Reclaiming Tropical Saline-Sodic Soils with Gypsum and Cow Manure
, Cleyton dos Santos Fernandes 1, Raniere Barbosa de Lira 1, Miguel Ferreira Neto 1 and Christiano Rebouças Cosme 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A brief summary
The manuscript titled “Reclaiming tropical saline-sodic soils with gypsum and cow manure” evaluating the effects of different application amounts of cow manure and gypsum on saline-sodic soils for improving the soil physical characteristics and chemical properties. Even though the manuscript it is related with the aims and scopes of Water, I don’t find any new scientific or technical results that brings something new to publish this work. Maybe results are someway useful under local conditions. Besides the fact that the salinization-sodicitation of soils and water is becoming an increasingly serious constraint for the production of crops in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world, the reclamation of saline –sodic soils has been previously publish in details by many researches.
Broad comments:
The effect of gypsum and manure on saline-sodic soils has been the research topic of several investigations in the past. So what is make tropical areas differentiated from other places? I don’t find anywhere in the manuscript that important information. However, if the authors thinking of publishing this manuscript as a scientific article they must focuses on the novelty of their work. They must also avoid using general statements and personal opinions. The experimental methods descripted; and soil classification system should followed global recognized procedures and Soil Taxonomy System.
Specific commentsLook the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors investigated "Reclaiming tropical saline-sodic soils with gypsum and cow manure". The topic is really welcome as most river deltas are subjected to soil salinization. The manuscript is well written: methodology is clear enough and results well presented. However, there are some little points that need to the reworded. And, references should be added to some affirmation. Specific comments are marked on the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
only one season experiment,
Tables 5 and 6 are too big, difficult to read, some mistakes,
The title of table 6 should be in full form,
the text should be written rather in the passive voice instead of active voice
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Even thought, the manuscript has been improved to some extent according to the suggestions, however the main limitations remain; which has to do with the uncertainty about the validity of the findings under “real open field conditions”. In addition, methods used in several cases in the manuscript are based on local practices, as the authors’ explained, rather than on scientific methods. Maybe results are useful in some way locally
Author Response
In line with our response to the editor's comments and your initial comments, we have revised the manuscript to provide a clear rationale for the study.
With respect to the depth of irrigation water (one of the local practice critiques), the depth for leaching is limited by the physical characteristics of the furrow or bed that holds the irrigation water. 55mm was selected as the column head because that allows for a space, but constant, depth of water over an actual field for most surface irrigation configurations.
