Effect of Mulching on Soil Quality in an Agroforestry System Irrigated with Reused Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has practical implications, however, I did not see the scientific significance of the study. The Introduction of the full text has more than a dozen paragraphs, and I do not know where the emphasis is, and what is the difference or depth between this paper and other studies.

In the Abstract, soil biology should be changed to be specific; total weed cover should be coverage; tillaged CL and the non-tillaged mean what? Five lines are devoted to the introduction of measurement indexes. The format of charts and tables is too irregular: three-wire meter; no need to use Color drawing; the labeling and comparison of significance are varied.

Just ok. But use some key words correctly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your perspective on the scientific significance of the study and the clarity of the introduction. We apologize for any confusion caused by the extensive number of paragraphs in the introduction. We will carefully review and revise the introduction to ensure that the emphasis and differentiation of our study from other relevant studies are clearly articulated. We will make sure to highlight the unique contributions, depth, and novelty of our research to provide a better understanding of its scientific significance.

The term "soil biology" in the abstract has been replaced with more specific terms such as "earthworm biomass and abundance" and "soil organic matter (SOM) content."

"Total weed cover" has been changed to "coverage" in the abstract.

The terms "tillaged CL" and "non-tillaged" have been clarified in the revised version. However, these terms have been removed from the abstract.

After careful consideration, I agree that condensing the introduction of measurement indexes further would compromise the clarity and comprehensiveness of the study. The inclusion of these measurement indexes is essential for providing a comprehensive understanding of the variables and parameters being analyzed in the study.

The format of charts and tables has been improved based on suggestions from you and another reviewer.

 

Your sincerely,

Agnes Kun

Reviewer 2 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS

The work entitled “Effect of mulching on soil quality in an agroforestry system irrigated with reused water”

 RELEVANCE (considering the contribution to the advancement of knowledge): Good

 ORIGINALITY (considering the problem to be studied and the existing knowledge gaps that justify the study): Good

 TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC MERIT: Good

 FINAL OPINION:

The work has potential and merit t. However, it needs improvement in Conclusions.

What is the soil classification system? WRB or Soil Taxonomy

Localization map?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

OK

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for your review and valuable feedback. We appreciate your positive assessment of the relevance, originality, and technical/scientific merit of the work.

 

To address your questions:

 

The soil classification system used in the study is World Reference Base for Soil Resources. We followed the guidelines and criteria set forth by IUSS Working Group[1] for soil classification.

IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. 4th edition. Vienna, Austria: International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), 2022.

 

We apologize for the oversight regarding the localization map. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will include a detailed localization map.

 

We made the necessary improvements to enhance the quality and completeness of the Conclusions section.

Your sincerely,

Agnes Kun

 

[1] IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Comments and suggestions for authors

1.      The introduction needs to be shortened.

2.      2.6. Statistical analyses. This section does not contain the abbreviation MANOVA. Either put it here or write ANOVA in the tables. I suggest changing to ANOVA.

3.      Fig 1: Both y axes need to be added. They must be visible.

4.      Fig 3. You need to remove the frame and horizontal lines, they are not needed. You also need to add the y-axis (vertical line). Add the name of the indicator to the y-axis. The indicator name is now in place of the figure title.    I also suggest placing the letters right next to the corresponding column, not at the top of the graph.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and have made the following revisions based on your recommendations:

 

Introduction: We have revised and condensed the introduction section to provide a more focused and concise overview of the research topic, objectives, and knowledge gaps.

 

Statistical analyses: We have addressed the issue regarding the statistical analyses section. We will explicitly mention the abbreviation MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) in that section to ensure clarity on the specific statistical method employed.

 

Figure 1: We have added clear and visible labels to both y-axes in Figure 1. This modification will facilitate accurate interpretation of the data and improve the overall clarity of the figure.

 

Figure 3: We have made the recommended improvements to Figure 3.

 

We would like to express our gratitude for your constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the manuscript. We believe that these revisions will enhance the overall quality and clarity of the paper.

 

Your sincerely,

Agnes Kun