Intercropping in Coconut Plantations Regulate Soil Characteristics by Microbial Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Intercropping has many advantages and is one of the elements of sustainable agriculture, as it allows for more efficient use of environmental resources. The research presented in the manuscript is consistent with the thematic scope of the Agriculture journal. The experiments presented in the manuscript is interesting. It seems well planned, but the description of the experiment is insufficient. The results were statistically analyzed and discussed and interpreted in detail. Tables and Figures are well prepared, understandable and legible.

Generally, manuscript is well prepared but in my opinion requires some corrections, especially subchapter 2.1. Intercropping treatment and sample collection.

 

 

Most important notes:

 

1. In line [72] is “The study was carried out at the four-team station..? - What does it mean?

2. Line [80-84] – “The intercropping experiments were conducted in artificial coconut forests planted in wide and narrow row cultivation, with 10 m wide row spacing, 4 m narrow row spacing and 4 m plant spacing. Three crops, Artemisia argyi, Dioscorea esculenta, and Arachis pintoi were intercropped in the wide rows of coconuts, while the area with naturally growing weeds (Bidens pilosa) served as the control” - Many questions arise:

-  which was control. Coconut grown in wide rows without these crops, or coconut grown in narrow rows? It's not clear. If the control object was coconut grown in narrow rows, could this have influenced the results?

- when was this plantation planted? In what years was this experiment conducted?

- when and how were the intercropping plants sown? When were soil samples taken? - How long after sowing these plants?

- Were the plants grown between the coconut rows harvested?

- Please provide a brief description of these plants and explain why these species were selected.

3. In line [85-86] is “…..totaling 12 experimental plots, with an area of 120 m2 (6.0 m × 20.0 m) per plot” - How many rows of coconut trees were there in one plot?

4. Please explain how diversity indices were calculated and cite the appropriate source, e.g. Simpson, Shanon…

5. Discussion chapter

- line [157] – varieties or species?

- line [158-159] - Please correct this sentence. It was no deeper than 60 cm.

- line [162-165] - Please correct this sentence. There are only capital letters in the chart. There are no columns or rows in the chart

6. Conclusions

Line [357-361] - Please reword this fragment. Content is repetitive

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, the detailed response please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study describes intercropping of, Artemisia argyi, Dioscorea esculenta, and Arachis pintoi with coconut plantations and soil microbial community at different depths has been assessed and correlated with. The objective of work seems to be to appropriate. I have only few observations that need to be addressed:

The major concern is about the experimental design, where naturally occurring weeds had been taken as control. Ideally, the control should have been set in an area devoid of any other plants. In such case, we could not ignore that the shift in microbial community was not only because of intercropping, but absence of weed in the treatments. This need to be discussed.

There is no prediction/ assessment of microbial functions in soil. Hence concluding P solubilization or other activities in whole manuscript appears to be assumptive, and not supported with data.

Heading 3.3: Effects of soil properties on soil microbial communities, and descriptions elsewhere suggests that the microbial population was affected by soil characteristics, while the title suggest otherwise. The title needs to be corrected. As the conclusions are based on correlation data, and CCA analysis, hence it cannot be ascertained if variations in soil properties are due to shift in community, or vice versa. Both these parameters could be impacted by intercropping and each other as well.

In figures 1, 2, X and  Y axis legends missing. It need to be added in the figures itself. Fig 3, 5 very small fonts, can’t read.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, the detailed response please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors only took into account some of the comments in the review. Although they answered the remaining questions and comments in detail, they did not include this in the revised version of the manuscript. I do not understand why?

The 'Material and methods' chapter must be prepared particularly carefully so that it is possible to repeat these studies in other conditions. Therefore, I believe that before accepting the manuscript for printing, it is necessary to supplement the "Material and Methods" section with the following information:

1. please add the planting diagram, which is posted in response to reviews. this will make it much easier for the reader to understand the arrangement of plants in the experiment

2. when was this plantation planted? In what years was this experiment conducted?

3. when and how were the intercropping plants sown? When were soil samples taken? - How long after sowing these plants?

4. the authors explained how the alpha diversity index was calculated. And what about indices such as Shannon, Simpson? How were these indices calculated? In the 'Material and methods' section there is no information about these indices. Please complete it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, the detailed response please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

may be accepted

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and suggestions regarding this manuscript. Wishing you all the best.