Potassium and Sulfur Fertilizer Sources Influence Alfalfa Yield and Nutritive Value and Residual Soil Characteristics in an Arid, Moderately Low-Potassium Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reviewing the manuscript, in my opinion, both the methodology of the research conducted and the way it was developed are not correct. Thus, I have quite a few comments on this manuscript:

L34 The introduction section is quite well written, however, it is mainly based on manuscripts published relatively long ago. Reference should have been made to recent field research conducted in the last 5 to 10 years. In addition, the authors at the end of the introduction mention the testing of S-fertilizers, which is not mentioned in earlier sections of the introduction.

L54 From the sentence it appears that they are referring to research conducted by the Authors, this is not the right place for such a statement.

L71 - 73 Fertilization increases water stress? It seems to me that the opposite is true. Adequate levels of K in plants increase tolerance to water shortage. If this is indeed the case as the authors write please address why there is such a relationship

L104 Should be included in the references section and a number should be given here

L123 In what amount was crop irrigation applied? Was alfalfa seed inoculation used?

L126 The authors in the introduction section mention the great importance of splitting K fertilizer rates in alfalfa cultivation. Why was no such treatment applied in the field experiment?

L146 In the results section, there is also a part of the data that is calculated based on nutritional value. Here it should be specified how the calculations were made with references

L148 In my opinion, this sentence needs additional clarification. Why was a weighted average used?

L160 There is largely no discussion of the results obtained in this section. There is also no description of the alleged mechanisms of the results obtained and largely no reference to research conducted by other Authors. In addition, a very large number of results are presented about some of them, but some of them are not even mentioned in the section. In my opinion, this section is not properly written. In addition, in the Tables it would be good to include the standard deviation of the results obtained. In the Tables there is a notation of LSD while in the methodology there is a mention of the Tukey test, this test is based on HSD, this should be verified.

L171 In my opinion, the issue of irrigation failure should be included in the research methodology. In the submission, the use of irrigation should compensate for differences in water availability in rainfall, but in this case it excludes this main assumption. Thus, the increased yield is certainly due to water availability and not to the main assumption of the field experiment, which is K fertilization. In such a case, in my opinion, it is not quite a valid method to analyze over the years of research, unless yields were assessed based on soil moisture availability

L203 The authors refer to N fixation in alfalfa however, did it actually occur? There is no information on seed inoculation or the history of the experimental site. There is also no information on the production of nodules on plant roots so it is uncertain whether N-fixation occurred.

L219 The authors include correlation but there is no description of it in the statistical methods. If it was conducted I believe it should be presented in a separate Table.

L228 In my opinion, the uptake of elements supplied with mineral fertilizer by alfalfa may also have influenced the content of individual mineral elements in the soil, but there is no information about this in the description.

L289 The references section needs significant improvement in my opinion. To a large extent, the references are manuscripts from many years ago. References should be made to the latest field research by researchers from around the world.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

After reviewing the manuscript, in my opinion, both the methodology of the research conducted and the way it was developed are not correct. Thus, I have quite a few comments on this manuscript:

L34 The introduction section is quite well written, however, it is mainly based on manuscripts published relatively long ago. Reference should have been made to recent field research conducted in the last 5 to 10 years.

Response: Latest literature we found was reviewed and included and original research cited. If the reviewer knows of additional pertinent literature we have overlooked, please mention that literature and we will consider inclusion based on its appropriateness for this manuscript.

In addition, the authors at the end of the introduction mention the testing of S-fertilizers, which is not mentioned in earlier sections of the introduction.

Response: Mention of S fertilizers in the objectives has been removed as it was not an original focus of the study, but because it turned out to be a significant component of the results, it has been added to the title.

L54 From the sentence it appears that they are referring to research conducted by the Authors, this is not the right place for such a statement.

Response: First, we do not understand the basis of the comment as reference is made to the research cited in the previous sentence. Nonetheless, we realize that the wording led to some confusion. Consequently, a reference added to the sentence of question.

L71 - 73 Fertilization increases water stress? It seems to me that the opposite is true. Adequate levels of K in plants increase tolerance to water shortage. If this is indeed the case as the authors write please address why there is such a relationship

Response: The literature stating the relationship was cited. This was not the findings or perception of the authors. Hence, we see no need to discuss the basis for the relationship.

L104 Should be included in the references section and a number should be given here

Response: The Editor suggested adding the date the website was accessed. That is how this comment was handled.

L123 In what amount was crop irrigation applied?

Response: The study was on private land and the producer’s irrigation records, if kept, were not available to the authors. That said, the entire field, including the study area, was uniformly and sufficiently irrigated to prevent moisture stress. See lines 133-135 of the revision for added clarification.

Was alfalfa seed inoculation used?

Response: The seed used was a commercial product that was inoculated and treated with micronutrients and a fungicide (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjap9mwu_aCAxVpmmoFHfL3D3EQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wlalfalfas.com%2FWLAlfalfas%2Fmedia%2FPDF%2FFINAL-56399_WL_Alfalfas_2016_Seed_Guide_v7_LRnc.pdf%3Fext%3D.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1FWLbsIKJXXmAruS5zrwYD&opi=89978449)

L126 The authors in the introduction section mention the great importance of splitting K fertilizer rates in alfalfa cultivation. Why was no such treatment applied in the field experiment?

Response: Because split applications was not a focus of the study, the text of question has been deleted.

L146 In the results section, there is also a part of the data that is calculated based on nutritional value. Here it should be specified how the calculations were made with references

Response: Some text had been inadvertently deleted. That has been added back, but no references are necessary for the technique.

L148 In my opinion, this sentence needs additional clarification. Why was a weighted average used?

Response: Calculation of nutritive value of total yield from multiple harvests, such as alfalfa production, is conventionally done as a weighted mean of the nutritive value of the individual harvests. Hopefully, the added text at lines 160-161 clarify that.

L160 There is largely no discussion of the results obtained in this section. There is also no description of the alleged mechanisms of the results obtained and largely no reference to research conducted by other Authors. In addition, a very large number of results are presented about some of them, but some of them are not even mentioned in the section. In my opinion, this section is not properly written. In addition, in the Tables it would be good to include the standard deviation of the results obtained. In the Tables there is a notation of LSD while in the methodology there is a mention of the Tukey test, this test is based on HSD, this should be verified.

Response: We disagree that results are not discussed. We do not understand most of this comment as the comment itself is poorly written. However, the question about mean separation test was clarified in the text. It was a mistake to mention that it is Tukey’s. In my opinion, SD values are unnecessary since it gives minimum information to the readers plus table would become voluminous. The LSD is a comprehensive statistical parameter that gives a decision tool for treatment difference significance.  

L171 In my opinion, the issue of irrigation failure should be included in the research methodology. In the submission, the use of irrigation should compensate for differences in water availability in rainfall, but in this case it excludes this main assumption. Thus, the increased yield is certainly due to water availability and not to the main assumption of the field experiment, which is K fertilization. In such a case, in my opinion, it is not quite a valid method to analyze over the years of research, unless yields were assessed based on soil moisture availability

Response: This is not a correct assumption as all plots were treated the same regarding precipitation and irrigation applications (soil moisture availability). Soil moisture was not a component of the study.

L203 The authors refer to N fixation in alfalfa however, did it actually occur? There is no information on seed inoculation or the history of the experimental site. There is also no information on the production of nodules on plant roots so it is uncertain whether N-fixation occurred.

Response: N fixation can be assumed as inoculated seed was used and no deficiency N symptoms were observed. Additionally, at approximately 30% crude protein (= N x 6.25) in about 20 Mg ha^-1 dry matter, the alfalfa took up approximately 576 kg N ha^-1. Only 180 kg N ha-1 was applied and the soil contained 23.4 ppm (Table 1), which is about 53 kg ha^-1. Where else would the remaining 343 kg N ha^-1 in the alfalfa have come from?

L219 The authors include correlation but there is no description of it in the statistical methods. If it was conducted I believe it should be presented in a separate Table.

Response: A description of the correlation analysis has been added at lines 172-173 of the revision. Because only a few of the correlation results are presented in the manuscript, we decided that a table would not be needed.

L228 In my opinion, the uptake of elements supplied with mineral fertilizer by alfalfa may also have influenced the content of individual mineral elements in the soil, but there is no information about this in the description.

Response: Since the treatment differences are described, we consider that the influence of added nutrients on residual soil nutrient status has been adequately addressed based on the available pertinent literature.

L289 The references section needs significant improvement in my opinion. To a large extent, the references are manuscripts from many years ago. References should be made to the latest field research by researchers from around the world.

See previous response to this same comment. Suggestions for additional literature are welcomed and will be reviewed for their appropriateness for inclusion.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Alfalfa response to various potassium fertilizers in moderately low-potassium soil in arid New Mexico”. In this study, we evaluated the possible effects of using commercial K fertilizers on the residual soil chemistry after harvesting alfalfa. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Agronomy and needs the following adjustments:

 

TITLE

 

- Delete the terms “answer” and “various” from the title.

 

ABSTRACT

 

- Detail more about the variables analyzed. The authors only spoke about the results directly, without mentioning what was evaluated.

- Replace repeated keywords in the title. To improve the demand for your work, it would be interesting to make this change.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

- Some paragraphs are too large. I suggest reducing. The reduction will provide better organization of study information.

- I suggest adding hypotheses to the work.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

- Do not mention the meteorological data collection site. Cite the reference in the text and the website in the list of references.

- Add the amount of N that is in urea, and the amount of P that is in P₂O₅.

- What was the irrigation flow used? Add this information to the text.

- Cite the reference of the SAS Program, used for statistical analyses.

  

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

- How was it possible to say that weather conditions influenced production? Was any multivariate analysis carried out to confirm this?

- Many results are discussed with assumptions, without confirmation of these data. I suggest that the authors review the way they present the results of some variables.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

- Reduce. There is information that is similar to the results.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

 

I provide the following comments regarding this manuscript after reading it:

 

1. Please provide more recent references throughout the manuscript. Old references were cited (1965, 1972, 1990). It would be better to cite more recent studies in all sections of the manuscript to provide a more current literature and reading to the readers.

Response: Latest literature we found was reviewed and included and original research cited. If the reviewer knows of additional pertinent literature we have overlooked, please mention that literature and we will consider inclusion based on its appropriateness for this manuscript.

1. In the abstract, I suggest that the authors highlight the conclusions of the manuscript better instead of just mentioning results.

 

Response: We agree. See added text at lines 37-40 of the revision.

 

1. What are the suggestions and directions of the authors for future studies? This could be better explained in the discussion.

 

Response: We agree. See added text at lines 296-297 of the  revision.

 

1. The authors could increase the length of the conclusion and remove the sentence: “A two-year study was conducted in Southern New Mexico to evaluate the efficacy of three K commercial fertilizers in improving the alfalfa yield and quality in a moderately low potassium soil.”. Therefore, I suggest keeping in the conclusion only information about the results instead of mentioning introductory aspects.

 

Response: We agree to an extent. The sentence has been removed, but the only increase in the length of the conclusions is the result of the previous suggestion.

 

1. Could the authors please explain better the use of the sentence “However, the positive correlations of alfalfa yield and stand persistence was not always consistent” in the context of the introduction?

 

Response: This sentence has been revised, also in connection with the next comment. See lines 50-51 of the revision.

 

1. Please review the use of the word “was” in the manuscript. For example, in the following sentences, maybe it would be better using present perfect tense:

“Stand persistence due to K fertilization was partly attributed to stress tolerance and carbohydrate storage [5–8]”. “However, the positive correlations of alfalfa yield and stand persistence was not always consistent”.

Please review (and revise if needed) all the manuscript accordingly

Response: Revised as appropriate throughout the manuscript.

 

1. In the introduction, I suggest providing more information about the plant species and introducing it better to the readers. For example, the authors could present information about productivity, socioeconomic importance, etc., of alfalfa citing recent articles.

 

Response: Alfalfa is one of the most prominent forage crops globally and should not need to be described in such detail to support this manuscript.

 

1. I recommend that the authors explain better (in the introduction and discussion) the importance of this study and the results in a global context instead of just a local geographical perspective.

 

Response: We agree and have expanded upon text already included at line 86, with statements elsewhere that mention K deficient soils in arid and semiarid regions.

 

1. The title mentions “Alfalfa response” and can create expectation to the readers to read other parameters (biochemical, molecular and physiological) throughout the manuscript. Therefore, I would like to read more the perspectives of the authors on parameters of alfalfa response that were not incorporated in the present manuscript but that they intend to evaluate in the future.

9.1) Please consider keep, replace or remove “alfalfa response” from the title.

Response: There is no indication that biochemical, molecular, or physiological responses are a component of the research. That said, the title has been modified to accurately reflect the more narrow focus of the study.

 

1. I suggest incorporating more keywords in the keywords list.

 

Response: The Instructions for Authors suggests 3 to 10 keywords. Two more have been added to the three that were already provided.

 

1. Regarding the statistics analysis section (Methods): how many technical replicates and how many biological repetitions were used?

 

Response: This was stated in the original submission at lines 118-119 and remains in the revision at lines 128-129. Additionally, the level of replication has been added to each data table.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I provide the following comments regarding this manuscript after reading it:

1. Please provide more recent references throughout the manuscript. Old references were cited (1965, 1972, 1990). It would be better to cite more recent studies in all sections of the manuscript to provide a more current literature and reading to the readers.

2. In the abstract, I suggest that the authors highlight the conclusions of the manuscript better instead of just mentioning results.

3. What are the suggestions and directions of the authors for future studies? This could be better explained in the discussion.

4. The authors could increase the length of the conclusion and remove the sentence: “A two-year study was conducted in Southern New Mexico to evaluate the efficacy of three K commercial fertilizers in improving the alfalfa yield and quality in a moderately low potassium soil.”. Therefore, I suggest keeping in the conclusion only information about the results instead of mentioning introductory aspects.

5. Could the authors please explain better the use of the sentence “However, the positive correlations of alfalfa yield and stand persistence was not always consistent” in the context of the introduction?

6. Please review the use of the word “was” in the manuscript. For example, in the following sentences, maybe it would be better using present perfect tense:

“Stand persistence due to K fertilization was partly attributed to stress tolerance and carbohydrate storage [5–8]”. “However, the positive correlations of alfalfa yield and stand persistence was not always consistent”.

Please review (and revise if needed) all the manuscript accordingly

7. In the introduction, I suggest providing more information about the plant species and introducing it better to the readers. For example, the authors could present information about productivity, socioeconomic importance, etc., of alfalfa citing recent articles.

8. I recommend that the authors explain better (in the introduction and discussion) the importance of this study and the results in a global context instead of just a local geographical perspective.

9. The title mentions “Alfalfa response” and can create expectation to the readers to read other parameters (biochemical, molecular and physiological) throughout the manuscript. Therefore, I would like to read more the perspectives of the authors on parameters of alfalfa response that were not incorporated in the present manuscript but that they intend to evaluate in the future.

9.1) Please consider keep, replace or remove “alfalfa response” from the title.

10. I suggest incorporating more keywords in the keywords list.

11. Regarding the statistics analysis section (Methods): how many technical replicates and how many biological repetitions were used?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the comments to the authors.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Alfalfa response to various potassium fertilizers in moderately low-potassium soil in arid New Mexico”. In this study, we evaluated the possible effects of using commercial K fertilizers on the residual soil chemistry after harvesting alfalfa. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Agronomy and needs the following adjustments:

TITLE

 - Delete the terms “answer” and “various” from the title.

 Response: Title has been revised (I think the reviewer translated the title and 'response' translated as 'answer')

ABSTRACT

 - Detail more about the variables analyzed. The authors only spoke about the results directly, without mentioning what was evaluated.

Response: Abstracts are to be brief. Variables are named in the methods.

- Replace repeated keywords in the title. To improve the demand for your work, it would be interesting to make this change.

 Response: The only keyword repeated in the title is 'alfalfa'. That is critical to the title and it is common to list species of interest in the keywords.

INTRODUCTION

 - Some paragraphs are too large. I suggest reducing. The reduction will provide better organization of study information.

Response: We disagree that some paragraphs are too long. There are only three paragraphs and they are of about equal size.

- I suggest adding hypotheses to the work.

Response: We elect to not include a hypothesis other than that we want to evaluate the effects of the treatments. We have no preconceived notions about the potential outcome.

 MATERIAL AND METHODS

 - Do not mention the meteorological data collection site. Cite the reference in the text and the website in the list of references.

Response: The Editor suggested only adding the date the website was accessed.

- Add the amount of N that is in urea, and the amount of P that is in P2O5.

Response: The urea was 46% N (see line 107 of the original submission) and P2O5 contains 43.65% P (https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/spes/spes-201/SPES-201.pdf). 

- What was the irrigation flow used? Add this information to the text.

Response: Irrigation amounts were controlled by the producer who did not provide that information. We do know that the field was  uniformly irrigated such that water stress was prevented. That information has been added.

- Cite the reference of the SAS Program, used for statistical analyses.

 Response: added 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

- How was it possible to say that weather conditions influenced production? Was any multivariate analysis carried out to confirm this?

Response: Whenever differences occur between years in alfalfa production under the same management in which pests are controlled, environmental factors (weather) is a factor that influences production.

- Many results are discussed with assumptions, without confirmation of these data. I suggest that the authors review the way they present the results of some variables.

 Response: We do not understand the point of this comment. We confirm the data and interpreted it based on the available pertinent literature.

CONCLUSIONS

 - Reduce. There is information that is similar to the results.

 Response: The conclusions have been revised based on all reviewers' comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing the comments from the first round of reviews.

Response: The most recent literature found has been reviewed and included, and the original research cited. If a reviewer knows of additional relevant literature that we have overlooked, please mention this literature and we will consider its inclusion based on its relevance to this manuscript.

In my opinion, the References section has not improved. It contains a total of 38 citations of which only 7 are published after 2010, 6 from 2000 - 2009 and the rest before 2000. In my opinion, studies should be largely based on manuscripts from the last 10 years. In my opinion, this should be improved. I think that especially the discussion section could be enriched with references to manuscripts from recent years. In addition, the authors mentioned the inclusion of recent literature but no additional literature was marked in the references section.

Answer: Literature stating this relationship was cited. This was not the authors' conclusions and observations. Therefore, we see no need to discuss the basis of this relationship.

Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to review the content of the manuscripts cited by the Authors. However, other literature has found rather different relationships, so in my opinion I would recommend a more critical approach to the cited manuscripts and comparing the information contained with other manuscripts. Please refer to the works: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122250, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14047370

Answer: Part of the text was accidentally removed. It has been re-added, but no references are needed for this technique.

In my opinion, this is not correct. In a scientific paper there should be precise information on how the results that are being analyzed were obtained/obtained.

L160 There is basically no discussion of the results obtained in this section. There is also no description of the alleged mechanisms of the results obtained, and there is largely no reference to research conducted by other Authors. In addition, a very large number of results on some of them are presented, but some of them are not even mentioned in this section. In my opinion, this section was not properly written. In addition, in the tables it would be good to include the standard deviation of the results obtained. In the tables there is a notation of LSD, while in the methodology there is a mention of the Tukey test, this test is based on HSD, this should be verified.

Answer: We disagree that the results are not discussed. We don't understand most of this comment because the comment itself is poorly written. However, the text does clarify the issue of the average separation test. It was a mistake to mention that it is Tukey. In my opinion, the SD values are unnecessary, because they give readers a minimum of information, and the table would become voluminous. LSD is a comprehensive statistical parameter that gives a tool for making decisions about the significance of treatment differences. 

I will try to clarify what I meant by this comment. In my opinion, the text of the manuscript should be understandable without tables and vice versa tables without text. The tables contain data that were not discussed by the authors, I suspect due to the lack of significant differences that occurred in these characteristics. I find the action appropriate, however, in my opinion, it should be specified in more detail what features were not influenced. In my opinion, one detailed sentence is sufficient. On the other hand, as for the comments section on the discussion of the results. For example, in lines 197 - 210 the authors discuss the results regarding the effect of K fertilization. However, there is no conjecture in this section as to why it was the application of SOP that produced the highest yield and what results other Authors obtained in similar studies. In the following lines, the Authors discuss the addition of AS to fertilization, and with this issue they already state the mechanisms that could have influenced the results obtained and refer to the results of other Authors.

Answer: N fixation can be assumed, since inoculated seeds were used and no symptoms of N deficiency were observed. In addition, at a crude protein content of about 30% (= N x 6.25) in about 20 Mg ha -1 dry matter, alfalfa absorbed about 576 kg N ha -1 . Only 180 kg N ha -1 was applied, and the soil contained 23.4 ppm (Table 1), which is about 53 kg ha -1 . Where else would the remaining 343 kg N ha -1 in alfalfa come from?

In my opinion, this is a very good answer which in a slightly more abbreviated version should be included in the manuscript.

Answer: In lines 172-173 of the revision, a description of the correlation analysis was added. Since only a few correlation results were presented in the manuscript, we felt that a table would not be necessary.

I think a good place to include the correlation results would be in the supplementary materials.

Author Response

In my opinion, the References section has not improved. It contains a total of 38 citations of which only 7 are published after 2010, 6 from 2000 - 2009 and the rest before 2000. In my opinion, studies should be largely based on manuscripts from the last 10 years. In my opinion, this should be improved. I think that especially the discussion section could be enriched with references to manuscripts from recent years. In addition, the authors mentioned the inclusion of recent literature but no additional literature was marked in the references section.

Response:

Thank you for the comment. However, as authors mentioned earlier, all relevant information related to research topic has been reviewed and cited. We added a few more citations as suggested. On the point of old citations: Old citations do not become irrelevant/obsolete, if it is the fact of matter discovered early on related to subject, unless it is proven to be wrong by the subsequent research. Therefore, citing original research has legitimate research base. We have provided relevant discussion to make a point. Enriching with more citations will dilute the point and confuse the readers further. We concentrated more on what we discovered in our research. We tried to minimize the comparisons with other previous research because their original soil chemistry of soils/ research experimental conditions were different from ours. The other two reviewers are also satisfied with the citations and discussion.  

We added your suggested two papers to the manuscript. Out of two articles, one is case study and the other is a review paper, which included 118 references, <10% of which were published after 2010. So, even a recent review (2019) does not include more recent information on the topic.

Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to review the content of the manuscripts cited by the Authors. However, other literature has found rather different relationships, so in my opinion I would recommend a more critical approach to the cited manuscripts and comparing the information contained with other manuscripts. Please refer to the works: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122250, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14047370

Response:

You are correct; it was a mistake, the information is corrected to include the suggested citations as well. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122250, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14047370. Thank YOU.

In my opinion, this is not correct. In a scientific paper there should be precise information on how the results that are being analyzed were obtained/obtained.

Response:

Yes, a relevant citation was added for the procedures and calculations.

I will try to clarify what I meant by this comment. In my opinion, the text of the manuscript should be understandable without tables and vice versa tables without text. The tables contain data that were not discussed by the authors, I suspect due to the lack of significant differences that occurred in these characteristics. I find the action appropriate, however, in my opinion, it should be specified in more detail what features were not influenced. In my opinion, one detailed sentence is sufficient. On the other hand, as for the comments section on the discussion of the results. For example, in lines 197 - 210 the authors discuss the results regarding the effect of K fertilization. However, there is no conjecture in this section as to why it was the application of SOP that produced the highest yield and what results other Authors obtained in similar studies. In the following lines, the Authors discuss the addition of AS to fertilization, and with this issue they already state the mechanisms that could have influenced the results obtained and refer to the results of other Authors.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer comment. The text should be written in conjunction with data mentioned in the tables (burden of proof), for the most part. In other words, the data in the tables bolster the point we make in the text. You are correct on the lack of explanations due to non-significant differences. Having elaborate discussions on the non significant parameters will not add any new information to the manuscript/science.

 The current research has significant new discovery in terms of science contribution, which is combination of SOP and AS consistently produced many desirable effects both in terms of plant and soil characteristics.  

In my opinion, this is a very good answer which in a slightly more abbreviated version should be included in the manuscript.

Response:

This is very common knowledge pertaining to this subject and very intuitive one.

Answer: In lines 172-173 of the revision, a description of the correlation analysis was added. Since only a few correlation results were presented in the manuscript, we felt that a table would not be necessary.

I think a good place to include the correlation results would be in the supplementary materials.

Response:

These are just two significant correlations out of a many paired comparisons. Adding a big table without any perceivable benefit has no real meaning.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear,

 

The authors largely carried out the previous suggestions.

 

The work has potential for publication.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you!