Improved Water Use of the Maize Soil–Root–Shoot System under the Integrated Effects of Organic Manure and Plant Density

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim and development of work was carried out are very good. The manuscript has relevant information that deserves to be published, but it needs several adjustments to improve its quality, mainly in some specific points like results and discussion. I recommend major revisions.

 

Abstract

-In the abstract the author cites several acronyms, but he does not define what it means, please correct this.

 

 

Introduction

-The introduction is good, but some paragraphs are long, please be more succinct or split this one in two.

 

Material and methods

-Line 77 - Define the depth of the cited soil properties

-Table 1: The dose they use of manure is high! what did the authors base this recommendation on?

-In addition, the chemical characterization of the manure used is lacking, as it has nutrients that can be an input in the dose used, which can promote greater effects due to the greater application of nutrients. In addition, manure lacks information such as its origin

-Section 3.1 should be moved to the material and methods section.

- In Figure 3, the author makes some comparisons, based on which he shows that there is an increase in water content? – because it doesn't show any statistical comparisons to make such an approach, if it didn't make statistical comparisons and doesn't show, all the inferences it makes are compromised, insert the statistical comparison used, and also provide information where relevant in the legend. This mistake is in other figures in the manuscript.

- In general, the figures are of poor quality and make it difficult to visualize the information, improve this. Furthermore, the subtitles are not self-explanatory, and this makes it difficult to interpret.

 - When comparing treatments, why are treatments compared to each other and not used in a factorial model? If the hypothesis is that the manure application interacts with the planting density, such a statistical approach is the most correct to be done, to see how the levels of one factor interact with the levels of the other factor. This must be the authors' objective, as seen by the title used in the article.

- How can the authors guarantee that the effect of manure is to improve water use efficiency and not simply because it is providing higher levels of nutrients over time according to its application? Because the increase in WUE could simply be because the plant obtained greater productions, so if the application of nutrients was increased to balance the input via organic material, the effects could be similar there the effects would not necessarily be from the manure but from a greater load of nutrients applied. How did the authors resolve this situation? – they need to make that clear in the text.

 

 

Discussion

-The discussion is poor, it is relevant but needs further exploration of the current literature and better discussion to establish a cause and effect relationship. If the authors insert the properties of the used manure, such information will help and guide their discussion.

 

Conclusion

- In conclusion the authors need to be clear on why the use of manure increases yield and WHY, and do not need to repeat the importance of maize, this should only be contained in the introduction. in possession of the characterization of the manure, the conclusion must be redone to establish an effect relationship.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Water Use Of Soil-root-shoot System Improved Under The Integrated Effects Of Organic Manure And Plant Densities" was conducted a field experiment in 2011-2014. 

General comments

1. My first concern is the time issue (i.e. the research was done 9 years ago which is very far from the current dynamism), and research data can stay for 4 years but after that it will not be recommended for publications. 

2. The other point is the authors mentioned that they do have three replicates but in the Table only two replicates are observed. 

3. Finally, capitalization work via the manuscript is required 

See the annotated manuscript for more details. 

 

Decision: accept with minor revision 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in the current version.