Next Article in Journal
Maintenance of Photosynthesis as Leaves Age Improves Whole Plant Water Use Efficiency in an Australian Wheat Cultivar
Previous Article in Journal
Development of A Nested-MultiLocus Sequence Typing Approach for A Highly Sensitive and Specific Identification of Xylella fastidiosa Subspecies Directly from Plant Samples
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effects of Biochar and Ground Magnesium Limestone Application, with or without Bio-Fertilizer Addition, on Biochemical Properties of an Acid Sulfate Soil and Rice Yield

Agronomy 2020, 10(8), 1100; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081100
by Qurban Ali Panhwar 1,2, Umme Aminun Naher 1,3, Jusop Shamshuddin 1,4,* and Mohd Razi Ismail 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2020, 10(8), 1100; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081100
Submission received: 5 May 2020 / Revised: 6 June 2020 / Accepted: 10 June 2020 / Published: 30 July 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have commented in the pdf file of the original manuscript. the authors are required to revise the manuscript according to comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Agronomy

Revised Submission of Manuscript ID: agronomy-809485 (Research paper)

We have made corrections in the revised manuscript ID: agronomy-809485 (Research paper) under title “Effects of Biochar and Ground Magnesium Limestone Application with or without Bio-Fertilizer Addition on Biochemical Properties of an Acid Sulfate Soil and Rice Yield” according to the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been followed and improved as per given suggestions from the reviewers. The corrections are highlighted in red colour. Now we do hope that it could be able to accept in the journal.  

Following are the correction grids with different reviewer’s comments.

No.

COMMENTS

CORRECTION MADE

PAGE No.

Reviewer 1 comments

General suggestions:

I have commented in the pdf file of the original manuscript the authors are requested to revise the manuscript according to comments

The manuscript has been revised as per given suggestions in the pdf file.

1-15

Specific comments:

1

How did you confirm this happened?

The sentence has been removed, as it was confirmed from our previous studies not from this study.  

1

2

Measured or determined?

The correction has been made.

1

3

What are these a, b, c, d meaning?

These are the mean differences and superscript with values.

6

4

influenced

The word “influenced” has been added.

6

5

of

The word “of” has been added.

6

6

It will be soil pore water pH

This is not pore water, it is crop standing water. As the crop was cultivated as wetland rice.

7

7

of

The word “of” has been added.

9

           

Regards

Prof. Dr. Shamshuddin Jusop and co-authors

Department of Land Management,

Faculty of Agriculture,

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Email: [email protected]

Reviewer 2 Report

The annotated file is attached with suggestions, modifications, and errors.
In general, the work is correctly executed and presented, but the Discussion and Conclusions sections should be rewritten, focusing on the data of own observations, avoiding speculation on parameters or measurements not determined in this essay and avoiding using other references except in the case that really help explain your own data.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Agronomy

Revised-Manuscript ID: agronomy-809485 (Research paper)

We have made corrections in the revised manuscript ID: agronomy-809485 (Research paper) under title “Effects of Biochar and Ground Magnesium Limestone Application with or without Bio-Fertilizer Addition on Biochemical Properties of an Acid Sulfate Soil and Rice Yield” according to the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been followed and improved as per given suggestions from the reviewers. The corrections are highlighted in red colour. Now we do hope that it could be able to accept in the journal.

Following are the correction grids with different reviewer’s comments.

No.

COMMENTS

CORRECTION MADE

PAGE No.

Reviewer 2 comments

General suggestions:

The annotated file is attached with suggestions, modifications, and errors.
In general, the work is correctly executed and presented, but the Discussion and Conclusions sections should be rewritten, focusing on the data of own observations, avoiding speculation on parameters or measurements not determined in this essay and avoiding using other references except in the case that really help explain your own data.

The manuscript has been revised entirely according to the given suggestions, including discussion and conclusion sections. All unnecessary references and statements have been deleted.

1-15

Specific suggestions from pdf copy

1

4 t ha-1 including the biofertilizer?

The sentence has clarified.

1

2

use Mg ha-1 instead of t

The “t” denoted for the tone and it is suitable and easy to understand.

1

3

“bio”

It is corrected as “available P” instead of “bioavailable P”. 

1

4

Unit of leaf chlorophyll?

It is chlorophyll SPAD values hence, there is no unit expressed.

1

5

Unit of leaf chlorophyll

It is chlorophyll SPAD values hence, there is no unit expressed.

1

6

were

The word “were” has been added.

1

7

Delete “season-1

The correction has been done.

2

8

Revise spelling

The correction has been done.

2

9

Lines 70-75: The bibliographic information about RHB can be completed by some of the following articles………..

Campos, P., et al., 2020.

The suggested articles have been incorporated in the manuscript.

2

10

Line 86-88: To reinforce this idea see ALVAREZ, Jose M. et al. A biotic……..

The suggested article ideas have been incorporated in the manuscript.

2

11

soil or soil water

The correction has been done.

2

12

of

The correction has been done.

3

13

at the rate of 4 t ha-1: It is doubtful if 4 includes or not the biofertilizer. Please specify for each product

The rate of each product has been written.

3

14

word muriate: Use IUPAC nomenclature

The correction has been done.

3

15

Line 140: RHB biochar comprised cellulose 140 (38%), hemicellulose (18%) and lignin (22%) .

Check these data. They refer to raw RH

The data has been checked with the reference.

4

16

Line 142: Ca (0.12%) and Mg (0.08%) . These data (Ca and Mg contents) seem also incorrect. Please verify them.

The values have been verified and found correct.

4

17

Add “-1”

The correction has been done.

6

18

Omit R2 values ​​for Al and Fe. Data distribution causes these values ​​to be misinterpreted.

The correction has been done.

7

19

Line 252: Do you mean soil pH?

The correction has been done.

7

20

Table 6: Check the datum Harvest index 9.48

The correction has been done.

9

21

General comment: Use fewer significant figures. 126 or maybe 126.4

The units have corrected accordingly.

9

22

'However, due to the large area being occupied by the in the tropics', I do not understand

The sentence has been corrected.

10

23

This paragraph is speculative. Change or delete

The correction has been done.

10

24

The Discussion should be limited to the specific observations of the study. Most of what is stated is basic knowledge of soil chemistry.

The discussion section has been improved according to the reviewer’s suggestions.

11

25

Speculative

The sentence has been deleted.

11

26

Soil structures use “structure”

The word has been corrected.

11

27

Use “RHB” instead of “BHB”

The correction has been done.

11

28

The Discussion should focus on the own data and use other references only as support or comparison.

The discussion has been entirely improved.

12

29

This information does not correspond to this study

The information had been deleted.

12

           

Regards

Prof. Dr. Shamshuddin Jusop and co-authors,

Department of Land Management,

Faculty of Agriculture,

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Email: [email protected]

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors
Thank you for having followed the suggestions. I trust that they have brought about an improvement in the article. I indicate these two possible small modifications that you can make in the final editing process if it is not necessary to send a new modified version:

Line 144: Please delete the sentence ‘According to Windeatt et al. [40], normal RHB biochar comprised cellulose  (38%), hemicellulose (18%) and lignin (22%) with some cuprite mineral, if not referring to the used biochar.

Furthermore, I have to insist that the given contents of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin are specific to the starting material and not to the biochar.

Line 338: Please write ‘in combination with bio-fertilizer’

Back to TopTop