You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Grzegorz Pączka1,2,*,
  • Anna Mazur-Pączka1 and
  • Mariola Garczyńska1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Haitao Zhao Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

From my point of view, the research content of the manuscript is very meaningful. I think it is interesting for related readers. Just, I suggest a few modifications:

  1. It is suggested that the best application amount of vermicompost should be supplemented in the abstract.
  2. The introduction is lengthy and needs to be further reduced. It is recommended to focus on vermicompost and soil fertility.
  3. The results and discussion are also somewhat lengthy, and it is suggested to delete the discussion that is not highly relevant to this manuscript.
  4. The conclusion is too lengthy. Just make the conclusion brief and clear.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments on Ref.: Ms. No. agriculture-1358679

Use of vermicompost from sugar beet pulp in cultivation of peas (Pisum sativum L.)

 

Please see our responses to the points raised by the reviewer below.

 

From my point of view, the research content of the manuscript is very meaningful. I think it is interesting for related readers. Just, I suggest a few modifications:

 

  1. It is suggested that the best application amount of vermicompost should be supplemented in the abstract.

This is already present: „Analyzed pea characteristics and the content of macro and   microelements in their biomass were most favorably influenced by 25 and 50% vermicompost addition, and values obtained were similar to those in the GS treatment”.

 

  1. The introduction is lengthy and needs to be further reduced. It is recommended to focus on vermicompost and soil fertility.

This now done.

 

  1. The results and discussion are also somewhat lengthy, and it is suggested to delete the discussion that is not highly relevant to this manuscript.

This has been addressed and shortened.

 

  1. The conclusion is too lengthy. Just make the conclusion brief and clear.

Thank you. Corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

  • Line 51, please add related reference with peat moss alternatives.
  • Line 125, what do you mean “to within the 3cm”?
  • What was the humidity?
  • Why did you add peat moss-based substrate in the treatment?
  • Is the method for the “remaining elements measurements” original? If not, please add reference here.
  • What’s the physical properties of the soil, vermicompost, and all the mixes/
  • Was the mass in table 2 dry weight?
  • Did you measure the soil microbes in different treatments? This might give you some answer to the different nodules. Also, please add more related reference on this and discuss it more in detail.
  • I highly suggest you to add a PCA in your discussion.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments on Ref.: Ms. No. agriculture-1358679

Use of vermicompost from sugar beet pulp in cultivation of peas (Pisum sativum L.)

 

Please see our responses to the points raised by the reviewer below.

 

  1. Line 51, please add related reference with peat moss alternatives.

Thank you. Done.

  1. Line 125, what do you mean “to within the 3cm”?

Corrected in the MS text.

When preparing the pot experiment, all pots of each combination were filled with the substrate to such a level (taking into account the maximum capacity of the pots) that after sowing the seeds they could be covered with a 3 cm layer of the specified substrate. This treatment was to ensure the greatest possible uniformity of the depth of sowing seeds in the substrates, in each combination.

 

  1. What was the humidity?

In the described experiment, air and soil humidity were not measured. Growing plants were watered at the same time, if needed, with the same amount of water. It should be noted that the experiment was carried out in greenhouse conditions, under the same environmental conditions for each combination (in 5 replications). On the other hand, we would like to thank the reviewer for his significant attention to the future, where showing the average air and substrate humidity will more accurately illustrate the environmental conditions of plant growth.

 

  1. Why did you add peat moss-based substrate in the treatment?

As a substrate in the GS group, balanced horticultural soil based on peat was used, intended for growing vegetables, which is generally available and used in plant cultivation. Due to its physical and chemical properties, peat is a common component of commercial horticultural substrates, dedicated to the cultivation of various groups of plants. Considering the fact that the consumption of peat as a component of arable substrates may contribute to the degradation of valuable and endangered ecosystems such as peatlands, there is a need to propose an alternative solution for this component. It seems that the vermicompost from sugar beet pulp used in the experiment, due to its physicochemical properties, may to some extent be a substitute for peat as a substrate improving the properties of mineral soils.

 

  1. Is the method for the “remaining elements measurements” original? If not, please add reference here.

Reference is given ([26] Ostrowska, A.; Gawliński, S.; Szczubiałka, Z. The soil and plants method of analysis and evaluation;  IOŚ Publishing: Warsaw, 1991; pp. 334.)

 

  1. What’s the physical properties of the soil, vermicompost, and all the mixes.

Apart from the soil granulometric composition and its density (1.45 g·cm-3), no physical properties were analyzed.

 

  1. Was the mass in table 2 dry weight?

Table 2 shows the fresh weight values. However, thank you for your attention, while preparing the next article, we will also consider showing the dry matter.

 

  1. Did you measure the soil microbes in different treatments? This might give you some answer to the different nodules. Also, please add more related reference on this and discuss it more in detail.

Thanks for your suggestion. The microorganisms were not tested in these studies. We will plan such measurements in future research. More cross-references on this have been added to the discussion of the results.

 

  1. I highly suggest you to add a PCA in your discussion.

Thank you very much for your important suggestion, we will take this analysis into account when developing the next results.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript investigated the effect of vermicompost from sugar beet pulp on the plant biomass production and macronutrients and microelements content of P. sativum cultivated on clay soil. The paper topic has been appropriately described in the text; however, the manuscript needs some corrections. See the attached document to address the different corrections, suggestions and comments provided to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments on Ref.: Ms. No. agriculture-1358679

Use of vermicompost from sugar beet pulp in cultivation of peas (Pisum sativum L.)

 

Please see our responses to the points raised by the reviewer below.

 

This manuscript investigated the effect of vermicompost from sugar beet pulp on the plant biomass production and macronutrients and microelements content of P. sativum cultivated on clay soil. The paper topic has been appropriately described in the text; however, the manuscript needs some corrections. See the attached document to address the different corrections, suggestions and comments provided to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Moderate English changes required

Corrected.

 

Comments to the author

 

Comment 1. Page 2, line 95. Figure 1 is missing. Please add the figure below the relevant text;

Corrected in the text. The reference to Figure 1 in the text could be misleading and indicate that it is missing from the methodology. However, according to the authors' intention, this was to facilitate finding the vermireactor's construction in the quoted article [24].

 

Comment 2. Page 3, line 132. Please correct “xtracted” as "extracted".

Corrected.

 

Comment 3. Page 3, lines 141-142. Add reference;

Done [26].

 

Comment 4. Page 3, lines 145-147. Please, add some information and reference about potassium, calcium and trace element analysis including extraction procedures and instruments used.

The procedures for the analysis of plant and soil material are described in [26], devices are given.

 

Comment 5. Page 4, lines 159-161. I suggest to move Table 1 at page 3, line 124.

Done.

 

Comment 6. Page 4, lines 164-166. The sentence is useless. Please delete it.

Done.

 

Comment 7. Page 5, lines 184-196. The text is very confusing. If values are not statistically different, letters must be deleted from Table2a and the text must be reduced only describing tendencies.

This has been changed.

 

Comment 8. Page 5, lines 197-200. I suggest to move Table 2 at line 169. In addition, letters must be deleted from mean pod mass, mean seed number in pod and mean sum of seed biomass because there are not statistic differences between means;

Done.

 

Comment 9. Page 6, lines 207-210. All the discussion must be deleted because there are not significant differences between treatments;

Corrected.

 

Comment 10. Page 6, lines 227-230. It is confusing (p<0.05). If values are not statistically different, letters must be deleted from Table 2b and discussion must be changed consequently. In addition, it is not described and discussed the lowest mean pod number in V10;

Done.

 

Comment 11. Page 8, lines 313-314. Please add Table 3 citation in the text;

Done.

 

Comment 12. Page 8, lines 326-328. Letters must be deleted in the table when p<0.05;

This has been changed.