Determination of Combined Effects of Organic and Mineral Fertilizer on Forage Yield and Quality of Annual Ryegrass
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main issue addressed by the research is the sustainable production of animal feed.
The topic is original and relevant in this field. Research adds to the subject area the possibility of ecologically sustainable fodder production and an alternative to high doses of fertilizers in the production of animal feed. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the experimental design is appropriate for hypothesis testing.
The introduction contains a large number of references, which need to be reduced.
Figures and tables are appropriate and display the data correctly. Data are interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript.
Statements in the Abstract must be more significant and substantiated results, the above is expected and common knowledge ( In conclusion, it was observed that the inclusion of organic-based fertilizers in nitrogen fertilization led to significant increases in both yield and quality with low doses of nitrogen fertilizer. The results obtained from this research hold prom-ise for sustainable agricultural practices.)
Do not list abbreviations in keywords (RFV).
Average monthly rainfall for many years (Figure 1.) should be shown for a shorter period of 60 years. Then the obtained results from the investigated period could be more precisely recommended for the examined climate.
The authors made an effort to present the results, perhaps they should have presented them more concisely.
Fresh Forage Yield (4.2.). This chapter should be presented more clearly.
Climatic factors are crucial in affecting forage yield and may vary annually [66, 37, 2]. This statement does not say anything new, but tells a story that is generally known. It should be corrected.
The conclusions are in accordance with the presented evidence and arguments and deal with the main question raised.
The manuscript contains too many References (111), it should be significantly reduced, especially where multiple authors are cited for the same quote, as well as the same numbers repeated within the same quote (46). Citations of allegations 38, 65, 67, 109 are missing. This section needs to be significantly revised.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and authors, the manuscript has its merit, but I don't know if it is enough to be published in a journal with a high impact factor like Agronomy, given that there is already a vast literature on the treatments tested in this experiment. However, to be accepted the article needs several changes that I highlight below.
- The authors mention Humic acid increases soil organic matter content, how this can happen if humic acid is part of the organic matter, what happens is that the exogenous application of humic molecules can stimulate some processes in the soil. The authors get several basic concepts wrong on the topic throughout the article, and this is an example.
- I think that the authors should focus on how the combined use of organic and mineral fertilizers can increase the efficiency of their use and this can promote the application of smaller doses, as happens in the synthesis of organomineral fertilizers, the information contained in the introduction needs to be elaborated again to support the objectives of the study. Little is said about these synergistic effects of mineral and organic fertilizers and there is already a vast literature on this.
- The quality of figure 1 and the legend needs to be improved.
- The treatments as they are written in the material and methods are confusing, to make it clearer, please insert a table with the acronyms and description of the treatments to improve their visualization.
- The authors need to provide more information about the materials used, such as how the humic acid was extracted, and which source material, nutrient content in them, the characterization of the materials used is poor
- In Figure 2, it appears that there was no randomization of treatments, if the experimental design of the area is as mentioned in Figure 2, the entire experiment is wrong, as the principle of randomization was missing in the experimental design that serves to validate the experimental error.
- In the comparison in table 2, the comparison is made individually between the treatments studied, but it is shown that there was a triple interaction in some cases, so the correct thing to do is to split one variable into another, so the approach used by the authors is wrong. .
- Inserting the figures together with the tables is irrelevant, the authors either use the presentation of treatment averages in table or figure format, as they are repeating the data.
- In the figures it is not shown when there is a significant difference, in addition the legend is poor, the authors need to greatly improve the legend and quality of the figures.
- The discussion section must be done continuously and not segmented into different topics
- The discussion must be redone in order to synthesize it with the main findings of the study and relevant literature.
- The conclusion should be more concise and only aligned with the aims of the study.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references to assess the potential for forage yield in sustainable agricultural practices as an alternative to high-dose fertilizer applications due to the high responsiveness of annual ryegrass to nitrogen. All the cited references are relevant to the research. The research design Is appropriate. Methods are adequately described. The results are clearly presented. The results support the conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and authors, Overall, the manuscript has been improved, but the quality of the figures has not been improved, as well as the presentation of data referring to the tables mentioned in the first round of review.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
