Chemical and Enzymatic Changes of Different Soils during Their Acidification to Adapt Them to the Cultivation of Highbush Blueberry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Chemical and enzymatic changes of different soils during their acidification to adapt them to the cultivation of highbush blueberry” presents the interesting information about the effect of different acidifying substances. Since the cultivation of highbush blueberry is rising and the soil requirements are specific to this plant, the manuscript brings the
However, more attention should be devoted to the methodology and clarification and presentation of the results.
Specific comments:
P3, L103, L110, L128 Please correct the subscript at substances.
P3. Acidifying substances. How was the soil pH determined? Add the information.
P3. Elementar analysis. At which time point the elementar analysis was done? At 12 months? Were the elementar analysis done for all 180 objects?
P3. Analysis of soil enzymes. Briefly describe the metods. What concentration of substrate was used? Which parameters were compared Km or Vmax? Were the enzyme measured at buffer to maintain the same conditions for all soils?
P4. L150. Rewrite the 1st paragraph. Start with results, not discussion.
P6. L214-215. The information “ the increase in the salinity of loamy silt, peat, and loamy sand was associated with a decrease in soil pH and an increase in assimilable Ca in the soil (Figure 1 and 2)” is not correct. Fig. 1 PCA analysis- peat soil, acidifying substance urea phosphate. Table 7. - peat soil, acidifying substance urea phosphate.
Figure 1. Unify the frame of PCA diagrams and their layouts.
Figure 2. The quality is very bad. Change “Urelaze” to “Urease”.
Author Response
We want to thank you very much for the valuable comments of the Reviewers. As suggested, the work has been improved in detail. We have responded to all comments and made changes in the text.
We have made great effort to improve our manuscript and we hope that manuscript will be accepted.
All changes are marked in the text.
We have prepared the references as indicated in the Guide.
The English was edited by a MDPI Author Services
We have corrected the subscript at substances
We have supplemented the material and methods section with a methodology for the determination of pH, macro and microelements and soil enzymes.
We have improved the results chapter - it starts with a description of the results as suggested.
We have improved the description of PCA.
We have improved the PCA figures - their description and quality.
Reviewer 2 Report
Nice work. It would be nice to know the mineralogical composition of the soils, especially the clay minerals content. To tell that texture is influencing acidification is possible only when you know also the mineralogical composition. In loamy silt soil the high dose of clay minerals can be present.
It would be also nice to include in the test the soils also with the skeletal parts as in the praxis it is not removed. Skeletal part can also influence results.
Author Response
We want to thank you very much for the valuable comments of the Reviewers. As suggested, the work has been improved in detail. We have responded to all comments and made changes in the text.
We have made great effort to improve our manuscript and we hope that manuscript will be accepted.
All changes are marked in the text.
We have prepared the references as indicated in the Guide.
The English was edited by a MDPI Author Services
We have included information about the content of skeletal parts in the tested soils in the methodology.
In the future field experiment there will be skeletal parts in soils. We will determine their exact composition.
The studied mineral soils contained very small amounts of skeletal parts (clay sands 0.2%, clay dust 1%).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscipt was improved and can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The comments made the manuscript considerably improved
