Assessing the Effect of Irrigation Using Different Water Resources on Characteristics of Mild Cadmium-Contaminated Soil and Tomato Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer:

The review clearly falls within the scope of Agronomy and the topic is of interest to many readers of the journal. There is an interest in and need assessing the effect of irrigation using different water especially for tomatoes. The authors went to great lengths to design the manuscript. In general, the manuscript is written very well. Results and especially Discussion is written very interesting and conclusive. Nevertheless, there are a few formal errors and a number of little things that add value to the manuscript after editing. I would still recommend a minor revision with the requirement to really look at all the reviewed points.

General:

In general, the text is full of typographical errors (double dot and space or missing space), to name just a few examples: L. 17, 19, 37, 62, 64, 128, 146…. I would like to point out that the text must be corrected for the multitude of typographical errors.

Abstract:

-        L. 20/21: Why are the abbreviations listed here, they are not used in the further abstract.

-        L. 27: Using an abbreviation for “tap water irrigation management” and “reclaimed water irrigation” would make reading easier.

-        L. 28: The results speak of soil microbial diversity, without this being specifically mentioned in the material and method statements of the abstract.

-        L. 30/31: Double use of “were higher”.

-        L. 33: Quality measurements – which ones. See comment in L. 28.

-        L. 37: I would add positively “…affected the quality of tomatoes positively, and…”.

Introduction:

-        The introduction is very well written. I had noted the following things that could perhaps be listed in more detail at one point or another: Is the cadmium absorbed by the tomato? (see L., 531-533) What does that mean for this experiment or this special type of tomato? Irrigation to rinse the soil or rather to enrich the soil with additives that "oppose" the cadmium? Statements on tomato quality, as it plays a role in the material and methods section!

Material & Methods:

-        L. 99: Temperature is missing.

-        L. 130: I would be interested in how the water was added to the pots. At what daily interval the pots were irrigated?

-        L. 136: “according t according” double word, what is meant by t – timepoints? Which ones?

-        L. 161-167: new subchapter “2.3.3. plant analysis”

-        L. 161: replace “calculating” by “counting”

Results:

-        L. 230, 275/276: Abbreviations already mentioned in the Material & Methods section.

-        L. 260: lead uniformly “vitamin C”

-        L. 271: I wouldn't use the description of the figure as a headline.

-        L. 299/300: What do the indices say? Description should be in the Material & Methods section.

-        L. 402-429: It would be worth considering putting all the numbers mentioned in a table.

Discussion:

-        L. 559/560: paragraph jump, new sentence

Tables:

-        Tab. 1: Unfavorable representation. Consider whether the numbers of pollution concentration as a footnote lead to a more space-saving representation of the table.

-        Tab. 2: Does the footnote mean column rather than row for lowercase letter significance?

-        Tab. 3 & 4: Footnote is missing.

Figures:

-        Fig. 2: Figure caption: “…phylum (top) and genus (bottom) levels”

-        Fig. 3: Better “Principal component analysis”

-        Fig. 4: Adjust the proportions of the axes and labels as in Figure 3. This is a principal component analysis showing also vectors.

-        Fig. 5: In the text (e.g. L. 422), the p-values are written in lower case. They are written in uppercase letters in this legend.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

To Authors,

Identifying the effect of different water quality and soil physical and chemical properties on the growth and yield of fruits/vegetables is important. This manuscript has considered the effect of different cd concentrations on soil and its impact in relation to two types of water qualities; recycled and tap water. The authors have selected the techniques and assessing parameters considerably for evaluating the results relating to the objective of the study. However, I have noticed there are flaws throughout the manuscript and some are highlighted below. 

Comments

Abstract-

Line 18 - what is the type of irrigation used in the study (surface, drip, …?). It is not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript.

Line 19 – … mild cadmium contaminated … - how do you identify this? State the value/ranges here.

Lines 21-22 – list five types of cd concentrations

Lines 23-26 – Results discussed here are not based on the study parameters listed in lines 19-21.

Line 27-29 - … Compared with tap water irrigation treatment, … - this statement repeated in the same sentence.

Lines 27-31 – the sentence is too long and missed the meaning.

Line 34 - … irrigated with reclaimed water. – is this correct? Pls. check.

 In general, the abstract is poorly written and needs to rewrite.  

1.    Introduction

Lines 56-57 – What is the mild cd level listed in the reference?

Line 81 – check the reference style.

2. Materials and Methods

Line 99 – check spelling

Lines 112-113 – Cd4 and Cd5 – both listed as moderate pollution. Is it correct?

Lines 110-115 – add a reference.

Lines 121-124 – state the irrigation type/method used.

Line 128 – remove editing comments.

Table 1 – I suppose it would be better if you split the table, by taking Cd pollution, concentration and treatment to a separate table. Also, include cd concentration values.

Line 136 - … t according … - delete replicate words

Line 146 - remove editing comments and add necessary references.

Line 161 – didn’t you find the total fruit weight per plant?

Lines 150-160 – Indicate Table 2 here.

3. Results

Line 220 – … conventional ...  – you have not mentioned what the conventional irrigation method used.

Lines 227-257 – check the explanation on significant, not significant and stated p values (p< 0.05 or p> 0.05) throughout your results section and explain it correctly.

Table 2 – I suppose Table 2 listed initial soil parameters, if so you may move it to 2.3.2.

Line 260 - … Vitamin c … - change to ‘c’ to ‘C’

Line 267-268 – this sentence is incomplete. Pls. check.

Figure 1 – what is the water type relevant to this figure?

Figure 5 – This Figure is of poor quality.

4. Discussion

Line 470 - check the reference style.

5. Conclusion

Line 576–591 – Can improve the conclusion. The recommendation on the use of reclaimed water and the most suitable range of cd concentration can be clearly discussed based on the range of cd concentration used in the study.

Author Response

Please see tha attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript describes a study to investigate the effect of water quality and mild cadmium contaminated soil on tomato growth.

The paper could be of interest to readers. The English usage and grammar needs to be checked throughout.

My other comments and suggestions are as follows:

Abstract:

Could remove lines 14-17 (first 2 sentences in abstract).

Could be shortened and tightened (focused).

Introduction:

Lines 41-89 - This section could be shortened considerably. The introduction should focus more on the direction of the study and less on general topics.

Materials and Methods:

This section needs to be more concise and focused.

Lines 94-97 - If this is a greenhouse study, then annual precipitation in the area is not needed. Information on greenhouse conditions would be helpful including PAR, relative humidity, and max./min. temperature.

Lines 102-103 - Please provide information on the soil used including pH, EC, OM, nutrient content prior to irrigation and Cd treatment.

Line 118 - Please describe how issues relating to using soil in containers was addressed.

Lines 127-128 - Remove 'company', 'write here the model No. and company name'.

Line 128 - Explain the set-up for the hobo data logger. Was there a sensor in all containers? Were there just representative samples used?

Please describe how irrigation was applied. This was not clear.

Section 2.2. In general, this section needs work.

Results and Discussion 

These sections could be combined. Results section needs to be shortened. The tables in the results section were not helpful for conveying information. You may need to try another method.

Discussion 

This section is overly wordy. Would work better if combined with results, or needs to be made more concise.

Interesting study overall.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Title - …different water resources …. – use resources instead resource

Affiliations – formatting changes needed. Use the recommended format of the journal

Table 2, 3... – cite Table 2, 3, etc. in the text before present the table/s. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx