Effect of Animal ByProducts Fertilization on Durum Wheat in Mediterranean Conditions: Preliminary Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Mule et al. present data on the benefits of processed animal by-products on boosting soil OM and wheat production attributes in Sardinia. The adoption of approaches that enhance sustainability and increase yield and soil health will be central to the capacity of agricultural systems to support the world’s population while minimizing the impact to the global ecosystem. The work is indeed “preliminary” in that it is one season with only minimal assessments, but still worthy of publication.

The manuscript itself needs editing – I have attached a marked copy. Details:

• The title is inappropriate
• Sentence structure in the Abstract – too long and non-specific
• Introduction, too many transition/preamble statements (In addition, on the other hand…)
• Results: if this is section 2, you need to define your treatments somewhere in this section (not in the Methods)
• Line 134: you state no significant differences then say how the treatments differ
• References: check details on abbreviations, hyphens vs dashes, etc.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Mule et al. present data on the benefits of processed animal by-products on boosting soil OM and wheat production attributes in Sardinia. The adoption of approaches that enhance sustainability and increase yield and soil health will be central to the capacity of agricultural systems to support the world’s population while minimizing the impact to the global ecosystem. The work is indeed “preliminary” in that it is one season with only minimal assessments, but still worthy of publication.

The manuscript itself needs editing – I have attached a marked copy.

Thank you for your suggestions

Details:

The title is inappropriate

The title has been changed as follows:

“Effects of Animal By-Products fertilization on durum wheat in Mediterranean conditions: preliminary results”

Sentence structure in the Abstract – too long and non-specific

The Abstract has been completely re-written

Introduction, too many transition/preamble statements (In addition, on the other hand…)

This section has been revised following the reviewer’s suggestions

Results: if this is section 2, you need to define your treatments somewhere in this section (not in the Methods)

The description of the treatments has been moved from the “Materials and Methods” section to the Results according to the reviewer’s suggestions

Line 134: you state no significant differences then say how the treatments differ

We apologize for this mistake! No significant differences for grain yields were found and we reported it in the text correctly

References: check details on abbreviations, hyphens vs dashes, etc.

The whole section has been revised

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Plants

The paper reports a study aiming at evaluating the effect of a new type of organic amendment on the yield and quality of a wheat crop, in comparison with traditional amendments and mineral N fertilizer. The overall idea is to find amendments that can supplement or replace mineral fertilizers in a way that improves the resource use efficiency of the agricultural systemin in an economically competitive and environmentally friendly way. In this perspective, it is a well-motivated study. However, the paper does not meet the standard of per-reviewed papers published in international journals. There are several major shortcomings, which makes the paper unsuitable for publication in Plants:

1. The paper is based on one single experiment and one single experimental year, which limits the possibility to generalize the results severely. Thus, it Is of limited interest to a wider audience.

2. The title is strongly misleading. The paper is not focused on changes in the soil components. Thus, out of the 12 variables for which the effect of amendment was evaluated (Tables 1 and 2), only one concerns the soil, namely the soil organic matter content. All other variables concern the crop.

3. The Abstract is strongly misleading. Thus, there are no result whatsoever presented on “physical soil characteristics”. The only soil variable studied is the soil organic matter content, se above.

4. The Introduction is strongly misleading. The paper does not reveal how “the physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics of the soil” is affected (L89-90), and certainly not “over a 3-years span” (L90). In addition, the Introduction is unnecessarily long, and could be condensed significantly, focusing more on the actual question studied, and less on general matters.

5. The materials and methods are not adequately described. A large amount of information that would be needed for the interpretation of the results is missing. Here are a few examples of information lacking: 1) a proper description of the soil including its organic content and quality and chemical composition, 2) a proper description of the amendments studied including its organic content and quality and chemical composition of, 4) a description of the nutrient content of the mineral fertilizers, 5) the sampling depth for the soil used to evaluate the effect of amendment on soil organic matter content, 6) information on the normal fertilization of a wheat crop in the study area.

6. The results are not properly discussed. The two first paragraphs of the discussion do not belong to this section. They are written like an introductory part and would fit much better in the Introduction section. In any scientific paper, it is expected that the results are discussed in relation to other relevant studies. This is not done at all in the present paper. Thus, except for the two paragraphs which are of introductory type, references to other studies are completely lacking.

Author Response

The paper reports a study aiming at evaluating the effect of a new type of organic amendment on the yield and quality of a wheat crop, in comparison with traditional amendments and mineral N fertilizer. The overall idea is to find amendments that can supplement or replace mineral fertilizers in a way that improves the resource use efficiency of the agricultural systemin in an economically competitive and environmentally friendly way. In this perspective, it is a well-motivated study. However, the paper does not meet the standard of per-reviewed papers published in international journals. There are several major shortcomings, which makes the paper unsuitable for publication in Plants:

In general terms, we accept the reviewer’s decision. Nevertheless, after modifying title, abstract and several parts of the manuscript, and explaining our experimental setting, we respectfully ask to reconsider the new submitted version that takes into account the main points underlined in the review.

1. The paper is based on one single experiment and one single experimental year, which limits the possibility to generalize the results severely. Thus, it Is of limited interest to a wider audience.

We agree that one single experiment in one single year limits the possibility of generalization. As a matter of facts, this study is meant over a 3-year time span. Nevertheless, in the title we specified that we have to do with preliminary results concerning the response of durum wheat, a major crop in the Mediterranean environment, in terms of growth, yield and quality to some brand new amendments derived by animal by-products. This is a novelty aspect per se. Furthermore, if the response of plants to fertilization in one year only certainly does not yet bring scientific evidence, however it outlines a trend that we mean to verify in the years to come.  

2. The title is strongly misleading. The paper is not focused on changes in the soil components. Thus, out of the 12 variables for which the effect of amendment was evaluated (Tables 1 and 2), only one concerns the soil, namely the soil organic matter content. All other variables concern the crop.

We completely agree with the reviewer 2. For this reason we have changed the title that now sounds more consistent with the results obtained in this study.

3. The Abstract is strongly misleading. Thus, there are no result whatsoever presented on “physical soil characteristics”. The only soil variable studied is the soil organic matter content, se above.

We are aware that in its previous form the abstract is strongly misleading. Therefore, we have completely rewritten it.

4. The Introduction is strongly misleading. The paper does not reveal how “the physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics of the soil” is affected (L89-90), and certainly not “over a 3-years span” (L90). In addition, the Introduction is unnecessarily long, and could be condensed significantly, focusing more on the actual question studied, and less on general matters.

Again, we agree with the reviewer 2. Assessing the soil effects in the long run is one of the main objectives of our project. However, in this paper we meant to show some preliminary results concerning the response of plants to bio-fertilization, in comparison with ordinary mineral and no fertilization on plants in terms of vigor and production (i.e. yield and quality). We present some preliminary but encouraging results with unprecedented bio-fertilizers under the aegis of the circular economy principles.

Given the great complexity of issues such as the environmental sustainability of agriculture we believe it is crucial to resume the most important threats and opportunities (e.g. food security and  their connections with CC, land degradation and recommended  management practices) and then focus on the objectives of our study. 

5. The materials and methods are not adequately described. A large amount of information that would be needed for the interpretation of the results is missing. Here are a few examples of information lacking:

1) a proper description of the soil including its organic content and quality and chemical composition,

We added Table 4 and Table 5 in the new submitted version

2) a proper description of the amendments studied including its organic content and quality and chemical composition  

We added Table 6 in the new version

 4) a description of the nutrient content of the mineral fertilizers,

We added Table 6 in the new version

5) the sampling depth for the soil used to evaluate the effect of amendment on soil organic matter content,

Please, see line 121, page 3

6) information on the normal fertilization of a wheat crop in the study area.

We provided this information: the ordinary fertilization for wheat in the study area is the N fertilization treatment (CMIN).

6. The results are not properly discussed. The two first paragraphs of the discussion do not belong to this section. They are written like an introductory part and would fit much better in the Introduction section.

We accept the reviewer’s comment. The first two paragraphs of the discussion have been moved to the introduction

In any scientific paper, it is expected that the results are discussed in relation to other relevant studies. This is not done at all in the present paper. Thus, except for the two paragraphs which are of introductory type, references to other studies are completely lacking.

To our knowledge, no study on ABPs in the Mediterranean area has been published thus far. Hence we discussed our results in the light of a very few studies comparing the effect of biochar, compost and to a lesser extent, organic fertilizer from organic agriculture with N-fertilization on wheat (durum and bread wheat) with a special focus on Mediterranean conditions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the MS “Crop sustainable management in Mediterranean conditions focused on changes in the soil component. A preliminary study in Southern Sardinia” authors described the effects of new amendments deriving from an innovative process for non-fermentative fast humidification of animal by-products mainly on the agronomic parameters obtained from a durum wheat small-plotted field trial;  for this reason the title must be changed since no data related to the soil component are reported.

Introduction

• In this section, information related to the problems and future perspectives are reported but other comparable works already present in the literature are not described.
• L87-90. The sentence is not correct since no data related to main physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics of soil are reported.

Results

• The agronomic parameters should be reported in a single table (for example, move plant height and spike weight in the table 2). Please, reorganize the data.
• What about biomass yield, harvest index, number of grains per spikes, number of spikes, 1000-kernel weight?
• Figure 1, in which of the three years of study the aerial photo of the field trial was taken?
• Table 2. The grain yield is expressed in t/ha; in relation to the data obtained from the plot of the field trial is that the correct unit of measure?

Materials and methods

• If it is possible, please report: temperatures, rainfalls and water balance during the growth period of the study. In which years the study has been carried out?
• The pedological characterization of the site must be described better while classification and characteristics of soil should be reported in the results.
• No information related to the chemical (pH, etc) and microbiological characteristics of the soil are reported.
• Please add more information related to sowing and other agronomic practices.
• Please describe the methods to obtain Protein yield and grain color.

Discussion

• L158-177, tha authors reported many information related to the soil properties and less information related to the agronomic parameters in other comparable works.
• 196, “greater number of grains per spike in plot treated…”, number of grains per spike is not reported.
• Please, discuss better the obtained data.

Author Response

In the MS “Crop sustainable management in Mediterranean conditions focused on changes in the soil component. A preliminary study in Southern Sardinia” authors described the effects of new amendments deriving from an innovative process for non-fermentative fast humidification of animal by-products mainly on the agronomic parameters obtained from a durum wheat small-plotted field trial;  for this reason the title must be changed since no data related to the soil component are reported.

Thank you for your suggestions

The title has been changed as follows:

“Effects of Animal By-Products fertilization on durum wheat in Mediterranean conditions: preliminary results”

Introduction

• In this section, information related to the problems and future perspectives are reported but other comparable works already present in the literature are not described.

We agree with the reviewer. However, the Introduction is focused on the principles of sustainability of agriculture also in a climate change context. Given the importance of these issues it cannot be but very long. However, we respectfully believe that the crucial points existing in the literature have been exhaustively considered. We added some studies that are only partially related to our work. Moreover, we could not avoid talking about the problem of declining actual and projected yields concerning wheat. Therefore, we did not mean to disperse our study focus.

• L87-90. The sentence is not correct since no data related to main physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics of soil are reported.

We accept the reviewer’s remark the whole section has been revised.

Results

• The agronomic parameters should be reported in a single table (for example, move plant height and spike weight in the table 2). Please, reorganize the data.
• What about biomass yield, harvest index, number of grains per spikes, number of spikes, 1000-kernel weight?

We have reorganized and integrated data in tables to improve readability by separating the grain yield and quality data from those relating to the vigor of the plants and some morphological aspects. Some of these data were not reported previously because not significant. Please, see Table 2 and Table 3 of the new submitted version.

• Figure 1, in which of the three years of study the aerial photo of the field trial was taken?

Figure 1 and results are referred to the first year of the field trial either at booting and flowering.

• Table 2. The grain yield is expressed in t/ha; in relation to the data obtained from the plot of the field trial is that the correct unit of measure?

Like most of agronomic studies, our trial are carried out in small plots (10 m²) because we focused on the comparison between treatments. As for grain yield, we have changed the unit in Mg ha^-1 instead of t ha^-1.

Materials and methods

• If it is possible, please report: temperatures, rainfalls and water balance during the growth period of the study. In which years the study has been carried out?

We added Figure 2 and comments (lines 239-245) on page 7 of the new submitted version (section: Materials and Methods).

• The pedological characterization of the site must be described better while classification and characteristics of soil should be reported in the results.

Please, see Table 4 in the new submitted version

• No information related to the chemical (pH, etc) and microbiological characteristics of the soil are reported.

Please, see Table 5 in the new submitted version

• Please add more information related to sowing and other agronomic practices. Please describe the methods

Please, see Table 7 in the new submitted version

Discussion

• L158-177, tha authors reported many information related to the soil properties and less information related to the agronomic parameters in other comparable works.
• 196, “greater number of grains per spike in plot treated…”, number of grains per spike is not reported.
• Please, discuss better the obtained data.

We revised and integrated the discussion following the suggestion of the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

In section Discussion please compare the obtained results with obtained results of other authors,

Please, check the all details in Table 3 (table 3 is confusing)

Author Response

Dear authors,

In section Discussion please compare the obtained results with obtained results of other authors,

Thank you for your suggestions.

To our knowledge, no study on ABPs in the Mediterranean area has been published thus far. However, we discussed in this revised our results in the light of a very few studies comparing the effect of biochar, compost and to a lesser extent, organic fertilizer from organic agriculture with N-fertilization on wheat (durum and bread wheat) with a special focus on Mediterranean conditions.

Please, check the all details in Table 3 (table 3 is confusing)

Table 3 has been revised following the suggestion of the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided an improved version of their ms. Comments were properly addressed. I suggest the Editor to consider this ms for publication.

Author Response

No special notes to reply to. The authors are grateful to the reviewer for his/her revision