Effects of the Rapid Construction of a High-Quality Plough Layer Based on Woody Peat in a Newly Reclaimed Cultivated Land Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: agriculture-1507782
Title: Effects of the rapid construction of a high-quality plough layer based on woody peat on newly reclaimed cultivated land
Autors examined the mechanism of action of woody peat in terms of soil improvement and the correlation between soil index and crop yield under the best fertilization mode. The study proved that applying woody peat based on a combination of woody peat 37.50 t/h×m2 + rotten straw 3.00 t/h×m2 + bio-activating regulator II 1.50 t/h m2 + conventional fertilization significantly influences organic matter content and soil-available nutrients, used to the rapid construction of high-quality plough layer for agricultural use. The results of these studies are very interesting, promising and useful from the point of view of the searching models for improvement soil-content available nutrients thus increasing the crop yield. The methods presented are clear, repeatable and possible to implement. It should be appreciated that the authors used advanced, certain, demanding research methods. Nevertheless, the manuscript needs to be corrected. Changes and suggestions would be found in the attached PDF-file, in the specific comments for all sections of the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part. The changes and revisions are using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript. Our responses are presented in the following. See Attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is of general interest, the discussion of the results is clear and well interpreted from the point of view of working hypotheses. Previous studies are also mentioned and the discussion of their prospects is well developed. The text is well structured, easy to read and understand. I would suggest to improve the figure as follows:
Minor revisions:
Figure 2. All parameters show comparison with sample before test beside Particle size. Why? Please add if data available. If not, please explain.
Figure 3. The same demand concerning soil nutrient content
Figure 4. The same demand to add data on control group or present the results as relative data to the control.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part. The changes and revisions are using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript. Our responses are presented in the following. See Attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Your work is interested, written well, and organized.
This manuscript reports on a study of Effects of the rapid construction of a high-quality plough layer based on woody peat on newly reclaimed cultivated land. The study design meets the general standards and from what I can judge the data is being collected and analyzed appropriately. This work is an unpublished manuscript with relevant information that should be made public in a scientific journal for discussion among scientists working in the field.
However, there are some comments should be considered before publishing, in this way, the social and scientific relevance of the manuscript would be improved:
Line 25: separate word Carbon from parentheses (MBC)
Line 47: says: Iin addition. should say: In addition
Line 106: separate words: address several
Line 172: should say: that is, through
Line 186: should say: inductively
Line 188: separate between N.L. and Nemerow
Line 363: should say: causes
Line 396: says: Other, should say: Another
Line 476: I continue to add a paragraph that summarizes the importance, usefulness and social relevance, contemporary of the study, specifically pointing out the Impact, Benefit and Projection, something like this (for example):
Likewise, the effects of different organic fertilization models based on loamy soils with vegetable peat in commercial banana farms [80, 81, 82] had an effect on the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil such as: biological activity, texture, dry consistency , reaction to HCl, structure type, total microbial respiration, soil bulk density, and free-living omnivorous nematodes, showing that the use of organic substrates increased productivity (adequate sprouting and more vigorous seedlings). Likewise, the report of studies in tropical crops [83, 84] show that substrates such as woody peat similar to those reported in our study positively influence the content of organic matter and the nutrients available in the soil, and therefore in the improvement of the yield of these crops.
References
I suggest adding recent references which address the issue in question in Latin American territories. Suggested citations are for genuine scientific reasons that emphasize the current topic of study in context:
- Olivares, B.; Calero, J.; Rey, JC.; Lobo, D.; Landa, BB.; Gómez, JA. Correlation of banana productivity levels and soil morphological properties using regularized optimal scaling regression. Catena 2022, 208, 105718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105718
- Rondon, T., Hernandez, RM., Guzman, M., Soil organic carbon, physical fractions of the macro-organic matter, and soil stability relationship in lacustrine soils under banana crop. PLoS One 2021,16(7), e0254121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254121
- Campos, O.; Araya-Alman, M.; Acevedo-Opazo, C.; Cañete-Salinas, P.; Rey, J.C.; Lobo, D.; Landa, B. Relationship Between Soil Properties and Banana Productivity in the Two Main Cultivation Areas in Venezuela. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2020, 20(3), 2512-2524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00317-8.
- Fernández Bravo, C.; Urdaneta, N.; Silva, W.; Poliszuk, H.; Marín, M. Germination of tomato seeds (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cv Río Grande sown in plastic trays, using different substrates. Revista De La Facultad De Agronomía De La Universidad Del Zulia 2006, 23(2), 88-195. https://n9.cl/h5z4i
- Andrade-Rodríguez, M.; Ayala-Hernández, J. J.; Alia-Tejacal, I.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, H.; Acosta-Durán, C. M.; López-Martínez, V. Effect of germination promoters and substrates in the development of papayo seedlings. Revista De La Facultad De Agronomía De La Universidad Del Zulia, 25(4), 2009, 617-635 https://n9.cl/vf9je
Author Response
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments. We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part. The changes and revisions are using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript. Our responses are presented in the following. See Attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
