Tillage, Crop Rotation and Crop Residue Management Effects on Nutrient Availability in a Sweet Sorghum-Based Cropping System in Marginal Soils of South Africa
, Adornis D. Nciizah 1, Fhatuwani N. Mudau 2,3 and Isaiah I.C Wakindiki 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking your time to review this work. Your comments were highly helpful
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled ‘Tillage, Crop Rotation and Residue Management Effects on Nutrient Availability in a Sweet Sorghum Based Cropping System in Marginal Soils of South Africa’ analyzed different tillage methods, cropping systems, and plant residue management on soil chemical properties, especially focusing on soil nutrients availability.
The topic of the manuscript exhibits a current problem in agricultural fields, especially in areas where degraded or low fertile soils are present. The manuscript is well-written, the experiment was well-designed, the authors did an excellent analysis of their collected data, and the information provided would be the interest of the Agronomy’s readership. However, there are several areas that need revisions prior. While the authors did a well-conducted research with focusing on the statistical interaction between the investigated parameters, one of the main problems with the paper is the discussion section, which needs to be enhanced. The authors should put their findings into perspective, they should emphasize their results that put them apart from other studies. Both the potential and the merit of this paper are high, but currently it is not reflected enough in the manuscript. After the revision, the paper should be published.
The other major issue with the manuscript is the English language, which needs considerable rewriting, probably with a person who is a native speaker or speaks English very well.
I have added some additional comments to the paper, collected below.
Specific comments:
Line 19. “compared to”
Line 37. “human being” instead use “humans”
Line 48. How CA could increase fertilizer productivity?
Line 49. “increase in the surface”. Please change the word “surface” to another more appropriate word such as topsoil, soil surface, the upper portion of the soil layer, root zone, etc., as the top portion of the soil was investigated.
Line 50. “exchangeable bases”. Do you mean chemicals?
Line 81. “inconsistencies”
Line 81. Instead “shows” use “show”.
Line 110. “In the October”, please change it.
Materials and Methods/Results:
I suggest adding a table including soil and crop residue information, TN, TON, TIN, TC...etc., which were measured.
After table Line 20. “It is also…”
Line 22. Instead “realised” use “observed”
Line 28. not Nitrate itself, the amount of nitrate influenced...
Line 81. Residue?
Line 86. soil with plant residue
Line 87. and what is ideal? You should provide some actual values here.
Line 91. Increases.
Line 94. Importance.
Line 100. Did you mean: “are slow in soils”?
Line 114. Enhances.
Author Response
Thanks for taking your time and review this work. Your comments were highly helpful
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A typical publication, but not outstanding. The text is relatively clear and easy to read, and the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Author Response
Thanks for your time to comments and input to this work
