Phosphorus Fractionations and Availability in Areas under Different Management Systems in the Cerrado

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The ms agronomy-2289258 with the title of Phosphorus fractionation and availability in areas under dif-ferent management systems in the Cerrado evaluated the availability of organic and inorganic P in areas under different management systems and stages of adoption in the Cerrado. The authors should follow my suggestions to make their ms suitable for publication in such high quality journal.

General comments:

Please add line numbers to make the life easier for the reviewer

Please ask some one to review this ms in terms of English.

The authors should us phosphorus as abbreviation after first mention in the whole ms. The authors sometimes write phosphorus and in other places they write P, this is not good. Check all these issue and fix please.

Specific comments

Title: please use fractionations instead of fractionation

Title: please remove “the” from the title

Abstract: Please add some key results to show the readers the most important values that wish to show.

Abstract: The authors said; Our results showed that the continuous input of organic matter deposited on the soil surface in the NTS17 increases the levels of organic and inorganic phosphorus, consequently providing greater availability of P in soil for cultivated crops. Ok, this is good, but what about the phosphorus leaching risks into groundwater?

Keywords: The authors should present only word or two words as keywords to express something about the tillage. Authors do not have to write everything in the keywords, instead, they should write the most important keywords.

Keywords: Same comment for P; the authors should use one or two words for P in the keywords instead of organic P; inorganic P; P adsorption. Authors can use other words that make their work attractive to readers and researchers.

Introduction: The authors still did not follow my previous comments in the first round. As I said, please do not localize your issue. Please write about the problem as global issue, then go slowly into your local issue. I hope the authors revise the introduction according to our comments instead of wasting our time.

Introduction, at the end (The hypothesis tested is that the continuous input of organic matter deposited on the soil surface in the NTS, from the residues of cover crops used in the rotation system with commercial crops, increases the levels of organic and inorganic phosphorus, consequently providing greater availability of P in soil for cultivated crops. In this context, this study evaluated the availability of organic and inorganic fractions of P in areas under different management and adoption stages in the Cerrado, Minas Gerais, Brazil.) I asked the reviewer before to write the aims before the hypothesis in the last paragraph in the introduction. What I tell you is the correct way to write an article.

Material and methods:

Figure 2: correct rainfall to precipitation

Table 2: what do you mean by cmolc dm-3? And for which elements?

Table 3: why CV% is low 9.15? with iP-rem

In all tables where there are letters showing the statistical analysis, the authors should remove the letters if the differences were not significant. Also, they should add a new raw under each different two depth and the significant stars ** or *** or * or ns

Santos et al. [25] is wrong, it is not number 25 in the list of references

Souza [17] is wrong, it is not number 17 in the list of references

I can not copy all wrong citations here, the authors must take it seriously and correct all these issues before the ms can be accepted in this journal. All references in the text and in the list of references must be same order.

The authors have to go back to my comments in previous submission and follow all my suggestions and corrections.

Good Luck

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

GENERAL COMMENTS

1 - All general comments and suggestions for improving the text made by the reviewer were accepted by the authors of the article, among which the following can be highlighted:

- Use the term fractionations (in the plural);

- Standardize the use of the abbreviation for phosphorus (P) after it has been cited in full for the first time;

- Submit the article for correction in English by a native English translator;

- Remove the “the” from the title;

- Add more important keywords to give a better idea of what was done in the study.

Note: No line numbers have been added to the text to make life easier for the reviewer, as at this stage of final review, we believe it is no longer necessary, as the article is ready for publication, if accepted by the Editor.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1 - Rewrite the introduction/literature review as a global problem, and then address it locally.

ANSWER: The text of the introduction/literature review was readjusted, where parts of sentences were replaced and paragraphs were moved, to meet the reviewer's request.

 

2 – Correct figure caption and some annotations in the tables

ANSWER: The legend of the figure was corrected according to suggestions, the units were also better defined for all the parameters noted in the tables and where there were no statistical differences between the evaluated parameters, the letters were removed, and non-significant (ns) or the suggested symbols of significance at 1% (*) and 5% (**).

NOTE: The coefficient of variation of 9.15% had a typing error, as the correct value was 19.15%.

 

3 – Review all citations that were made in the text, as some of them were not in accordance with the number that were described at the end of the text.

 ANSWER: All references have been reviewed and corrected.

 

 

___________________________

José Luiz Rodrigues Torres

corresponding author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Last time I  recommended a minor review. Now I don't anything to add except that the authors are made to improve the quality of the article in comparison with the first version.

Author Response

REVISOR 2

Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brasil, 11/03/2023.

 

COMENTÁRIOS GERAIS

Todas as sugestões dos revisores foram acatadas e incorporadas no texto nas revisões feitas anteriormente.

José Luiz Rodrigues Torres

autor correspondente

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Manuscript may be acepted in present form 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 11/03/2023.

GENERAL COMMENTS

All reviewer suggestions were accepted and inserted in the text in previously made revisions.

José Luiz Rodrigues Torres

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors have not responsed to all of my comments in the revised ms.

Author Response

       Todos os destaques em COR AZUL no texto do artigo foram sugestões do revisor 1, que foram acatadas e incorporadas no texto, que posteriormente apresentaram como justificativas de cada uma delas na carta anexa, o que muito contribuiu para o aprimoramento da redação da versão final do artigo.

    Esperamos ter atendido a todos como agradecimento do revisor nesta nova versão e pedimos desculpas por não ser mais detalhado sobre o que foi dito anteriormente.

 

All the highlights in COLOR BLUE in the text of the article were suggestions from reviewer 1, which were accepted and incorporated into the text, which they later presented as justifications for each one of them in the attached letter, which greatly contributed to the improvement of the writing of the final version of the article. article.

     We hope we have served everyone as a reviewer's thanks in this new version, and we apologize for not being more detailed about what was said earlier.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The ms has been improved, and most of my comments were revised. Good luck

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I received the new version of the manuscript and I think that the authors have done a good job. The improvements to this paper are appreciated. Also, I inserted some comments about methods of analyses (P-rem) which have to be more explained, and some corrections in the tables that have to be checked. Moreover, in the discussion part, it could be observed great improvement and I would appreciate it a lot if the authors input a bit more effort to answer on some of my doubts. I believe that, for the readers, an additional explanation could be beneficial.  My opinion is that the paper is now suitable for publication after those minor corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS

I received the new version of the manuscript and I think that the authors have done a good job. The improvements to this paper are appreciated. Also, I inserted some comments about methods of analyses (P-rem) which have to be more explained, and some corrections in the tables that have to be checked. Moreover, in the discussion part, it could be observed great improvement and I would appreciate it a lot if the authors input a bit more effort to answer on some of my doubts. I believe that, for the readers, an additional explanation could be beneficial. My opinion is that the paper is now suitable for publication after those minor corrections.

ANSWER:
- The analysis methods (P-rem) were detailed in the text by a specialist in the subject (Prof. Cledimar Rogério Lourenzi) from the Federal University of Santa Catarina, who adjusted the entire methodology on Phosphorus Fractionation that was used in the study, helped in the reformulation of the presentation and discussion of some results and in the response to the reviewer's suggestions.
- The tables were checked and then adjusted, as indeed some letters in the mean test were mistyped.
- All questions from the reviewer that were highlighted as comments were observed and adjusted in the text, which were left in BLUE color for viewing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The ms agronomy-2210482 with the title of Fractionation and availability of phosphorus in areas under different management systems in the Cerrado, Minas Gerais, Brazil evaluated the availability of organic and inorganic P in areas under different management systems and stages of adoption in the Cerrado.

General comments: The authors should insert the line numbers to make the life easier for us when we make our comments. In addition, the authors should make their writing deeper than the current version. The presentation is superficial.

In introduction section, I wish the authors focus on the issue as global issue, then they can focus on Brazilian Cerrado. Please do not localize your study or writing, be universal because you want to publish the ms in an international journal. Otherwise, you can publish the ms in a local journal.

Second paragraph, check this ref: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111388 & https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9050233

Last paragraph of the introduction section, the authors should present the aim in details, then they present the hypothesis. Thus, please revise this paragraph.

Table 2: why authors did not present N in its different forms? Or even total N, was not presented.

In statistical analysis section, please use another word than submitted

In statistical analysis section, please add which version was R? as well as add other details of the program.

In statistical analysis section, Tukey test at 5% probability, this is wrong. It should be Tukey test at ≤ 5% probability.

Please check the statistical analysis for Table 4-7, check the characters that show the significant differences.

The discussion should be reorganized, for the example, the authors should focus on the linking of their results with others and how their treatments can affect their output.

Also, the conclusion can be improved by added the most important finding values. In addition, please make the conclusion as one paragraph instead of putting them as sentences.

 

Regards,

Reviewer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

GENERAL COMMENTS

Authors should insert line numbers to make our lives easier when making comments.

ANSWER: We did not insert the line numbers requested by the reviewer, as the article is practically ready to be published, having already gone through THREE reviews.

Authors should make their writing deeper than the current version.

ANSWER: We sought experts on the subject, who are the co-authors of the article, to respond to the reviewer's suggestion, so that the discussions could be more in-depth in all its parts. The Specialist in Phosphorus Fractionation corrected these specific parts that are dealt with in the text, as did the statistician who re-analyzed the data, so that the tables could be modified and the interpretations of the results were deepened, improving the quality of the article.

In the introduction section, I want the authors to focus on the issue as a global issue, so they can focus on the Brazilian Cerrado. Please do not localize your study or writing, be universal because you want to publish the manuscript in an international journal.

ANSWER: We tried to focus on the core of the study, which is the fractionation of phosphorus in cerrado soils, treating the subject more globally, as suggested by the reviewer.
We checked the references Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111388 & https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9050233 and used the data that we consider important for use in the text.

The last paragraph of the introduction section, the authors must present the objective in detail, then present the hypothesis. So please review this paragraph.

ANSWER: The evidenced hypothesis was evidenced, which was to "Evaluate whether the continuous contribution of organic matter deposited on the soil surface in the NT, from the residues of cover crops used in the rotation system with commercial crops, increases the levels of organic and inorganic phosphorus, consequently providing greater availability of P in the soil for cultivated crops". The same happened with the objective, which was to "evaluate the availability of organic and inorganic P fractions in areas under different stages of management and adoption in the Cerrado, Minas Gerais, Brazil", as suggested by the reviewer.

In table 2: why did the authors not present N in its different forms? Or even total N, was not presented.

ANSWER: The total N was not analyzed or quantified in this study, so it was not listed in the table.

In the statistical analysis section, please add which version was R? as well as adding other program details.
In the statistical analysis section, Tukey's test with 5% probability, this is wrong. Must be Tukey's test with ≤ 5% probability.

ANSWER: The version of the R Corre Team program used was described, and correction suggestions for the Tukey test (≤ 5% probability) were inserted in the text.

Check the statistical analysis of Table 4-7, check the characters that show the significant differences.

ANSWER: All tables (From 4 to 7) were reanalyzed, and where necessary, there were corrections in the average test, as there were some letters changed or written wrongly.

Discussion should be reorganized, for example, authors should focus on linking their results to others and how their treatments may affect their output.

ANSWER: The discussion was reformulated where necessary, always in order to link and relate the results to the literature cited in the text.

Also, completion can be improved by adding the most important discovery values. Also, make the conclusion as a paragraph instead of putting them as sentences.

ANSWER: The conclusions were reviewed by the study co-authors and adjusted where necessary to meet the reviewer's suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for inviting me to referee the research paper entitled:

Fractionation and availability of phosphorus in areas under different management systems in the Cerrado, Minas Gerais, Brazil

I previously evaluated this research paper in 2022-10-07

And the researchers responded well to the comments. The MS has improved and can be accpted. 

 

And I see the acceptance of the MS after proofreading to avoid typose and speilling mistakes

 

 

Author Response

GENERAL COMMENTS

 

A review is requested for typos and spelling errors.

ANSWER: The text was revised by a native-language translator (English) to assess the text translation and correct spelling errors, as suggested by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf