3.1. Some physiological and some quality features: change with suitable subheadings along with adequate discussion.
Tables:- values are what kind of…..mean/median/mode? Disclose with number of replications.
Author is more interested in describing the findings, instead of discussion of the findings.
Adequate emphasis should be given in discussion section.
Author Response
I hope you are doing well.
Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive criticism. I tried to make corrections in the full text of the article in line with your suggestions. Also, I have prepared a file in response to your suggestions.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I reviewed the manuscript” Impact of Different Fertilizer Forms on Yield Components and Macro-Micro Nutrient Values of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.)” submitted for possible publication in Sustainability journal. In the manuscript, author considered three fertilizer forms with different doses and measured the growth and development of the Cowpea. The English can be improved. Further suggestions are given below.
Ø Revise the Abstract by adding complete information such as names of the used fertilizers and so on. The Abstract is simple.
Ø Delete number from the Keywords.
Ø Line 25-26 The African continent is the homeland of V. unguiculata, which is grown in our country from cowpea, I didn’t get it, please revise accordingly.
Ø Revise the introduction by adding some previously published related studies about use of organic fertilizers and their effects on plant growth.
Ø Do you think, it is economical to replicate your experiment in open field for larger area?
Ø Line 97-98 should be test material.
Ø What do you mean by condition?
Ø Four doses (FM1=2 500, FM2=5 104 000, FM3=7 500, and FM4=10 000 kg ha-1) of farmyard manure, four doses of vermicompost 105 (V1=2 500, V2=5 000, V3=7 500, and V4=10 000 kg ha-1), and two doses of Leonardite (L1=5 106 000 and L2=10 000 kg ha-1). Better to add this information in Abstract.
Ø I suggest test design in tabular form.
Ø Is there any specific reason or literature suggestion for choosing above doses of the fertilizers?
Ø I suggest adding the real figure showing your treatments and plant.
Ø Please clarify by separating the doses with names, For comparison, as the average amount of chemical fertilizer 107 applied under farmer conditions, in each block, 60 kg ha-1 N and P compound (20-20-0) 108 chemical fertilizer were applied to only one plot and no fertilizer was applied to one plot, 109 which was accepted as control.
Ø Have you analyzed the chemical properties of the selected fertilizers or cited from some other sources? Please revise accordingly my adding that the before start of the experiment, the test selected fertilizers were analyzed or their chemical properties were received from.
Ø Table 1 P2O5 (%) should be P2O5.
Ø Table 1 what is EC?
Ø Line 108 N and P compound, what are N and P.
Ø Line 112 revise the section heading Features of the trial site soil.
Ø In section 1.2, are these results before the experiment? If yes, have you collected some soil samples after experiment?
Ø Table 2, Some physical and chemical properties of the experimental area soils should be Some physical and chemical properties of the experimental area soil at different depths.
Ø Improve the quality of figure 1.
Ø As per the figure 1 and section 2.2, I think this experiment is carried out for two cropping seasons, if yes please add required data or revise accordingly, which is missing.
Ø I suggest to merge Line 97-110 into section 2.3, and section 2.3 should be replaced at/as 2.1
Ø Line 142 row spacing 70 cm, row spacing 10 cm, why two spaces? Is there any typo?
Ø Where is 3.2.1 section?
Ø Correct the section 3.2 as 3.1 and revise the title of anther 3.2 section, accordingly.
Ø Add method about measuring procedure of the growth parameters.
Ø From 0 to how many days later, you measured the test selected parameters? Mention it, accordingly.
Ø I think, it would be better to provide the results of both years separately in Table 3 and other Tables, accordingly.
Ø The section 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 could be merged into one section and section 3.1.7 to 3.1.10 into one section, accordingly.
Ø In tables the Capital letter showing the mean could be in superscript form with obtained values.
Ø Add some most related or recent research studies to support your results with justifications.
Ø Revise the reference such as from reference No.4 the Journal name is missing.
Author Response
I hope you are doing well.
Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive criticism. I tried to make corrections in the full text of the article in line with your suggestions. Also, I have prepared a file in response to your suggestions.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscript in a very nice way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope you are in good health and spirit. Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions in the first report.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
It seems to me the author have implemented the suggestions in a more or less satisfactory manner. Now a significant improvement in R1 version can be seen, compared to the original one. My stake is ACCEPT.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, I hope you are in good health and spirit. Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions in the first report. These suggestions made a good vision for me. I am glad that my revision has been accepted by you.
Best regards
Reviewer 4 Report
I reviewed the revised version of the manuscript. I think, author has responded the all raised questions and incorporated all the suggested changes. Some minor suggestion are given below.
1. -Such as, author said "In this study, which was carried out in Kahramanmaraş conditions in 2020-2021", I am still confused that what is the meaning of Kahramanmaras condition?
2-Add method about measuring procedure of the growth parameters. Author: the measuring of growth parameters was performed according to the procedure prepared by Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Variety Registration and Seed Certification Center. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BUGEM/TTSM/Belgeler/Tescil/Teknik%20Talimatlar/Yemeklik%20Tan e%20Baklagiller/yemeklik%20tane%20baklagiller.pdf (In Turkish)
It would be better to write this within the manuscript, accordingly.
3- I suggest to add one figure, captured during the experiment.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I tried to perform your suggestions. Thank you for your contributions.
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
