Effect of the Nitrification Inhibitor DMPP on Blueberry Planted in Neutral Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find my comments attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the paper is high. I recommend some minor revisions to reduce lengths of some sentences throughout and overuse of unnecessary commas. The paper was well written.  

Author Response

Comments 1: L45-46: Can you provide a few metrics on blueberry production to support this statement, principally the global average and range of production values for China? That information would support you paper and research aims.

Response 1: The comparison of global and Chinese blueberry cultivated area and production from year 2012 to 2020 is shown in the Table S1 below. The data are derived from references, in which the blueberry cultivated area and production of various producing regions and countries were summarized and analyzed according to the global blueberry industry data released by the International Blueberry Association (IBO).

a) Li, Y.D.; Pei, J.B.; Sun, H.Y. Status and Prospect of Global Blueberry Industry (In Chinese). Journal of Jilin Agricultural University 2018, 40, 421–432.

b) Li, Y.D.; Gai, Y.H.; Wang, F.; Liu, C.; Liu, Y.C.; Chen, L. Global Blueberry Industry Report 2021 (In Chinese). Journal of Jilin Agricultural University 2022, 1, 1–12.

Table S1. The comparison of global and Chinese blueberry cultivated area and production from year 2012 to 2020

		Year
		2012	2014	2016	2018	2019	2020
Global data	Blueberry cultivated areas (hm2)	92926	109843	135338	180849	196622	205670
	Annual production (1000t)	466.2	563.1	655	1012.43	1276.82	1387.7
	Yield per unit area (t/hm2)	5.02	5.13	4.84	5.60	6.49	6.75
China data	Blueberry cultivated areas (hm2)	12065	14858	22000	50097	55122	60147
	Annual production (1000t)	11.34	20	28	150.76	209.02	285.05
	Yield per unit area (t/hm2)	0.94	1.35	1.27	3.01	3.79	4.74

 

Comments 2: L59: This is the ammonium ion (NH4+) not ammonia (NH3).

Response 2: "ammonia" has been replaced with "ammonium", and we have revised throughout the manuscript referring to the comment. (Line 61; Line 114)

 

Comments 3: L78: I believe the NH3+ should be NH4+.

Response 3: We are sorry for our mistake. "NH₃⁺" has been replaced with "NH₄⁺". (Line 80)

 

Comments 4: L78: Copper not cupper

Response 4: "cupper" has been replaced with "copper". We are sorry for the mistake. (Line 80)

 

Comments 5: L82 and throughout: Higher/lower are used for elevation/altitude. Increased/decreased or more/ less are used for concentrations, dose, or measurable quantities.

Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. "higher" has been replaced with "enhanced", and "smaller" has been replaced with "lower". (Line 84)

 

Comments 6: L84: What is meant by soil trait — soil type, physical characteristic, fertility, chemical characteristic, mineralogy?

Response 6: DMPP can securely inhibit nitrification over a period of 4–10 weeks, and the duration of action depends on climatic environments such as soil temperature and moisture, as well as proton concentration and other physicochemical properties of soil. Based on the reviewer’s question, the term "trait" has been revised to "physicochemical properties". (Line 86)

 

Comments 7: L115-117: The inclusion of P in the hypothesis was confusing because the introduction only focused on nitrogen. Please include why P was also of interest. Possibly because P is included in DMPP?

Response 7:  Thanks for the reviewer’s question. DMPP is an organophosphate compound, but the proportion of phosphorus in the molecule is relatively low. The direct effect of DMPP on soil phosphorus content was not significant. Although it has been reported in the literatures as follows that DMPP could increase soil phosphorus content and similar results appeared in our experiment, the phenomenon is still not perfectly explained. Thus, the hypothesis of increased phosphorus content under application of DMPP has been deleted. (Line 119)

Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, K.; Xiao, F.; Li, Y.; Du, Y.; Xue, Y.; Zhang, L.; Gong, P.; Song, Y.; Wu, K. The effects of long-term application of stabilized and coated urea on soil chemical properties, microbial community structure, and functional genes in paddy fields. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2190.

 

Comments 8: L128: Why was 4 mm the size classification used? Was this because soil was not ground and you didn’t want to destroy aggregates?

Response 8: Many thanks for the question. The roots of blueberry are capillary and shallow roots with rare root hairs. The root structure makes blueberries demanding in terms of soil permeability and water management. Soil with a particle size of 4 mm has better air permeability for blueberry roots, while soil with a finer particle size is prone to poor root growth. So we sieved the air-dried soil to 4 mm for use.

 

Comments 9: L134: You could use number of days grown instead of half a year/dates.

Response 9: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. "in June 2020 and last nearly half a year" has been revised to "on June 1st 2020 and last 180 days". "were carried out on August 11th and November 2ed" has been revised to "were carried out after 71 and 154 days (August 11th and November 2nd) of the experiment, respectively" (Line 135; Line 149-150)

 

Comments 10: L142: I appreciate your approach to pooling with reps. That was very thoughtful and powerful for statistical analyses.

Response 10: Thanks for the reviewer’s recognition.

 

Comments 11: L146: I believe the word “incorporation” is missing after manual.

Response 11: Thanks for the reviewer’s considerate comments. Based on all the reviewers’ comments, we replaced "by manual" with "manually". (Line 147)

 

Comments 12: L149: If you keep dates, November 2ed should be 2nd.

Response 12: We are very sorry for our handwriting mistake. "2ed" has been revised to "2nd". (Line 150)

 

Comments 13: L192: Write out ammonium acetate (and other chemical compounds) at first mention. Acetate is more often abbreviated as CH3COO in compound names rather than Ac.

Response 13: Thanks for the reviewer’s correction. "NH₄OAc" has been revised to "ammonium acetate", and the abbreviation "CH₃COONH₄" follows at the first mention. (Line 193-194)

 

Comments 14: L193: The word detected can be deleted.

Response 14: Thanks for the reviewer’s correction. The word "detected" after "determined" has been deleted. (Line 195)

 

Comments 15: L243: “The whole plants were photographed” would be more clear to readers rather than “whole blueberries.” I initially misread and thought the blueberry fruit was photographed rather than the plant.

Response 15: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. The word "blueberries" has been revised to "plants", and "of plant growth" has been revised to "of growth". (Line 245)

 

Comments 16: L272-273: The ammonium graph shows an overall decline in ammonium after fertilization with DMPP treated soils having more ammonium compared to the check. So is the statement in line 272-273 for a specific date?

Response 16: Soil NH₄⁺-N content in the DM and DH treatments were 16.3% and 23.74% higher than that in the CK treatment. Soil ammonium nitrogen content under three treatments on each sampling day from June 2nd to October 19th was compared. The percentage data was averages. For clarity, dates and the word "average" have been added to the text. The sentences have been revised to "DMPP increased the average N content respectively by 6.19%, 11.24% and 16.72% in the DL, DM and DH treatments than the CK treatment from June 2nd to October 19th on the whole. Soil NH4+-N content increased with the DMPP application rate, the average value of which were 16.3% and 23.74% higher in the DM and DH treatments than that in the CK treatment." (Line 271-274)

 

Comments 17: L409: The use of “anyway” was confusing and downplays the role of your study. I suggested clarifying the use of anyway in this statement or deleting.

Response 17: Many thanks for the suggestion. The word "anyway" has been deleted. (Line 412)

 

Comments 18: L428: The word choice of stubbornly was odd. I’m not sure what is meant here.

Response 18: Referring to the reviewer’s suggestion, "easily stubbornly absorbed by" has been revised to "easily absorbed on". (Line 431)

 

Comments 19: L442: “were also our target genes” can be deleted to help with clarity and structure of this sentence.

Response 19: We agree and the term "were also our target genes" has been deleted. (Line 445)

 

Comments 20: L471: “Identity” can be deleted as plant species is clear for readers.

Response 20: We agree and the word "identity" has been deleted. (Line 474)

 

Comments 21: L474: The phrase “in the future” can be deleted as the sentence has stated “further study”.

Response 21: We agree and the phrase "in the future" has been deleted. (Line 477)

 

Comments 22: L491-499: This is for calcareous soils with relatively high pH values and is not true for all soils.

Response 22: Thanks for the considerate comments. The relevant description has been added in the discussion. (Line 501-502)

 

Comments 23: L498-499: The articles references here specify that rhizosphere acidification in ammonium-dominated N nutrition improves P solubility, not the ammonium itself.

Response 23: Many thanks for the kind comments. The detailed analysis has been supplemented at the end of the discussion. (Line 502-505)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined the effect of 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) on blueberry plants.  Blueberries were grown in a greenhouse with soil containing four different levels of DMPP.  Soil was sampled over time and tested for ammonium and nitrate levels, along with potassium, phosphorus, and other properties.  Blueberry plants were also harvested and measured for size and biomass; chlorophyll content; and nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus levels. 

 

I have the following comments:

 

Line 32: The first "the" on this line is unnecessary.

Line 46: "Blueberries" does not need to be capitalized.

Line 54: This sentence is awkward.  Consider rewording it.

Line 70: "lead" should be "leads".

Line 78: "Copper" is misspelled.

Line 98: "may attributable" should be "may be attributable".

Line 106: "Rare study has" should be "Few studies have" or similar.

Line 131: "to soil aerate" should be "to aerate soil" or "for soil aeration".

Line 146: "by manual" should be "manually" or "by hand".

Line 186: "sample" should be "samples".

Line 333: "While" is unnecessary here.

Table 6: This table is difficult to read.  A smaller font could help, or the data could be represented visually.

Line 452: "was" is unnecessary.

 

Line 486: "increase" should be "increased".

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in this paper is understandable but requires substantial proofreading, as detailed above.

Author Response

Comments 1: Line 32: The first "the" on this line is unnecessary.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. The first "the" has been deleted. (Line 32)

 

Comments 2: Line 46: "Blueberries" does not need to be capitalized.

Response 2: We are sorry for the mistake, and the word "Blueberries" has been decapitalized. (Line 47)

 

Comments 3: Line 54: This sentence is awkward.  Consider rewording it.

Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. has been revised to "The growth of both highbush and rabbiteye blueberry under application of ammonium nitrogen fertilizer was better than that under application of nitrate nitrogen fertilizer." (Line 54-56)

 

Comments 4: Line 70: "lead" should be "leads".

Response 4: We are sorry for the mistake, and the word "lead" has been revised to "leads". (Line 72)

 

Comments 5: Line 78: "Copper" is misspelled.

Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s correction. The word "cupper" has been replaced with "copper". (Line 80)

 

Comments 6: Line 98: "may attributable" should be "may be attributable".

Response 6: We agree. "may attributable" has been revised to "may be attributable". (Line 100)

 

Comments 7: Line 106: "Rare study has" should be "Few studies have" or similar.

Response 7: Many thanks for the comments, and the term "Rare study has" has been revised to "Few studies have". (Line 108)

 

Comments 8: Line 131: "to soil aerate" should be "to aerate soil" or "for soil aeration".

Response 8: We agree. "to soil aerate" has been revised to "to aerate soil". (Line 132)

 

Comments 9: Line 146: "by manual" should be "manually" or "by hand".

Response 9: Thanks for the reviewer’s correction. "by manual" has been revised to "manually". (Line 147)

 

Comments 10: Line 186: "sample" should be "samples".

Response 10: Sorry for our mistake. The word "sample" has been revised to "samples". (Line 188)

 

Comments 11: Line 333: "While" is unnecessary here.

Response 11: We agree. The word "While" has been deleted. (Line 335)

 

Comments 12: Table 6: This table is difficult to read.  A smaller font could help, or the data could be represented visually.

Response 12: Thanks for the suggestion. The font size has been decreased. (Table 6)

 

Comments 13: Line 452: "was" is unnecessary.

Response 13: Agreed and revised accordingly. The word "was" has been deleted. (Line 455)

 

Comments 14: Line 486: "increase" should be "increased".

Response 14: Many thanks for the suggestion. "increase" has been revised to "increased". (Line 489)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the manuscript “Effect of the nitrification inhibitor DMPP on blueberry planted in neutral soil”:

The study was designed to investigate the effects of substance X application on changes in soil nitrogen dynamics, chemical properties of the rhizosphere, some growth and nutrient characteristics of blueberry plants, and N transformation functional genes in soils with a neutral reaction. Considering the environmental and economic problems caused by N losses in agricultural systems, the subject investigated in this study can be of great importance.

In general, the manuscript has a coherent structure and different parts of the article have been prepared in an acceptable manner. The discussion section of the paper is comprehensive and well-written, and the conclusion is consistent with the arguments presented. However, some corrections and minor revisions need to be made for the effectiveness of the paper, which are as follows.

Line 18: “agronomic characters” be changed to “agronomic characteristics”.

Line 102: “researches” be changed to “studies”.

Line 275: “difference” be changed to “different”.

Line 290: “chemical property analysis” be changed to “chemical properties analysis”.

Line 316: Since the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) are not presented in the manuscript, it should be written instead of “ANOVA showed that…”: “treatment means comparison showed that …”.

Line 343: “Agronomic character” be changed to “Agronomic characteristics”.

Line 345: Since the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) are not presented in the manuscript, it should be written instead of “ANOVA showed that…”: “treatment means comparison showed that …”.

Table 3: in the Table caption, “Agronomic character” be changed to “Agronomic characteristics”.

Table 3: In the head of the first column, “Agronomic character” be changed to “Agronomic characteristic”.

Table 3: The treatment letters should be revised in the case of “Tertiary order” because the values 5 (DL) and 7 (DH), which are lower than 9 (CK), have taken the letter B, while the value 10 (DM), which is greater than 9, has also taken the letter B and should be corrected.

Table 4: Lettering of the concentration of N in the CK treatment (25.54±1.11) should be corrected.

Table 5: In the Table caption, treatments DL and DM, and, 0.5%N and 1%N should be removed because only CK and DH treatments are included in the table.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Comments 1: Line 18: “agronomic characters” be changed to “agronomic characteristics”.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. "agronomic characters" has been revised to "agronomic characteristics". We have revised throughout the manuscript referring to these comments. (Line 18-19; Line 345; Line 357; Table 3)

 

Comments 2: Line 102: “researches” be changed to “studies”.

Response 2: We agree. "researches" has been revised to "studies". (Line 104)

 

Comments 3: Line 275: “difference” be changed to “different”.

Response 3: We are sorry for the mistake. "difference" has been revised to "different". (Line 277)

 

Comments 4: Line 290: “chemical property analysis” be changed to “chemical properties analysis”.

Response 4: Thanks for the comment. "property" has been revised to "properties". (Line 291)

 

Comments 5: Line 316: Since the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) are not presented in the manuscript, it should be written instead of “ANOVA showed that…”: “treatment means comparison showed that …”.

Response 5: Many thanks for the suggestion. "ANOVA showed that" has been revised to "Treatment means comparison showed that". (Line 317)

 

Comments 6: Line 343: “Agronomic character” be changed to “Agronomic characteristics”.

Response 6: We have done it. (Line 345)

 

Comments 7: Line 345: Since the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) are not presented in the manuscript, it should be written instead of “ANOVA showed that…”: “treatment means comparison showed that …”.

Response 7: We agree. "ANOVA showed that" has been revised to "Treatment means comparison showed that". We have revised throughout the manuscript referring to these comments. "by ANOVA" has been revised to "by treatment means comparison". (Line 347-348; Line 355-356; Line 369)

 

Comments 8: Table 3: in the Table caption, “Agronomic character” be changed to “Agronomic characteristics”.

Response 8: We have done it. (Line 357)

 

Comments 9: Table 3: In the head of the first column, “Agronomic character” be changed to “Agronomic characteristic”.

Response 9: We have done it. (Table 3)

 

Comments 10: Table 3: The treatment letters should be revised in the case of “Tertiary order” because the values 5 (DL) and 7 (DH), which are lower than 9 (CK), have taken the letter B, while the value 10 (DM), which is greater than 9, has also taken the letter B and should be corrected.

Response 10: We are very sorry for our handwriting mistake. The treatment letters were checked and corrected in all text. The data of "Total branching number" was added to Table 3. (Table 3)

 

Comments 11: Table 4: Lettering of the concentration of N in the CK treatment (25.54±1.11) should be corrected.

Response 11: Sorry for our carelessness. The unnecessary annotations have been removed. (Table 4)

 

Comments 12: Table 5: In the Table caption, treatments DL and DM, and, 0.5%N and 1%N should be removed because only CK and DH treatments are included in the table.

Response 12: Many thanks for kind and considerate comments. Treatments DL and DM, and, 0.5%N and 1%N were removed in the Table caption. (Line 395)