Characterization of Different Magnesium Fertilizers and Their Effect on Yield and Quality of Soybean and Pomelo
, Dian Jin 1, Hao Zhang 1, Yuanyang Cai 2, Changcheng Ma 1, Chunsen Wang 1, Xiaohui Chen 1, Chengdong Huang 3, Yafu Tang 1,* and Liangquan Wu 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest removing the word "red soil" from the title of the article and give correct name of this soil
I suggest removing from Keywords characterization
In all manuscript Authors should cite other studies by other authors in square brackets, eg [2,3], as required by the editorial requirements of Agronomy.
Line 57-58 is not clear? What do you mean??? In which condition?
Line 71-73 Authors should use International Soil Classification WRB 2015.
Line 92-98 This is not a new scientific idea. These dependencies have already been studied before. Authors should consider climate or some other factor that modifies the performance of magnesium fertilizers. In this paragraph, the authors focus only on slow-Mg fertilizers. Why? This needs clarification
Line 104-105 Oxide forms should be replaced throughout the manuscript with elemental forms (e.g. P2O5 to P)
Line 107-108 Authors should give information about % content of Mg in this fertilizers
Line 164 Authors write that the soil pH was 4.33 in pot experiment and the available phosphorus content was determined by the Olsen method. This is a methodological error, because we use this method only for alkaline soils,
Line 165-166 Authors shoul give some information which method used fo determining exchangeable form of Mg and Ca
Line 168 Authors should provide a criterion for determining the size of fertilizer doses
Line 171 Authors should provide detailed information about irrigation because it is most important factor in pot experiments
Line 199-203 – Authors should detailed explain why they used mineral fertilizers, dividing them into 4 doses. Did each dose contain the same amount of N, K, and P? K and P fertilizers are usually applied in full dose before the start of vegetation, and only the nitrogen dose is divided. Phosphorus coming out of fertilizers is a very long process and with such an application, Pomelo could not use the last dose of phosphorus and potassium.
In Figure 1 Authors need to make a space before (%) (cm-1) and (Degree)
Line 280 This authors did not investigate in the work.
The chapter References must be rebuilt and edited in accordance with the requirements for authors!!!!
Author Response
Please refer to the attachmentAuthor Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The article contains proofreading errors (indicated in the text).2. Does this text “For this, seven different Mg fertilizer treatments were set up, including without Mg fertilizer (CK), MgCl2·6H2O, Mg(NO3)2·6H2O, MgSO4·7H2O, MgO, Mg(OH)2, and MgCO3, and 250 mg of pure Mg sieved through an 80-mesh sieve was applied on the surface the pots, each with six replicates“ state, that 250 g of pure Mg was used in all variants?
3. Significant differences (p < 0.05) is not marked in the Figure 2 (A,B,C, E).
4. The plant index evaluation is not included in the section “Materials and methods“.5. All references should be numbered consecutively in the order of their first citation. Citations of references in the text should be identified using numbers in square brackets e.g., “as discussed by Smith [9]”; “as discussed elsewhere [9, 10]”. You submitted as follows: … and magnesium nitrate hexahydrate (Mg(NO3)2·6H2O).7,8”
6. References are not correct. You need replace the references according to the methodological requirements. Example:
Article: 1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Books and Book Chapters: Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy/instructions
7. The other comments are in the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have significantly improved their paper compared to the previous version. They answered all my questions and in this form the paper can be accepted for publication.
