The Effects of Planting Density and Nitrogen Application on the Growth Quality of Alfalfa Forage in Saline Soils
, Guichun Dong 3, Guisheng Zhou 1,4 and Yanqing Wu 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Manuscript title: Effect of planting density and nitrogen application on the growth quality of alfalfa forage in saline soils
Authors: Jiao Liu, et al.
The manuscript regarding the topic and results presented is of interest to alfalfa scientific community and revisions based on the comments below are recommended before considering for publication.
Introduction:
Line 45-47, I suggest the Authors supplement it with other studies abroad, because only domestic studies (China) are cited (literature no. 5),
Line 77-78, You should cite the literature correctly, it should be … Secondly, Wang et al. [18] showed…;
Xu et al. [19] found….
Line 70-84, Please cite other studies conducted abroad in this area, not only domestic studies (China),
Materials and Methods:
Line 104, ….and three sowing rates of 15.0 (D1), 30.0 (D2) 104 and 45.0 kg-hm-2 (D3), which of these three alfalfa sowing densities is the optimal density (recommended in China)?
What was the N content in % in the nitrogen fertilizer used, what kind of nitrogen fertilizer was it, the same applies to phosphorus fertilizer,
Line 125-135, In these subsections, a reference to the literature must be provided for assay methods,
Line 138-140, Sigmaplot 10.0, … Statistix 9...Indicate manufacturer, city, country, etc,
Results:
An explanation of the notations appearing in all figures and tables must be provided, only in the case of Table 1,
Line 144, At a consistent planting density,…. What does this mean, what is the sowing density?
Line 151, At a consistent nitrogen application rate,….. What does this mean, what is the nitrogen dose?
Discussion:
Line 569, by Helalia et al [45,13 ??], should ….by Helalia et al [45],
Conclusion:
Conclusions should not be numbered.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
The manuscript regarding the topic and results presented is of interest to alfalfa scientific community and revisions based on the comments below are recommended before considering for publication.
Answer: Thanks for very much for improvements our manuscript. The language of this manuscript has been extensively modified according to the reviewer comments. please check below.
Introduction:
- Line 45-47, I suggest the Authors supplement it with other studies abroad, because only domestic studies (China) are cited (literature no. 5),
Answer: Thank you very much. I have added the relevant studies abroad and made changes in lines 50–58. References have been added (References No. 5-8).
- Line 77-78, You should cite the literature correctly, it should be … Secondly, Wang et al. [18] showed…;
Answer: we are really apologized for irregular references. I have revised the full text. For instance, see Reference Nos. 21, 36, 40, 41, 46 and 47. (in lines 524, 570, 634, 638, 691 and 692).
Answer: I am very sorry that I have revised it and am revising the entire manuscript.
- Line 70-84, Please cite other studies conducted abroad in this area, not only domestic studies (China),
Answer: I have rewritten the introduction part and added the relevant foreign research content. In lines 39–58 and 75–85.
Materials and Methods:
- Line 104, ….and three sowing rates of 15.0 (D1), 30.0 (D2) 104 and 45.0 kg-hm-2 (D3), which of these three alfalfa sowing densities is the optimal density (recommended in China)?
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you very much. Although both D2N2 and D2N3 treatments were superior to others, considering economic benefits and environmental factors, it is recommended to use D2N2 as the appropriate treatment in China.
- What was the N content in % in the nitrogen fertilizer used, what kind of nitrogen fertilizer was it, the same applies to phosphorus fertilizer,
Answer: Dear reviewer, the Nitrogen fertilizer (containing 46% N Urea); Phosphorus fertilizer (containing 12% P2O5). I have added theses information in lines 110 and 112 of the manuscript.
- Line 125-135, In these subsections, a reference to the literature must be provided for assay methods,
Answer: Dear reviewer thank you very much, I have added relevant references to the Materials and Methods section in lines 117-167.
- Line 138-140, Sigmaplot 10.0, … Statistix 9...Indicate manufacturer, city, country, etc,
Answer: Dear reviewer the information about city, country has has been added such as Sigmaplot 10.0 (SPSS, PointRichmond, CA, USA); Statistix 9.0 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA) in lines 169-171of the manuscript.
Results:
- An explanation of the notations appearing in all figures and tables must be provided, only in the case of Table 1,
Answer: Dear reviewer thank you. Yes, I have added notations in all figures and tables.
- Line 144, At a consistent planting density,…. What does this mean, what is the sowing density?
Answer: I am very sorry that this is a syntax error, and I have modified it. At a consistent planting density, it means at the same planting density, such as at the same D1, D2, or D3 treatment. I have revised it in line 179.
- Line 151, At a consistent nitrogen application rate,….. What does this mean, what is the nitrogen dose?
Answer: I am very sorry that this is a grammar error, and I have modified it. A consistent nitrogen application rate means under the same nitrogen application conditions, such as the same N1, N2, or N3 treatment. In line 183, revise it.
Discussion:
- Line 569, by Helalia et al [45,13 ??], should ….by Helalia et al [45],
Answer: I have modified it in the line 638.
Conclusion:
- Conclusions should not be numbered.
Answer: Dear reviewer, Okay, I have modified it in the conclusions section, in lines 697-706.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic is an interesting one, but the English is very bad to convey the right meaning
- The abstract is very bad and must be re-worked on. The convention of writing a good abstract was not followed
- The materials and method presentation was too bad
- In the results and discussion, the acronyms were not defined. The treatment should have been defined with acronyms in M&M. But the M&M is very shallow.
- The Abstract, Introduction and M&M should be re-written completely.
Please check the attachment to see the detailed comments in each of the section
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The topic is an interesting one, but the English is very bad to convey the right meaning
- The abstract is very bad and must be re-worked on. The convention of writing a good abstract was not followed
- The materials and method presentation was too bad
- In the results and discussion, the acronyms were not defined. The treatment should have been defined with acronyms in M&M. But the M&M is very shallow.
- The Abstract, Introduction and M&M should be re-written completely.
Please check the attachment to see the detailed comments in each of the section
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
The topic is an interesting one, but the English is very bad to convey the right meaning.
Answer: Dear reviewer, we have revised our manuscript with MDPI online English language editing. Please see the certificate as proof.
- - The abstract is very bad and must be re-worked on. The convention of writing a good abstract was not followed.
Answer: Dear reviewer, all the abstract has been rewritten and extensively modified accordingly.
- -The materials and method presentation was too bad.
Answer: the methods and material has been extensively modified accordingly.
- - In the results and discussion, the acronyms were not defined. The treatment should have been defined with acronyms in M&M. But the M&M is very shallow.
Answer: Dear reviewer, the discussion has been extensively modified accordingly, and the information about the acronyms are define in lines 99-167.
- - The Abstract, Introduction and M&M should be re-written completely.
Answer: Dear reviewer, Thank you. All the manuscript has been extensively revised, but according to your comments, especially these three sections—the abstract, introduction and Materials and Methods—are emphasized more deeply.
- - Please check the attachment to see the detailed comments in each of the section.
Answer: Thanks for your attached comments detailed to extremely improve our research work, I have very carefully revised all the comments made by you. If you need any further modifications, please let me know. Thank you once again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the corrections you made to the manuscript.
Regards
