Effects of Water-Fertilizer-Air-Coupling Drip Irrigation on Soil Health Status: Soil Aeration, Enzyme Activities and Microbial Biomass
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts on this manuscript. He has carried out a great experimental work within the improvement of the soil component in crops, studying the influences of directly related parameters, testing with tomato, which is of interest and requires a large amount of data for analysis of results. The topic is interesting and fits with the scope of the magazine. However, some important drawbacks must be addressed to ensure that the manuscript reaches the quality expected of articles published in Agronomy. Below, I include a series of comments intended to improve the quality of the manuscript:
Section 1 develops a complete introduction that will need a lot of information, in the last paragraph it should be separated on line 95 with a period and apart from what already refers to the experiment.
In Section 2.1 a complete description of the plot where it is going to be tested is made, it would be attractive for the reader to introduce a photograph that always facilitates and complements the text, for example after line 118 images could be inserted that will always be appreciated.
In Section 2.3, given the degree of good detail that is being provided, it is missing the indication of some data that give us information on the agronomic quality of the water used, as was mentioned regarding the soil in the previous Section.
In Section 3.1, figure 1 has a size that makes interpretation difficult. It could be increased somewhat for greater clarity, check that all the labels of the variables are complete in all of them, and include the treatments to which they refer in the legend.
In the explanation of the figure we find paragraphs with numerous data for each result in the different treatments, even though it is well explained, it remains confusing and can be clarified more clearly if its content is reordered in values ​​for each variable in the same crop phase-stage order, ending with his interpretation.
In Section 3.2, as in 3.1, the analysis of the results in the 3 enzymes would be more explicit given the intended detail if they were ordered for each one in the same way in relation to the analysis variables in the different stages of the culture in their treatments to finally give their interpretation.
It is not clear when references to the control treatment are mentioned in section 3.2.2 and later, figures 2, 3 and 4 should include the same reference for the treatments as the one used in table 1.
In Section 3.3, Figure 6 shows the symbologies of variables, EA, SA, MA, WFA that are referred to in Table 2, after it, and should be included in the legend of the figure for better interpretation.
In Section 4 there is a good orderly discussion of the experiment.
Section 5 concludes by sections that can incorporate some percentage data in (1) and perhaps at the end leave some observation of possible future lines of further investigation or experimentation that could be worked from the conclusions obtained in future essays.
Author Response
please see attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The figures must be improve, the quality is too low. Results needs change, is very hard to read and understand, please show only the most important data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have recorded my comments on the attached PDF in highlighted text and in sticky notes, which are self-explanatory.
Results writing needs to be improved. Results should be focused and to the point. No need to repeat the data.
The information regarding field or glasshouse experiments need to be clarified.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
