Synergistic Effects of Acacia Prunings-Derived Biochar and Nitrogen Application on the Mineral Profile of Maize (Zea mays L.) Grains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This manuscript describes a study in which the effect of biochar obtained from the prunings of acacia (Acacia nilotica) through slow pyrolysis (four levels), and nitrogen fertilization (three levels) was analysed on the mineral profile of maize grains, compared to control (no treatment). The analysis of the treatment combinations allowed to obtain interesting results, including the identification of the combination in which the highest concentrations of K, P, Ca, and Mg in grains were obtained (application of BC at the rate of 10 t ha⁻¹ along with N at 200 kg ha⁻¹). The authors concluded that the integrated use of BC and N could be a valuable strategy to improve the nutritional quality of maize grains.

 

The manuscript contains original results, and the research is up to date. The topic is suitable for Sustainability, Special Issue ‘Biodiversity and Natural Resources Management’. Based on the analysis of the manuscript, I suggest some possible improvements to the work.

 

Abstract: The abstract is too broad and should be summarized to give the reader more pragmatic information about the research. In addition, it exceeds the journal requirement (200 words maximum). Here, there are 374 words. The volume is not necessarily too consistent, but the volume associated with the scientific content seems too dense and quite difficult for the reader to follow. If the reader finds this Abstract available in academic databases, he/she may lose interest in the full text of the manuscript.

The general introduction can be omitted (Lines L15-17: “Improving the food and nutritional quality in regions with predominantly cereal-based diets is on the global agenda. Farm-level strategies are being devised to value the inclusion of locally developed amendments to target both quality and quantity parameters.”. Please revise or reformulate some sentences and avoid possible inaccuracies or inadvertences, or punctuation marks (i.e., there is no period after penultimate sentence L35-36: “Loading of BC with micronutrients is recommended to achieve desired concentration of micronutrients in maize grains”).

 

M&M chapter: The section ‘2.1. Study site and biochar field trial' of Material and Methods chapter is difficult to follow, try to structure it more clearly in 2-3 distinct paragraphs. Refer to the location of the experiment and the ecological conditions, preparation of the biochar, and the experience performed in the field, with the two experimental factors and the cultivar of maize used.

 

Please revise the value of average annual precipitation (15 mm) in the M&M chapter, subchapter 2.1.:

Lines L 111-113 “Mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures at the site were 9.5°C and 28.5°C, respectively, while the average annual precipitation was only 15 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department).”

 

Please complete information in the text, see:

L 114-117

The treatments were replicated three times. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with split-plot arrangements. The BC treatments were assigned to the main plot and N to the sub-plots.

The parcels/replicates dimensions would be useful to help readers to understand your research in the field.

 

Major issue:

Please review section ‘2.2.2.4. Statistical analysis (L 217-226)’. The posthoc analyses and the correlations you are talking about must also be found in the ‘Results’ chapter.

 

 

Results

 

Major issue:

In order to give consistency to the results of this manuscript (and to avoid the impression of the salami paper), the data with the grain yield obtained in the interaction ‘biochar BC × N’ (N fertilizer level: 0-N, 100-N, 150-N, and 200-N, and BC level: 0-BC, 5-BC, 10-BC, 15-BC, and 20-BC) should be included in the chapter Results. Especially since some of the grain yield results are discussed in section ‘3.3. Grain yield’, lines L249-254.

 

Even if the results are consistent, their presentation in only the two Tables (2 and 3) seems poor and less conclusive than what could be revealed by this research and the interactions between the two experimental (NC x BC) factors.

 

Where are the correlations? (See M&M, lines 226-227). No result about ‘r’ data. The term ‘correlation’ appears in the manuscript only once, in L226-227: “The significance of correlations was tested using Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation.”.

 

 

General considerations and recommendations, especially for the ‘Results’ section

 

A more complete presentation of the results is required. Also, capitalizing on them through correlations or regressions would bring more information that would strengthen the scientific value of the research, and would make the manuscript much more interesting.

Probably regressions would be more appropriate, because the equations and the regression line would graphically suggest the influence of BC and N doses of maize production, Macro and micro-elements concentration of maize grains.

These recommendations would not involve direct experimental interventions, but only a better use of existing data, which can be done very easily.

In addition, it would allow the extrapolation of data to other BC or N levels. Along with the regression equation, the values ‘r’ and ‘r²’ (coefficients of correlation and determination) could be presented, all contributing to the increase in the impact of the research, the results and the hypotheses that could be formulated in ‘Discussion’ or ‘Conclusion’ chapters.

 

 

Author Response

QUERY:

Abstract

The abstract is too broad and should be summarized to give the reader more pragmatic information about the research. In addition, it exceeds the journal requirement (200 words maximum). Here, there are 374 words. The volume is not necessarily consistent, but the volume associated with the scientific content seems too dense and quite difficult for the reader to follow. If the reader finds this Abstract available in the academic database, he/she may lose interest in the full text of the manuscript.

 

The general introduction can be omitted (lines L15-17: improving the food and nutritional quality in regions with predominantly cereal-based diets is on the global agenda. Farm-level strategies are being devised to value the inclusion of locally developed amendments to target both quality and quantity parameters.” Please revise or reformulate some sentences and avoid possible inaccuracies or inadvertences, or punctuation marks (i.e., there is not period after penultimate sentence L35-36: “Loading of BC with micronutrients is recommended to achieve desired concentration of micronutrients in maize grains”

 

RESPONSE

Thanks for your suggestion. “Yes, we have reduced the word count and these words do not exceed 250. We have omitted the general introduction. Please see a copy with track changes, and a clean copy to reflect changes made to the abstract. Also, we have inserted a period after L35-36.

 

QUERY

 M&M

The section 2.1. Study site and biochar field trial of Material and Methods chapter is difficult to follow. Try to structure it more clearly in 2-3 district paragraphs. Refer to the location of the experiment and the ecological conditions, preparation of biochar, and experience performed in the field, with two experimental factors and the cultivar of maize used. Please revise the value of average annual precipitation (15 mm) in the M&M chapter, subchapter 2.1:

 

Lines L 111-113 “Mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures at the site were 9.5 and 28.5 degrees, respectively, while the average annual precipitation was only 15 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department).

 

Please complete information in the text, see:

L114-17

The treatments were replicated three times. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with split-plot arrangements. The BC treatments were assigned to the main pot and N to the sub-plots.

 

 

The parcels/replicates dimensions would be useful to help readers to understand your research in the field.

 

RESPONSE

We have edited the text to address the concerns. The statement Lines 111-113 and the rest of the section have been modified as deemed appropriate. Please see a copy with track changes, and a clean copy to reflect changes made to the abstract.

 

MAJOR ISSUE

• Please review section “2.2.2.4. Statistical analysis (L 217-226)”. The post-hoc analyses and the correlations you are talking about must also be found in the Results, Chapter.

 

• In order to give consideration to the results of this manuscript (and avoid the impression of the Salami paper), the data with the grain yield obtained in the interaction “biochar BC × N (N fertilizer level: 0-N, 100-N, 150-N, and 200-N, and BC level: 0-BC, 5-BC, 15-BC, and 20-BC) should be included in the chapter Results, Especially since some of the grain yield results are discusses in section “3.3. Grain yield, lines L2490254.

 

• Even if the results are consistent, their representation only the two Tables (2 and 3) seems poor and less conclusion than what could be revealed by this research and the interaction between the two experimental (N × BC) factors.

 

• Where are the correlations? (See M&M, lines 226-227). No result about “r” data. The term correlation appears in the manuscript only once, in L226-227”. The significance of correlation was tested using Pearson’s Product-Moment correlations

 

 

General considerations and recommendations, especially for the ‘Results’ section

 

• A more complete presentation of results is required. Also, capitalizing on them through correlations or regression would bring more information that would strengthen the scientific value of the research, and would make the manuscript much more interesting. Probably regression would be more appropriate, because the equations and the regression line would graphically suggest the influence of BC and N doses of maize production, Macro and micro-elements concentration of maize grains.

 

• These recommendations would not involve direct experimental interventions, but only a better use of existing data, which can be done very easily. In addition, it would allow the extrapolation of data to the BC or N levels. Along with the regression equation, the values “r’ and Coefficient of correlations
• and determination could be represented, all contributing to the increase in the impact of the research, the results and hypotheses, that could be formulated in “Discussion or conclusion, chapters.

 

 

RESPONSE

To address the issues highlighted by the reviewer, we have made the following changes to the manuscript (specific sections of the manuscript).

 

1. The title of the manuscript has been changed to value acacia prunings-derived biochar.

The revised title is “Synergistic effects of acacia prunings derived biochar and nitrogen application on the mineral profile of maize (Zea Mays L.) grains”.

 

2. Table-1 has been revised, and 03 more tables and one figure has been made of the manuscript now.

 

Table 2. Soil properties at the reproductive stage of maize as affected by different biochar (BC) and nitrogen (N) levels

Table 3. Soil properties at the maturity stage of maize as affected by different biochar (BC) and nitrogen (N) levels.

Table 4. Effect of biochar (BC) and nitrogen (N) application on maize grain yield

 

FIGURE-1. Effect of biochar (BC) (averaged across nitrogen (N) levels), and N (averaged across BC levels) on the maize grain density of macro- and micro-elements. A polynomial regression (second degree) was employed to visually reflect the impact of BC and N. BC was applied at the rates of 5 (5-BC), 10 (10-BC), 15 (15-BC), and 20 t ha⁻¹ (20-BC), and N at 100 (100-N), 150 (150-N), and 200 kg ha⁻¹ (200-N) along with control (without BC and N) in a split-plot arrangement using randomized complete block design. The macro-element grain density is the sum of potassium, (K), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg). The microelement grain density represents the sum of zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), and copper (Cu) contents. Clearly, the micro-element grain density was decreased with an increased level of BC as compared to the control (without BC and N) - (1b). While increased N level elevated the micro-element grain density. However, macro-element grain density was maximum at 10-BC followed by 5-BC = 15-BC > 20-BC and control (1b). The maximum macro-element grain density was found at 200-N followed by 100-N, control, and at 150-N (1c).

 

3. The section “Statistical Analysis” has been revised as per suggestions – MAJOR ISSUES.

 

2.2.2.4. Statistical analysis

The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the Statistix 8.1 statistical package. Significant differences between treatment means were determined using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test for main as well as for interactive effects. The effects of BC (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 t ha⁻¹), N fertilizer (0, 100, 150, and 200 kg ha⁻¹), and the BC × N were estimated with two-way ANOVA on all the measured data. In addition, one-way ANOVA and Tukey test were performed individually on the data for each N fertilizer level (0-N, 100-N, 150-N, and 200-N), and BC level (0-BC, 5-BC, 10-BC, 15-BC, and 20-BC). A polynomial regression (second degree) was employed to visually reflect the impact of BC (averaged across N levels), and N (averaged across BC levels) on the grain density of macro- and micro-elements.

 

We have added a new para at the end of the Discussion Section. This para clarified many of the concerns raised by three reviewers (particularly reviewer 1).

 

                            
Raw biochar is reported to have usually a higher payback time, even with increased crop yields [43]. Moreover, BC with pH > 7.5 is discouraged to apply on alkaline calcareous soils (common in semi-arid to arid environments). Overall, the pH of BC used in our experiment ranged between 6.46 to 6.50 (largely uncommon compared to most of the BC available in the local market). The argument against the comparative accrual in the SOM at the reproductive stage than in soil after harvesting dictates the role of the labile pool of BC in the presence of relatively exhaustive test crop (maize needs a balanced supply of macro and micro-nutrients). As at that time (reproductive stage) the plant was actively photosynthesizing, the labile pool of BC was not preferred. However, after the reproductive stage when the photosynthesis was almost stopped and photosynthates may have been stored; metabolically available organic C from the labile pool of BC was preferably consumed, and thus low SOM was found (Table 3). Nevertheless, there is a need to investigate the impact of aged BC on the quality of maize grain, SOM storage potential on soils with different OM contents, soil textures, and clay mineralogy. Clay minerals are the most reactive inorganic components of soils, largely govern soil properties and functions, and may mask the true potential of BC due to organo-mineral interactions. If acacia prunings derived BC is to be made part of the land management system, no acidification but cost-effective micronutrient enrichment techniques have to be further explored.

Reviewer 2 Report

I assess the research issues undertaken by the Authors very well. The use of biochar (BC) can be a valuable source of plant nutrients and contribute to the improvement of physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. After a thorough analysis of the manuscripts, however, I suggest changes that will positively affect its cognitive value.

Line 228-233 - 3.1. Soil properties (start of the experiment) suggest moving to  2.1. Study site and biochar field trial.

Line 235-248 - 3.2 Changes in soil pH, EC and OM (at reproductive stage and after harvest) I line 249-255 - 3.3. Grain yield . The authors discuss the data without providing tables.

Please include them or provide the literature item in which they were discussed

Author Response

QUERY

Line 228-233- 3.1 Soil properties (start of the experiment) suggest moving to 2.1. Study site and biochar field trial.

 RESPONSE

Line 228-233- 3.1 Soil properties (start of the experiment) have been moved to 2.1. Study site and biochar field trial. Please see a copy with track changes, and a clean copy to reflect changes made to the section.

QUERY

Line 235-248 – 3.2 Changes in soil pH, EC, and OM (at the reproductive stage and after harvest)

RESPONSE

Two relevant new tables have been added to reflect “Changes in soil and pH, EC, and OM at both stages. Please see a copy with track changes, and a clean copy to reflect changes made to the section.

QUERY

line 249-255- 3.3 Grain yield. The authors discuss the data without providing tables. Please include them or provide the literature item in which they were discussed.

 

RESPONSE

A new table has been added to show “Grain Yield” – Table-4

Reviewer 3 Report

2. Material and methods

In the text the form of nitrogen administration to the soil is not clear: urea or NPK? 

table 1 soil: to replace P with available P; K with available K; N with total N.

2.2 soil and biochar properties

To describe the method used for the total N content in soil analysis (table 1)

To describe the method for the total organic carbon in biochar analysis (table 1)

3. Results

3.2 and 3.3 section: the tables with the data discussed are missing. To insert the relative tables in the paper

3.4 Effect of biochar and nitrogen application…..

The authors highlight significant interactions between the different doses of N and BC. In these cases, they should provide a statistical index of comparison or separation of the means between each fertilization combination within tables 2 and 3 for each element. This index would allow statistically interpreting the synergistic effects between the two main factors. The standard error is not born as a comparison index. For example (see rows 277-279 and Tab.2), the authors write “The interaction between BC and N levels revealed that the maximum grain P content (4133 ± 26 mg kg−1) was found with application of 10 t ha⁻¹ of BC along with 200 kg N ha⁻¹”; however, from the data in the table, it is not possible to make a statistical comparison on the interactions with previous fertilization levels (BC10-N0; BC10-N100; BC10-N150).

Authors should replace @ throughout the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

QUERY

2: Materials and methods

In the text the form of nitrogen administration to the soil is not clear; urea or NPK.

Table 1 soils: to replace P with available P; K with available K; N with total N

2.2 SOIL and biochar properties

To describe the method used for the total N content in soil analysis (table 1)

To describe the method for the total organic carbon in biochar analysis (table 1)

3: Results

3.2 and 3.3 section: the tables with the data discussed are missing. To insert relative tables in the paper.

3.4. Effect of biochar and nitrogen application

RESPONSE

We have thoroughly revised the text, now. The word ‘available” has been inserted for P, K and/or where deemed appropriate. The methodology has been added to the relevant section. Further, we have made 03 more tables, and 01 figure part of this manuscript now. This is to note that urea was used as a source of N.

3.4 The authors highlight significant interactions between the different doses of N and BC, in these cases, they should provide a statistical index of comparison, or separation means between each fertilization combinations with tables 2 and 3 or each element. The interaction between BC and N levels revealed that the maximum grain P content (4133) was found with application not possible to make a statical comparisons on the interactions with the previous fertilization levels (BC-10-NO; BC10-N100; BC10-N150).

RESPONSE

The text has been made more clearer now with the support of a figure, and with the addition of 03 more tables.

QUERY

Authors are required to replace @ with at throughout the text.

 

RESPONSE:

We have replaced @ with “at” throughout the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made a considerable improvement to the manuscript after peer-review 1. Undoubtedly, the new tables, figures, respectively information, add scientific value to the manuscript and give it more originality, but there are still different ambiguities.

 

For the newly added figures, why the polynomial regression was employed only for the impact of BC (averaged across N levels), and N (averaged across BC levels) on the grain density of macro- and micro-nutrient? There is also a lack of discussion of coefficient of determination (R²), which demonstrates how much variation in y is explained by x-variables. Why was no linear regression used to analyze the effect of biochar (BC) and nitrogen (N) application on maize grain yield?

 

This information would probably bring the most relevant data to the research.

 

I recommend including above the value R² the regression equation, and below R² to note the value of 'r' (correlation coefficient) with the level of significance alpha 0.05. A very concise discussion of the respective coefficients (both, R² and r) and how the independent variable influenced the dependent variables will be useful for emphasizing the influence of the treatments and highlighting the results.

 

Because the issues in peer review 1 were not fully addressed, some remained unresolved.

 

For example, no answer to the question in p-r1: [Where are the correlations? (See M&M, lines 226-227). No result about ‘r’ data. The term ‘correlation’ appears in the manuscript only once, in L226-227: “The significance of correlations was tested using Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation.”.].

 

 

Another example, see Line L 112-113: "the average annual precipitation was only 15 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department)" [initial version of ms], respectively L103-104 "the average annual precipitation is only 15 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department) [new version of ms, after p-r].

 

I recommended verification of the data and their correction, because it is impossible such an average of the annual precipitations. Please see the document of the Government of Pakistan, Pakistan Meteorological Department, State of Pakistan’s Climate in 2020: http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/Pakistan_Climate_2020.pdf

 

It would be a shame for such erroneous information to remain in the manuscript.

 

Please check the statistics!

Explanations in section "2.2.2.4. Statistical analysis" on the use of two-way ANOVA for the effects of BC (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 t ha−1), N fertilizer (0, 100, 150, and 200 kg ha−1) and the BC × N, and of one-way ANOVA and Tukey, performed individually on the data for each N fertilizer level (0-N, 100-N, 150-N, and 200-N), and BC level (0-BC, 5-BC, 10-BC, 15-BC, and 20-BC) are not clearly correlated with tables data.

 

The BC × N interactions are inside the tables, but you did not mark here the differences between the means. If you do, use lowercase letters inside, and on rows and columns, for the means of pH, SOM, MC, and N0 ... N200 (Tables 2 and 3), use uppercase letters.

At the average values, on the final rows or on the columns, you were not consistent and many are incomplete, the reader being confused.

You should also use symbols when there are no real differences between the media, possibly using the same letters.

 

Please delete "Table 4. Effect of biochar (BC) and nitrogen (N) application on maize grain yield", under Table 3 (L240-241).

Author Response

REVIEWER-1

The authors have made a considerable improvement to the manuscript after peer-review 1. Undoubtedly, the new tables, figures, respectively information, add scientific value to the manuscript and give it more originality, but there are still different ambiguities.

RESPONSE

We are thankful to the reviewer for acknowledging considerable improvement made to the manuscript after peer-review 1. We assure the reviewer that all ambiguities have been removed, and/or queries be addressed as per satisfaction.

QUERY-1:

For the newly added figures, why the polynomial regression was employed only for the impact of BC (averaged across N levels), and N (averaged across BC levels) on the grain density of macro-and micro-nutrient? There is also a lack of discussion of coefficient of determination (R²), which demonstrates how much variation in y is explained by x-variables. Why was no linear regression used to analyze the effect of biochar (BC) and nitrogen (N) application on maize grain yield? This information would probably bring the most relevant data to the research. I recommend including the above value of R² in the regression equation, and below R² to note the value of ‘r’ (correlation coefficient) with the level of significance alpha 0.05. A very concise discussion of the respective coefficients (both, R² and r) and how the independent variable influenced the dependent variable will be useful for emphasizing the influence of the treatments and highlighting the results.

 RESPONSE

We employed different regression techniques to reflect the impact of BC (averaged across N levels) and N (averaged across BC levels) - ‘visually and statistically’ on the grain density of macro- and micro-nutrients. One with the highest values of the co-efficient of determination (R²) was chosen. Please note that no regression technique best described our data trends except the polynomial regression. This is to note that we were not expecting any linear relationship of different factors/variables on the nutrient density and/or yield in our field investigation. We have shared the values of R² (coefficient of determination).

The values of R²  are provided below as a comparison to the polynomial regression.

Grain macronutrient density – a function of BC (averaged across N levels)

Polynomial:  R²    = 0.864

Linear:          R² = 0.098

Exponential: R² = 0.095

Logarithmic: R² = 0.294

Power:           R² = 0.244

Grain micronutrient density – a function of BC (averaged across N levels)

 

Polynomial: R^{2 =}  0.996

Linear:          R² = 0.939

Exponential: R² = 0.9487

Logarithmic: R² = 0.990

Power:          R² = 0.989

Gran macronutrient density – a function of N (averaged across BC levels)

Polynomial: R^{2      =}  0.607

Linear:          R² = 0.386

Exponential: R² = 0.3945

Logarithmic: R^{2 =} 0.2025

Power:         R² = 0.297

 

Gran micronutrient density – function of N (averaged across BC levels)

Polynomial: R^{2      =}  0.999

Linear: R² = 0.998

Exponential: R² = 0.999

Logarithmic R^{2 =} 0.9546

Power:  R² = 0.959

 

QUERY-3:

Because the issues in peer review 1 were not fully addressed, some remained unresolved.

3(a): Where are the correlations? (See M&M, lines 226-227). No result about “r” data. The term correlation appears in the manuscript only once, in L226-227”. The significance of the correlation was tested using Pearson’s Product-Moment correlations.

 

RESPONSE

We believe that we addressed your concerns by editing various sections of the manuscript. The sentences related to the “significance of the correlation was tested using Pearson’s Product-Moment correlations” were deleted in the previously revised version. We uploaded 02 copies of our revised manuscript – one with the track change mode clearly reflected what changes were made to the manuscript. However, perhaps that copy was not automatically shared with the reviewer. 

3(b): Another example, see line L 112-113: “average annual precipitation was only 15 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department)” [initial version of MS], respectively L103-104 “the average annual precipitation is only 15 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department) [new version of MS after peer-review].

I recommend verification of the data and their correction because it is impossible such an average of the annual precipitations. Please see the document of the Government of Pakistan, Pakistan Meteorological Department, State of Pakistan’s Climate in 2020. It would be a shame for such erroneous information to remain in the manuscript.

 

 

 

RESPONSE

Yes, this aspect was not adequately addressed without any intention.  This is to note that 15mm was the average daily precipitation for the cropping season - February to June.

Data

No of Rrainy Days = 55

Total Rain= 819.3 mm

Average=  15 mm

Temp Maximum= 28.5°C

Temp Minimum= 9.5 °C

 

However, to make it clearer, we have edited the respective lines as:

 

The average annual minimum and maximum temperatures at the experimental site are -1.92°C and 41.50°C, respectively, while the average total annual rainfall is 818.20 mm (Pakistan Meteorological Department) for the past twelve years i.e., 2010-2022.

 

 

QUERY-4: Please check the statistics!

4(a) Explanation in section “2.2.2.4. Statistical Analysis” on the use of two-way ANOVA for the effects of BC (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 t ha-1), N fertilizer (0, 100, 150, and 200 kg ha-1) and the BC x N, and of one-way ANOVA and Tukey, performed individually on the data for each N fertilizer level (0-N, 100-N, 150-N, and 200-N), and BC level (0-BC, 5-BC, 10-BC, 15-BC, and 20-BC) are not clearly correlated with tables data.

 

 

4(b) The BC × N interactions are inside the tables, but you did not mark here differences between the means. If you do, use lowercase letters inside, and on rows and columns, for the means of pH, SOM, MC, and N0…. N200 (Tables 2 and 3), use uppercase letters. At the average values, on the final rows or on the columns, you were not consistent, and many are incomplete, the reader is confused.

 

RESPONSE

We have modified the section “Statistical Analysis” and re-arranged our tables as per suggestions. Please see the revised version of the manuscript. We agree that showing the values of correlation, r may be vital to understand the experimental results. Nevertheless, there are also some limitations associated with the correlation analysis. Correlation cannot investigate the presence or effect of other variables outside of the two being explored. Importantly, correlation doesn't tell us about cause and effect. Correlation also cannot accurately describe curvilinear relationships. Considering the reviewer’s concern, we are presenting r and P values. However, these have made part of the manuscript only where deemed appropriate.  

Correlations (Pearson)

 

                           Mic_Den    Macro_Den  Grain Yield  SOM_1   SOM_2

Mic_Den          1.0000

  p-value           0.0000

Macro_Den     0.1751        1.0000

                           0.1808        0.0000

Grain Yield       -0.6557        -0.4241        1.0000

p-value             0.0000        0.0007        0.0000

SOM_1             0.0269        0.2710        -0.0207        1.0000

p-value             0.8383        0.0362        0.8750        0.0000

SOM_2             -0.0287        0.3522        0.0674        0.6531        1.0000

p-value             0.8277        0.0058        0.6089        0.0000        0.0000

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 144: proxy (add: variable).

Line 209: Table 2. Table 2 must be inserted before table 3 in results Section

Line 225: (table 2, table 3)

Line 232: 100 kg ha ^-1

Line 240: check the caption under table 3. The header of table 4 is repeated

Author Response

REVIEWER-2

 

Comments and Suggestion for Authors

 

 

Line 44: proxy (add: variable)

 

Line: 225: (table 2, table 3)

 

Line 232: 100 kg ha^-1

 

Line 240: check the caption under table 3: The header of table 4 is repeated

 

RESPONSE

All the suggestions of the reviewer have been incorporated now. Please see the revised manuscript.  

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was revised according to the problems reported. In addition, the authors responded appropriately to the issues raised, and the manuscript may pass to the next stage.