Effect of Organic and Mineral Soil Additives on Asparagus Growth and Productivity in Replant Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors set up two long-term field trials in East Germany to investigated whether the addition of champost, mustard meal, arbuscular mycorrhizae or beneficial microorganisms to the soil affected the productivity of asparagus. The results showed that the tested field sites the asparagus marketable yields following champost, Fimonit, biofumigation and Micosat treatments were 14, 6, 16 and 12% higher than that of the control soil. This research has good practical application significance, and the experimental design is reasonalbe. However, there are minor problems that need to be corrected before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

1. References are adequate but some sources are too old.

2. The author should make repeated experiments when conducting experiments, therefore the error value should be marked in the data of the manuscript. 

3. Conclusions should be support by more data. 

English should be check for correction some typos. 

Author Response

Point1: References are adequate but some sources are too old

Response1: Since the problem of replication has been in progress for a long time, the old references are also important. A new reference from 2021 was missing, which in particular also examines biofumigation in green asparagus. This was added and included in the discussion, and two more.

Point2: The author should make repeated experiments when conducting experiments, therefore the error value should be marked in the data of the manuscript. 

Response2: The standard error was added to the tables and in figure 2 (old 1) the confidence intervals were included.

Point3: Conclusions should be support by more data. 

Response3: The data of López-Moreno were included in the discussion. We wanted to avoid too much repetition.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting article but I suggest some modifications: Include the conclusions in the abstract, not just the results. Include a previous hypothesis and the novelty of the article in the introduction section.
The introduction is a bit short, please include more data related to the studied problem
The plot trials are not clear to me. Expand the information. How many trials have been done? Have repetitions been made per test?. Also expand the explanation of field trials. It is recommended to include figures with a scheme, images, etc. to support these explanations.
In the figures of the results, include the standard deviation for each result

 

Author Response

Point1: Include the conclusions in the abstract, not just the results.

Response1: The main conclusion was added.

Point2: Include a previous hypothesis and the novelty of the article in the introduction section.

Response2: The hypothesis were supplemented.

Point3:The introduction is a bit short, please include more data related to the studied problem

Response3: The introduction has been significantly expanded. Especially, another publication was included, which describes additional effects of replant.

Point4: The plot trials are not clear to me. Expand the information. How many trials have been done? Have repetitions been made per test?.

Response4: A table (1) to clarify the pot trials was added.

Point5:  Also expand the explanation of field trials. It is recommended to include figures with a scheme, images, etc. to support these explanations.

Response5: A scheme for the field trial (figure 1) has been added.

Point6: In the figures of the results, include the standard deviation for each result

Response6: The standard error was added to the tables and in figure 2 (old 1) the confidence interval were included. Since the years are stacked in the figures, inserting the bars for the error becomes confusing. In the supplementary tables to be published, the standard errors are inserted.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written and conceptualized. It is only necessary to correct and add some things. Comments are given in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point1: It is better to present the differences of the pot trials in a table

Response1: A table (1) for the clarity of the pot trials was added.