In Arid Regions, Forage Mulching between Fruit Trees Rows Enhances Fruit Tree Light and Lowers Soil Salinity
Danijela Pavlovic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Title: Forage mulching between rows of fruit trees improves fruit tree light and reduces soil salinity in arid areas
General comments:
The manuscript entitled “Forage mulching between rows of fruit trees improves fruit tree light and reduces soil salinity in arid areas” contains valuable information. Only major suggestions is that kindly recheck English language and add more dataset in the results sections. Manuscript needs revision as given below.
Comments:
Title: It needs revision should be focused on study aim (tree light could be removed and focus should be only salinity)
Abstract:
Line no. 13: sentence incomplete
Line 14-17: wrong sentence pattern sentence
Overall abstract need English modification and sentence improvement.
Introductions:
It needs some improvement with strong emphasis on background, research gap and hypothesis.
Paragraphs also needs English improvement
Material and methods:
Give geographic location of experiments (Map, latitude & longitude)
Give a compete experiment layout (both intercropped and sole) mentioning the total no of trees considered.
Results: More dataset need to be given
Authors also need to compare tree growth parameters in both the treatments
Also, explain how change in soil salinity in intercropped system compare to non-intercropped.
Also mentioned about K+ and K/Na ration in results
Effect of salinity on apple and tolerance mechanism in species also needs to be mentioned.
Give the Physioco-chemical properties of soil, and how these changes under both systems
Derive the correction between salinity all the parameters to find out how salinity affect different parameters.
Discussion: In discussion, some improvement is required. For instance, first explain about findings of present results (one or two line) followed by reasoning for the same (two or three line) and further supported by similar studies in the region or elsewhere as well as conclusion at the end of paragraph.
Conclusion: add what more needs to be done
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “In arid regions, forage mulching between fruit trees rows en-hances fruit tree light and lowers soil salinity” (No.: agriculture-1934692). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
- Response to comment:Title: It needs revision should be focused on study aim (tree light could be removed and focus should be only salinity)
Response: special thanks to you for your comments. I have modified it.
- Response to comment:Line 13: sentence incomplete.
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- Response to comment:Line 14-17: wrong sentence pattern sentence.
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
4.Response to comment: Overall abstract need English modification and sentence improvement.
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 5. Response to comment: It needs some improvement with strong emphasis on background, research gap and hypothesis.Paragraphs also needs English improvement.
Response: Thank you, I agree with your comments. I have added the relevant descriptions in lines 53-56 and 70.-82.
- 6. Response to comment: Give geographic location of experiments (Map, latitude & longitude).
Response: thank you for your question. I have added the latitude and longitude to line 116 of the paper.
- 7. Response to comment: Give a compete experiment layout (both intercropped and sole) mentioning the total no of trees considered.
Response: thank you for your question. I have added the total number of trees in line 125 of the paper and the planting diagrams for monocrop and intercrop apples in lines 141-143 to make the trial design more complete.
- Response to comment: Authors also need to compare tree growth parameters in both the treatments
Response: thank you for your question. I have added relevant data on tree growth in lines 305-315 of the paper and present them in Table 1.
- 9. Response to comment: Explain how change in soil salinity in intercropped system compare to non-intercropped.
Response: thank you for your question. I have explained the relevant changes in salinity in monocropping and intercropping in lines 251-255 of the paper, which suggests that intercropping reduces soil salinity.
- 1 Response to comment: Effect of salinity on apple and tolerance mechanism in species also needs to be mentioned.
Response: thank you for your question. I have already explored the effects of salinity on apple growth in lines 432-442 of the paper and concluded that apple growth is inhibited as soil salinity continues to increase.
- 1 Response to comment: Discussion: In discussion, some improvement is required. For instance, first explain about findings of present results (one or two line) followed by reasoning for the same (two or three line) and.
Response: thank you for your question. I have already explored the effects of salinity, orchard microclimate and photosynthesis on apple growth, yield and fruit quality in lines 380-386 and 432-442 of the paper, which concluded that intercropping reduces soil salinity and improves orchard microclimate, thereby promoting apple growth and improving yield and fruit quality.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. Your suggestions and opinions are very important to us. We have revised the article according to your suggestions and added many missing parts, hoping to better present our research results to readers. I sincerely wish you every success in your work.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
With best regards,
Sincerely Yours,
Corresponding author: Wei Zhang
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments/suggestions for authors
Lin. 18
CO2 = CO2
Lin. 83
“At present, there are few studies on the effects of intercropping on soil salinization and sand and dust” need some references.
Lin. 112
“Ryegrass was planted” better write seeded
Lin. 119.
Mistake symbol of point on the and of sentace
Lin. 156, 158, 161, 178, 194, 199
it is necessary to write the units/or? of measurement
Lin. 236
the Pn, Tr, Ci, and Gs it good be to write “the measuring parameters” Pn, Tr…
Lin. 268
Table 1. The appearance and internal quality in different planting patterns.
Patterns=systems or methods
Under the table need to explain what is MA- , IR-
Lin. 278
Rye grass = ryegrass
Lin. 282
Patterns=systems or methods
Lin. 303
Li et al. you are forget no. of reference [30] instead of the end
Lin 411, 414
2012= need to be bold 2012
2016= need to be bold 2016
Lin. 452
Wei W = Wei, W
Lin. 480
1996(04)= 1996, (04)
Lin. 495
2015(06)= 2015, (06)
Comment for all references
In some references you have Yang, L.-L.; Ding, X.-Q.; Liu, X.-J.; Li, P.-M. in some you do not have Callaway, R.M.; Brooker, R.W.; Choler, P.; Kikvidze, Z.; Lortie, C.J.; Michalet, R
Can it be equalized?
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “In arid regions, forage mulching between fruit trees rows en-hances fruit tree light and lowers soil salinity” (No.: agriculture-1934692). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
- Response to comment:Lin. 18 CO2 = CO2.
Response: special thanks to you for your comments. I have modified it.
- Response to comment:Lin. 83 “At present, there are few studies on the effects of intercropping on soil salinization and sand and dust” need some references.
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. Considering the Reviewer's suggestion, we have added this part in lines101 of the manuscript.
- Response to comment:Lin. 112 “Ryegrass was planted” better write seeded.
Response: special thanks to you for your comments. I have modified it.
4.Response to comment: Lin. 119 Mistake symbol of point on the and of sentace
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 5. Response to comment: Lin. 156, 158, 161, 178, 194, 199it is necessary to write the units/or? of measurement
Response: thank you for your question. Since the growth rate of soil moisture content has no unit, we did not add it.
- 6. Response to comment: Lin. 236the Pn, Tr, Ci, and Gs it good be to write “the measuring parameters” Pn, Tr…
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 7. Response to comment: Lin. 268 Table 1. The appearance and internal quality in different planting patterns.Patterns=systems or methods. Under the table need to explain what is MA-, IR-
Response: thank you for your question. There are two different cropping patterns in this study, which also belong to different mono-intercropping systems. I have modified it.
- Response to comment: Lin. 278 Rye grass = ryegrass
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 9. Response to comment: Lin. 282Patterns=systems or methods
Response: thank you for your question. There are two different cropping patterns in this study, which also belong to different mono-intercropping systems.
- 1 Response to comment: Lin. 303Li et al. you are forget no. of reference [30] instead of the end
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 1 Response to comment: Lin 411, 4142012= need to be bold 2012,2016= need to be bold 2016
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 1 Response to comment: Lin. 452Wei W = Wei, W
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 1 Response to comment: Lin. 4801996(04)= 1996, (04)
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 1 Response to comment: Lin. 4952015(06)= 2015, (06)
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 1Response to comment: Comment for all referencesIn some references you have Yang, L.-L.; Ding, X.-Q.; Liu, X.-J.; Li, P.-M. in some you do not have Callaway, R.M.; Brooker, R.W.; Choler, P.; Kikvidze, Z.; Lortie, C.J.; Michalet, R Can it be equalized?
Response: thank you for your question. thank you for your question. I have modified it.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. Your suggestions and opinions are very important to us. We have revised the article according to your suggestions and added many missing parts, hoping to better present our research results to readers. I sincerely wish you every success in your work.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
With best regards,
Sincerely Yours,
Corresponding author: Wei Zhang
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “In arid regions, forage mulching between fruit trees rows en-hances fruit tree light and lowers soil salinity” (No.: agriculture-1934692). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
- Response to comment:the title: “Forage mulching between rows of fruit trees improves fruit tree light and reduces soil salinity in arid areas”change to “In arid regions, forage mulching between fruit tree rows enhances fruit tree light and lowers soil salinity”
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. I have modified it.
- Response to comment:Lin. 15 delete “;”.
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. I have modified it.
- Response to comment:Lin. 17 delete “15.65”.
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. This is data about photosynthesis and cannot be deleted.
.
4.Response to comment: Lin. 17 delete “intercropping”.
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. I have modified it.
- 5. Response to comment: Lin. 18 CO2=CO2
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. I have modified it.
- 6. Response to comment: Lin. 119“。”.
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
- 7. Response to comment: Lin. 189 delete “).”.
Response: thank you for your question. This bracket corresponds to the first bracket and cannot be deleted.
- Response to comment: Lin. 369 “Jia et al. [44].”.
Response: thank you for your question. I have modified it.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. Your suggestions and opinions are very important to us. We have revised the article according to your suggestions and added many missing parts, hoping to better present our research results to readers. I sincerely wish you every success in your work.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
With best regards,
Sincerely Yours,
Corresponding author: Wei Zhang
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The main problem I detect is the methodology part. This can be adjusted as the results are very interesting and it has enough number of repetitions. Below I describe my questions regarding the methodology.
For example, in this study it is mentioned how many replicates the study had but it is not clear the experimental design used nor the total effective area of the study. It is necessary to mention in the text how many trees in total were in each experimental unit. In point 2.3. Collection of soil samples, it is mentioned how the soil samples were taken, but it is not mentioned at all if this sample was for a single tree or how many trees were taken, or if it was a composite sample. At the point the analyses that were made are mentioned, there is no mention of how the sample was handled, what type of method was used for each parameter. The information on this item should be significantly expanded as it is part of the first objective. In item 2.4 it is mentioned that 3 apple trees were taken, but it is not clear if it is per experimental unit, likewise, it is important to mention which were the internal parameters of the cuvette, in relation to temperature, humidity, VPD, among other variables. And it is observed that the time of measurement is not correct because at this time there is an environmental effect on the opening of the stoma and this can significantly reduce gas exchange.
On the other hand, don't you think that there were too few apples collected for each treatment, it is mentioned that there were six fruits per treatment, that is to say that for each experimental unit there were two...it is necessary to expand very well this type of descriptions since it leaves many gaps. Likewise, for the parameters measured in the fruits, there is no mention of how they were handled, nor is there any mention of the method used for each variable.
The way in which the experimental data was analyzed does not allow us to conclude in an adequate manner. For example, there is absolutely nothing mentioned in relation to how the soil analysis was done, for example, how the effect of distance from the tree and soil depth was corrected. In turn, how did you clean up the effect of season on gas exchange variables.
The results have some excellent graphical outputs, but nothing is mentioned aboslutely in the methodology, especially in the analysis of the data. Likewise, microclimate data are mentioned, but the methodology does not describe how they were collected, nor what equipment was used.
Under the conditions in which the manuscript is found, efforts should be made to better describe the methods used.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “In arid regions, forage mulching between fruit trees rows en-hances fruit tree light and lowers soil salinity” (No.: agriculture-1934692). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
- Response to comment:In this study it is mentioned how many replicates the study had but it is not clear the experimental design used nor the total effective area of the study. It is necessary to mention in the text how many trees in total were in each experimental unit.
Response: special thanks to you for your comments. I have added the effective area of the trial site, the area of each treatment plot and the number of apple trees in lines 123-129 of the paper.
- Response to comment:In point 2.3. Collection of soil samples, it is mentioned how the soil samples were taken, but it is not mentioned at all if this sample was for a single tree or how many trees were taken, or if it was a composite sample. At the point the analyses that were made are mentioned, there is no mention of how the sample was handled, what type of method was used for each parameter. The information on this item should be significantly expanded as it is part of the first objective.
Response: thank you very much for this suggestion. I have completed the changes as follows. “Soil sample collection: according to the sampling plan described above, soil samples were collected from a randomly selected apple tree of good growth in the middle row of the monocrop and intercrop systems to study the distribution of soil moisture and salinity. Sampling was carried out by the auger sampling method, using the tree as the origin and sampling in a horizontal radial direction at 50 cm, 100 cm, 150 cm and 200 cm from the tree at depths of 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm and 40-60 cm, replicated three times. Measurement of soil moisture content and soil salinity: in accordance with the sampling time the completed soil samples are placed partly in aluminium boxes for the determination of the soil water content and partly for the determination of the soil K+ and total salt content. Soil moisture content is determined by the drying method, whereby the soil samples are dried in an oven in the aluminium box and the soil moisture content is calculated by comparing the soil weight before and after drying. The other part of the soil sample is air dried and passed through a 2 mm sieve, mixed at a 5:1 ratio of water to soil, oscillated and the supernatant extracted to determine the soil K+ and total salt content. The soil K+ content was determined using Plasma Emitted Atomic Spectrometer (ICAP6300), while soil total salt content was determined by conductivity.”
- Response to comment:In item 2.4 it is mentioned that 3 apple trees were taken, but it is not clear if it is per experimental unit, likewise, it is important to mention which were the internal parameters of the cuvette, in relation to temperature, humidity, VPD, among other variables.
Response: thank you for your question. I have added the method of measuring the microclimate of the orchard and the number of replicates of the experimental samples. At the same time, I have modified and improved the experimental methods for other relevant indicators.
4.Response to comment: On the other hand, don't you think that there were too few apples collected for each treatment, it is mentioned that there were six fruits per treatment, that is to say that for each experimental unit there were two...it is necessary to expand very well this type of descriptions since it leaves many gaps. Likewise, for the parameters measured in the fruits, there is no mention of how they were handled, nor is there any mention of the method used for each variable.
Response: thank you for your question. I have perfected the relevant indicators and methods as follows.
In October 2020 and 2021, we randomly selected three good growth apple trees and measured the standard tree height and crown width with a steel tape measure and the diameter at breast height with a vernier caliper, replicated three times. At the same time, the number of fruits from standard apple trees was counted and 60 apples were collected randomly in each treatment plot and preserved in ice boxes. Individual fruit weights were determined using a 1/100 electronic balance and individual plant yields were calculated. Soluble solids were determined using a WYT-4 hand-held sugar meter, hardness was de-termined using a GY-1 fruit hardness tester, soluble sugar content was determined using the anthrone colourimetric method and total acid content was determined using the NaOH neutralising titration method.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. Your suggestions and opinions are very important to us. We have revised the article according to your suggestions and added many missing parts, hoping to better present our research results to readers. I sincerely wish you every success in your work.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
With best regards,
Sincerely Yours,
Corresponding author: Wei Zhang
E-mail addresses: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript has been substantially improved. Clarity has been given to the various comments in the methods, results and discussion.
