The Use of Magnesium Fertilizer Can Improve the Nutrient Uptake, Yield, and Quality of Rice in Liaoning Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear reviewers and editor, following is my feedback on the manuscript titled "The Use of Magnesium Fertilizer Can Improve Nutrient Uptake, Yield, and Quality of Rice in Liaoning Province." After conducting a thorough evaluation, I believe there is a need for significant revisions to meet the necessary criteria for publication in its current form. Below, I detail each point that could be improved:
1. The abstract is overly descriptive. I suggest making it more numerical, with better presentation of data and emphasis on its novelty.
2. I recommend native English revision, as there are several typos and lengthy passages that hinder readability, signaling inadequate English usage.
3. While the introduction partially explains the basic aspects of Mg importance, such as its direct role in plants and its significance for proper assimilation of other nutrients, there lacks a comprehensive analysis justifying increased usage or dosage in rice production systems. Furthermore, important aspects such as sources, production costs, cost-benefit ratio, environmental impact, and availability for farmers are not included.
4. Improvement is needed in comprehending the research gap, the rationale behind the investigation, the hypothesis, the objectives, and the scope of work.
5. With all due respect to the authors and their efforts, I fail to find novelty in the current proposal, either methodologically or in terms of treatment application results. While the trial is significant for rice growers' technical aspects, I struggle to identify the scientific novelty that would make this document impactful within the academic community.
6. In the materials and methods section, when presenting soil characteristics (Table 1), more details regarding the analytical methods used to determine reported concentrations are necessary. Additionally, I suggest including physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics to better understand soil fertility. Furthermore, aspects such as climatic conditions, agronomic crop management, fertilization history, and experimental field yields should be included.
7. More details should be provided for what the authors refer to as "conventional fertilization treatment (FP)" and "Optimized fertilization treatment (OPT)," as this forms the basis for understanding the proposed evaluation.
8. Why are the optimized fertilization levels OPT+Mg1 and OPT+Mg2 the same for both experiments? Are the soil levels identical? If so, and this approach is justified, then Table 1 is inaccurate, as the values in each location differ. Optimization of fertilizers should be based on existing levels, and crop requirements, allowing for adjustments accordingly.
9. The authors mention experimental design without specifying any design type, experimental units, timing of response variable determination, or protocols used. Additionally, a control group (without fertilization) should have been employed. For such studies, it's recommended to have two repetitions over time with a high 'n' and a blocked or Latin square design to reduce experimental error.
10. Regarding measured variables, if the fertilization effect is being evaluated, responses should not only be associated with rice yield and quality parameters but also with soil characteristics (nutrient concentrations) and foliar levels in plants.
11. The statistical analysis lacks a description of the principles behind analyzing variance and subsequent post-hoc tests. Additionally, the authors could employ multivariate analysis to understand the effect of all evaluated factors (variety, batch, etc.) and their interactions with different treatments.
12. The LSD test is more tolerant and less informative. For field studies with high variation, more stringent tests such as Tukey, Bonferroni, etc., are recommended.
13. Results presentation should be improved as tables and figures are not self-explanatory.
14. Discussion should be redirected based on introduction comments and in line with objectives, hypothesis, and addressed gap.
15. A discussion section on the limitations and prospects of the study should be incorporated.
16. The conclusion appears speculative.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI recommend native English revision, as there are several typos and lengthy passages that hinder readability, signaling inadequate English usage.
Author Response
we have provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. see the word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2900058
Title: The using of magnesium fertilizer can improve nutrient uptake, yield and quality of rice in Liaoning Province
Authors: Zubing He , Zhi Wang , Jianxun Hao , Yifan Wu , Houjun Liu
Dear Authors,
Please provide detailed, step-by-step answers to all my comments.
I saw many details that need to be improved or corrected. I described all these details in the reviewer's comments in the pdf file. Please note that the review is done partly and after the manuscript improves I can do a final review.
General comments:
Authors should include an explanation in their work. Two experiments were carried out:
1. Kaiyuan and Dawa
2. Kaiyuan and Xinmin
How soils of Kaiyuan, Tieling (E 123°54′10.4”, N 42°33′03.9”) (the same location) used in experiments 1 and 2 may have different Physicochemical properties (see Table 1).
The names of individual treatments need to be corrected. These names should indicate the doses and methods of fertilizer application.
1. Kaiyuan and Dawa
Note: the arrow means: the entry should be changed to:
FP → CON – conventional fertilization treatment
OPT – optimized fertilization treatment
OPT+Mg10 → OPT+Mg6S – optimized fertilization treatment + 6 kg Mg hm-2 applied to the soil
OPT+Mg20 → OPT+Mg12S – optimized fertilization treatment + 12 kg Mg hm-2 applied to the soil
OPT+Mg-A → OPT+Mg3F – optimized fertilization treatment +3 kg Mg hm-2 applied as a foliar spraying
OPT+MgSi20→ OPT+Mg3F-Si – optimized fertilization treatment +3 kg Mg hm-2 with silicon fertilizer applied as a foliar spraying
2. Kaiyuan and Xinmin
FP → CON – conventional fertilization treatment
FP+Mg1 → CON+Mg3F – conventional fertilization treatment + 3 kg Mg hm-2 applied as a foliar spraying
FP+Mg2 → CON+Mg6F – conventional fertilization treatment + 6 kg Mg hm-2 applied as a foliar spraying
OPT – optimized fertilization treatment
OPT+Mg1 → OPT+Mg3F – optimized fertilization treatment + 3 kg Mg hm-2 applied as a foliar spraying
OPT+Mg20 → OPT+Mg6F – optimized fertilization treatment + 6 kg Mg hm-2 applied as a foliar spraying
Detailed comments:
Title
OK
Authors
OK
Abstract
Line 8: Leaf spraying → foliar application or foliar spraying
Line 12: All oxide forms should be converted to elemental forms. In the past, oxide forms were used, now elementary forms are used! Please apply this note to all oxide forms used in the manuscript!
20 kg MgO hm-2 → 12 kg Mg hm-2
5 kg MgO is 3 kg Mg
10 kg of MgO equals 6 kg of Mg
15 kg of MgO equals 9 kg of Mg
and 20 kg MgO equals 12 kg Mg
Moreover, in table 1
84 kg P2O5 equals 37 kg P
68 kg P2O5 equals 30 kg P
165 kg P2O5 equals 72 kg P
and 55 kg P2O5 is 24 kg P
60 kg K2O equals 50 kg K
120 kg K2O equals 100 kg K
75 kg K2O is 62 kg K
Lin e 13: Authors wrote that for magnesium fertilization (experiment 1) used magnesium sulfate monohydrate. Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate they used for experiment 2 (see line 16). How to explain that fact that the authors in section 2.2. Experiment designs and treatments reported that the magnesium fertilizer in both experiments was magnesium sulfate heptahydrate? (Please see lines 98 and 121)
Line 15: “…5 kg MgO hm−2 or 10 kg MgO hm−2 → of 3 kg Mg hm−2 or 6 kg Mg hm−2
Keywords
OK
1. Introduction
Line 42: Please provide the full name when using the term for the first time along with the abbreviation (in brackets), then only the abbreviation may be used.
Ex-Mg → exchangeable magnesium (Mgex)
Line 43: (227–488mg kg−1) toward southern (32–89mg kg−1) China →
(227–488 mg kg−1) toward southern (32–89 mg kg−1) China
Line 44: Ex-Mg → Mgex
Line 49: Please add information about the influence of magnesium on a very important global crop, potatoes. China is the largest producer of edible potatoes in the world. Potato cultivation in China is the third crop for consumption purposes after rice and wheat (https://www.fao.org/3/cb9180en/cb9180en.pdf)
Therefore, I believe that authors should consider providing information that they can get from the articles below.
“…Foliar application of magnesium determined the synthesis of chlorophyll and accumulation of yield, especially in the years characterized by unfavorable weather conditions [17].
“…Magnesium applied in foliar treatments depressed the content of nitrates(V) in tubers which considerably increased during the potato storage [18].
please add as reference no 17, 18:
17. Ciećko, Z.; Żołnowski, A.C.; Mierzejewska, A. Effect of foliar nitrogen and magnesium fertilization on the total, protein nitrogen and nitrates (V) content in potato tubers. Ecol. Chem. Eng. A. 2010, 17(6), 593-600.
Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249340355_Effect_of_Foliar_Nitrogen_and_Magnesium_Fertilization_on_the_Total_Protein_Nitrogen_and_Nitrates_V_Content_in_Potato_Tubers
18. Ciećko, Z.; Żołnowski, A.C.; Mierzejewska, A. Impact of foliar nitrogen and magnesium fertilization on concentration of chlorophyll in potato leaves. Ecol. Chem. Eng. A. 2012, 19(6), 525-535.
Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373254842_IMPACT_OF_FOLIAR_NITROGEN_AND_MAGNESIUM_FERTILIZATION_ON_CONCENTRATION_OF_CHLOROPHYLL_IN_POTATO_LEAVES
Line 52: at this point, the entry from line 49 was repeated here: increase the yield of tomato [17]
Line 56: demandfor → demands for
Line 57: exchangeable Mg → Mgex
Line 57: is 1 cmol kg−1 → Please convert to mg kg-1
1 cmol kg−1 = 0.01 mol kg−1
1 mol of Mg = 24,305 g, 0.01 mol of Mg kg−1 = 0.243 g kg-1 = 243 mg kg−1
Do not use different units throughout your manuscript! Please see table 1. There the authors use mg kg-1
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Experiment sites
Line 89: Table 1 Table header
Please change “Alkali hydrolyzale nitrogen” to “Alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen”
For available phosphorus, please use Pav abbreviation
For available potassium, please use Kav abbreviation
For exchangeable magnesium, please use Mgex abbreviation
2.2. Experiment designs and treatments
Line 91: What experimental methods did the authors use for perform experiments? Was it a randomized block or split-plot subblock method, what was the plot area, and how many repetitions were used for one treatment? Were protective strips used to avoid application errors? Was chemical protection against diseases and weeds used? Please answer this question in the text of the manuscript.
Line 94 to 99: Please see the comments attached to pdf.version, and comments attached to the Abstract section.
Line 103: Nutrient Recommendation System.
Can the authors provide a reference to the nutrient recommendation system?
Lines 103 and others: Please provide the names of fertilizers and (producer, city, country) in the brackets.
Lines 105-109: Please indicate the dates of fertilizer application in accordance with the generally accepted BBCH scale
Line 110: Table 2: Please change treatment names and please change P2O5 to P, K2O to K, and MgO to Mg.
Line 121: Please see the comment addressed to line 13. Please check the Abstract. Did you use magnesium sulfate heptahydrate or magnesium sulfate monohydrate for this experiment?
Line 122: Table 3: Please change treatment names and please change P2O5 to P, K2O to K, and MgO to Mg.
2.3. Index measurement
What index? Properties of plants
Line 129: Why the samples were sieved for analysis. What diameter of sieve do authors use and why?
Line 129: N, P, K
Line 130: What methods (please indicate sources of methods) What type of equipment and apparatus do authors use for the mentioned determinations?
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Please add details of the software used:
Microsoft software (Microsoft, Redmond,WA, USA)
(OriginLab Inc., Northampton, MA, USA)
SPSS 19.0 data analysis software (IBM Inc., Amok, NC, USA)
3. Results
3.1. Rice yield and 1000-grain weight
Lines 153 and 165: Table 4 and table 5. Please change treatment names and please convert the Yield to kg hm-2
Why do authors use 667 m2?
688.5 kg per 667 m2 = ? kg per 10 000 m2 (hm2)
668.5 x 10 000/667 = 10 322.34 kg = 10.322 megagrams (Mg hm-2) right?
Lines 155-158: This description in the table footer is unnecessary as this explanation is provided in section 2.2. Experiment designs and treatments
For all figures please change descriptions to reviewer comments!
New treatment abbreviations please use throughout the manuscript!
Sections
3. Results and
4. Discussion, and
5. Conclusions
need to be reviewed after the authors' corrections
References
Please see the reviewer comments attached to pdf.version
Dear Authors,
After taking into account the corrections, I recommend your manuscript be resend for final review, before publication in Agronomy MDPI Journal.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have provided a provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. see word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed some of the suggestions provided, yet the majority were not incorporated into the manuscript, partly due to the completion of the experiment. My contention persists that the manuscript lacks novelty at an academic level, instead aligning more closely with the perspective of farmers. Crucially, the study fails to assess magnesium mechanisms, conduct economic analyses, evaluate feasibility, or establish a benefit/cost relationship. Consequently, I maintain that the contribution lacks the requisite robustness for publication; however, I defer the final decision to the editor.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is ok in part.
Author Response
See the attachment, please
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report no. 2
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2900058
Title: The using of magnesium fertilizer can improve nutrient uptake, yield and quality of rice in Liaoning Province
Authors: Zubing He , Zhi Wang , Jianxun Hao , Yifan Wu , Houjun Liu
Dear Authors,
I saw a few details that need to be improved or corrected. Please check the reviewer’s comments attached to the manuscript.
Detailed comments:
Title
OK
Authors
OK
Abstract
OK
Keywords
OK
1. Introduction
Line 44, 46, 63: exchangeable magnesium (Mgex)
Please use subscript for ex abbreviation
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Experiment sites
OK
2.2. Experiment designs and treatments
Line 139: Auguse → August
Line 140: 4% water solution → 4% aqueous solution of MgSO4·H2O
Line 158: 4% water solution → 4% aqueous solution of MgSO4·7H2O
2.3. Index measurement
OK
2.4. Statistical Analysis
OK
3. Results
3.1. Rice yield and 1000-grain weight
OK
3.2. Contents of crude fat, crude protein and starch in rice grain
Why did the authors take into account crude fat and crude protein content and not provide starch content in experiment 1, (Fig. 1) while in experiment 2 they analyzed crude protein and starch content and did not examine crude fat content (Fig. 2)? There is no consistency here!
I know that the grain starch content showed no significant difference between the six treatments (Exp. 2), but I think the data should be shown.
Even though in the Xinmin location (Experiment 2) the protein and starch content in rice grains did not differ significantly due to fertilization, the authors included this chart, didn't they?
3.3. Contents of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and Mg in rice shoots
Line 246: Why symbol Mg? It should be:
Contents of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium in rice shoots
or
Contents of N, P, K, and Mg in rice shoots
Right?
3.4. Contents of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and Mg in rice grains
Line 283: Why symbol Mg? It should be:
Contents of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium in rice grains
or
Contents of N, P, K, and Mg in rice grains
Right?
4. Discussions
Line 370 and many others throughout the manuscript:
Authors must decide whether they use element symbols or full names. The nomenclature should be standardized. You cannot write, for example, potassium-Mg interaction. You need to decide how to write: potassium-magnesium or K-Mg interaction.
5. Conclusion
OK
Please complete
Author Contribution (line 413) and
Funding (line 419) and
Data Availability Statement (line 423)
References
Please see the reviewer comments attached to pdf.version
Line 448: Please check author names:
Wei; X.R.; Hao; M.D.; Shao; M.G.; William. → Wei, X.; Hao, M.; Shao, M.; Gale, W.J.
Line 462 and 464: Please check the Journal name:
Ecological Chemistry → Ecol. Chem. Eng. A.
Dear Authors,
After taking into account the corrections, I recommend printing the manuscript in the Agronomy MDPI Journal.
Kind regards
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See the attachment, please
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
