Improving Nutrients Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript aims to study the ‘Improving Nutrients Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application’. I have several major concerns with the manuscript which prevent me from recommending it for publication in its current situation.

The main concern is:

Abstract:

(1) The abstract is very poorly constructed. For example, the aim of the work, the study design and methodology, as well as the main results that were obtained to conclude their conclusion is not presented well in the abstract. This part needs to be completely re-written. I would advise the authors to re-write the abstract part focusing primarily on the foundation of the experiments they have undertaken and the main results they have obtained.

Introduction:

(2) Authors did not mention well to the previous studies that deal with the same topic, especially the newest one. They should incorporate latest references about soluble phosphorus fertilizers and their effects on plant physiological responses. Authors should address new information here.

(3) The introduction is poorly written. There is no information on how olive trees respond to stressful conditions  and/or soluble phosphorus fertilizers. Authors should expand the state of the art by adding new references.

(4) Moreover, at the end of this section, please illustrate what hypothesis this investigation aimed to test.

Material and methods:

(5)  In material and methods, please check all described methods such as in 2.5. Leaf nutrient measurements.

(6) How much plants were taken for different analysis should be mentioned clearly.

Discussion:

(7) The section is more a review type of the state of the art but does not critically discuss the findings and any potential pitfalls in the experiments.

(8) Authors should discuss how their results fill the gap of previous studies.

This section is too general without establishing the relationship among the parameters. More importantly, why and how each treatment increases or decreases a parameter ……what are the possible mechanisms, must be discussed with proper references.

Conclusion:

(9) The concluding section needs to be improved as it is too lengthy. It must be shortened and client-oriented. Authors should include specific results of their research, which extend the current state of knowledge. Add the significance and future prospect of the study.

Linguistic quality:

(10) English should be polished.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1914768

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear Reviewer No. 1

Dear Ms. Tallulah Zhou

Assistant Editor. Agronomy-MDPI

         Thank you for your efforts and i would like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where i am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and i have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1:

Open Review
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x)	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(  )	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?			(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research			(x)
Is the research design appropriate?			(x)
Are the methods adequately described?			(x)
Are the results clearly presented?			(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?			(x)

Comments and suggestions for authors:

• The abstract is very poorly constructed. For example, the aim of the work, the study design and methodology, as well as the main results that were obtained to conclude their conclusion is not presented well in the abstract. This part needs to be completely re-written. I would advise the authors to re-write the abstract part focusing primarily on the foundation of the experiments they have undertaken and the main results they have obtained.

Re. The abstract was rewritten again so that the focus was on the study methodology and a brief of the main results obtained.  I hope that it is satisfactory in its current form.

2- Authors did not mention well to the previous studies that deal with the same topic, especially the newest one. They should incorporate latest references about soluble phosphorus fertilizers and their effects on plant physiological responses. Authors should address new information here.

Re. The old references, specifically the revisions Nos. 6 and 7, have been deleted and replaced with new references as shown in the references section.

3- The introduction is poorly written. There is no information on how olive trees respond to stressful conditions and/or soluble phosphorus fertilizers. Authors should expand the state of the art by adding new references.

Re. I reviewed the introduction section again and found that it was written in a logical and scientific sequence, as we dealt with the abiotic stresses in the soil on plant growth, then we moved to the phosphorous and its importance to the plant and the obstacles to its absorption, and then we dealt with a brief overview of the future of olive cultivation under stress conditions.

4- Moreover, at the end of this section, please illustrate what hypothesis this investigation aimed to test.

Re. At the end of introduction section, it was rewritten with a hypothetical mention of the search.

Material and methods:

5-  In material and methods, please check all described methods such as in 2.5. Leaf nutrient measurements.

Re. The materials and methods section was revised again. Whereas, all studied parameters have been referenced. For example in (2.3. References 40-49), (2.7. references 51, 52) and with an indication of the timing of sampling.    

6- How many plants were taken for different analysis should be mentioned clearly.

Re. All numbers of plants taken for analysis are mentioned and indicated in red color (2.4. physiological and growth parameters, 2.5. leaf nutrient measurements (twenty shoots), while total olive yield was calculated per each tree and Fruits’ physical and chemical characteristics 100 fruits.

Discussion

7- The section is more a review type of the state of the art but does not critically discuss the findings and any potential pitfalls in the experiments.

Re. The whole research is based on the latest technology in terms of using the best types of high-soluble phosphorus fertilizers (HSPFs) such as MAP, MKP and UP. The results obtained were discussed logically and scientifically based on previous research, despite of scarcity of research that depends on the use of this type of fertilizer, but almost all research dealt with the effect of P as a source of one of the nutrients or the use of phosphoric acid, which cannot be relied on individually as a source of P. 

8- Authors should discuss how their results fill the gap of previous studies. This section is too general without establishing the relationship among the parameters. More importantly, why and how each treatment increases or decreases a parameters ……. What are the possible mechanisms, must be discussed with proper references.

Re. The three research procedures have been linked 1) studies on the nutrients absorption 2) studies on the effect of nutritional status on physiological and growth parameters 3) reflection on olive oil and table yield as well quality characteristic. Generally, I made the required modifications with the removal of all phases that give the same meaning in the hope that it will receive your acceptance.

Conclusion

9- The concluding section needs to be improved as it is too lengthy. It must be shortened and client-oriented. Authors should include specific results of their research, which extend the current state of knowledge. Add the significance and future prospect of the study.

Re. The conclusion section has been written again very briefly, taking into account the noting of the most important results obtained.

Linguistic quality

10- English should be polished

 Re. the manuscript was went to MDPI language editing service for the third time.

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

September 20, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I have reviewed your manuscript. Your manuscript is intriguing; but, several significant concerns must be resolved before it can be accepted. 

The English of this manuscript need major revision. Several grammatical problems were observed. 

1. Abstract still lacks essential information, such as the results section. The authors only describe the finding without providing a number.

2. Introduction still lacks hypothesis and strong idea of the topic. Authors talked a lot about phosphorus and its application, but it's just little bit about significant of this topic. 

3. M&M needs more details of experimental design, data collection i.e. weather data collection? ICP-OES or ICP-EOS? Please check also the statistical part, the writing style is not correct. 

4. Results 

Figures, Y-axis should start from 0. 

Referencing style should be checked again, seems they are incorrect. 

5. Conclusion needs more specific conclusion, not just repeat the results. 

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1914768

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear Reviewer NO. 2

Dear Ms. Tallulah Zhou

Assistant Editor. Agronomy - MDPI

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where I am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and I have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2:

Open Review
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x)	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(  )	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research
Is the research design appropriate?
Are the methods adequately described?
Are the results clearly presented?
Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Comments and suggestions for authors

I have reviewed your manuscript. Your manuscript is intriguing; but, several significant concerns must be resolved before it can be accepted. The English of this manuscript need major revision. Several grammatical problems were observed. 

• Abstract still lacks essential information, such as the results section. The authors only describe the finding without providing a number.

Re. The abstract section was rewritten again, taking into account the write of the most important results obtained with extreme brevity.

• Introduction still lacks hypothesis and strong idea of the topic. Authors talked a lot about phosphorus and its application, but it's just little bit about significant of this topic.

Re. the introduction section has been written again and taking into account its support with some research related to the use of high soluble fertilizers on olive cultivation.

• M&M needs more details of experimental design, data collection i.e. weather data collection? ICP-OES or ICP-EOS? Please check also the statistical part, the writing style is not correct.

Re. Done as mentioned in red color

• Results

Figures, Y-axis should start from 0.

Re. When the Y axix starts from 0, the figure is very large and the columns are exaggeratedly long. In designing the shape, we relied on the minimum values obtained.   

Referencing style should be checked again, seems they are incorrect.

Re. We checked the references section well, according to the rules of the journal.

• Conclusion needs more specific conclusion, not just repeat the results

Re. The conclusion section has been written again very briefly, taking into account the noting of the most important results obtained. 

Many thanks to Reviewer 2 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

September 20, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The English language is very poor. There is no way I will point out improvements throughout the manuscript. But many improvements in the scientific presentation are shown.

The Material and Methods need improvements. The Discussion should be rewritten to shorten and write clearly what is meant to be written without unnecessary repetitions.

Abstract: three levels of P2O5 Clarify that it is the one or the other fertilizer

In the abstract you do not talk about the studied traits. Must at least present them.

Table 2 these values are per tree? AS is ammonium sulfate. Replication: you show the total and all these were split and applied in 5 times?

Table 3 this is not UP, but diammonium phosphate

M+Ms you do not mention when the measurements were taken: shoot characteristics, leaf characteristics, leaf nutrients …

Tables 5 & 6 how many replications measured? From these two tables it is clear that there is not much stable on leaf nutrition due to the different fertilizers, at least as the micronutrients are concerned.

When there is discussion for the minimum and maximum values, there is something unclear in the presentation.

Fig. 3 2021 data wrong lettering in some means

Figs 1 & 2 how do you explain the bad results in UP2 compared to UP1 and UP3?

What is ‘table’ yield? Fruit yield is OK

You should have measured soil pH after the MAP or UP applications to support your discussion. It was an easy measurement.

Authors discuss the loss of nitrate through leaching, probably (the growing season is dry season) due to overirrigation. This is non-sense. They never mentioned how much water was applied.

Discussion needs improvements and should be reduced to some useful points or explanations and not repetitions. You must often say: possibly or similar words when you did not measure something …

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1914768

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear Reviewer NO. 3

Dear Ms. Tallulah Zhou

Assistant Editor. Agronomy - MDPI

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where I am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and I have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2:

Open Review
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x)	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(  )	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research	(x)
Is the research design appropriate?		(x)
Are the methods adequately described?			(x)
Are the results clearly presented?			(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		(x)

Comments and suggestions for authors

• The English language is very poor. There is no way I will point out improvements throughout the manuscript. But many improvements in the scientific presentation are shown.

Re. the manuscript was sent to MDPI language editing service for the third time. In addition to the procedures for modifications recorded

• The Material and Methods need improvements.

Re. Done

• The discussion should be rewritten to shorten and write clearly what is meant to be written without unnecessary repetitions.

Re. We tried shorten the discussion, but I found that the effect of MAP and UP had more than one role in improving the nutritional status of olive trees, and the repetition was to confirm the results obtained with some previous researchers. 

• Abstract: three levels of P₂O₅ Clarify that it is the one or the other fertilizers.

Re. I did not understand this comment

• In the abstract you do not talk about the studied traits. Must at least present them.

Re. The first reviewer asked for acknowledgment of the most important results obtained. For that I heve rewritten the abstract again in this way.

• Table 2 these values are per tree? AS is ammonium sulfate. Replication: you show the total and all these were split and applied in 5 times

Re. all required inquiries are mentioned with red color. 

• Table 3 this is not UP, but di-ammonium phosphate.

Re. I correct the chemical composition of UP.

• M+Ms you do not mention when the measurements were taken: shoot characteristics, leaf characteristics, leaf nutrients …

Re. done as mentioned in red color

• Tables 5 & 6 how many replications measured? From these two tables it is clear that there is not much stable on leaf nutrition due to the different fertilizers, at least as the micronutrients are concerned.

Re. the number of replications was 3. I mentioned that in the M&M section.

• When there is discussion for the minimum and maximum values, there is something unclear in the presentation.

Re. What Is not clear?. Calculations of both minimum and maximum values to clarify the effect of the treatments on the studied traits whether by decreasing and increasing.

• 3 2021 data wrong lettering in some mean

Re. Duncan’s letter were modified after returning to the statistical analysis.

• Figs 1 & 2 how do you explain the bad results in UP₂ compared to UP₁ and UP₃? What is ‘table’ yield? Fruit yield is OK.

Re.

• You should have measured soil pH after the MAP or UP applications to support your discussion. It was an easy measurement.

Re. it is a good idea, but the rapid change in the soil’s ability to adjust its acidity was a sufficient reason for not estimating the soil pH, but in general it will take into account this in the future.

• Authors discuss the loss of nitrate through leaching, probably (the growing season is dry season) due to over-irrigation. This is non-sense. They never mentioned how much water was applied.

Re. We showed that nitrate losses may have ocuured as a result of the increase in irrigation water requirements. But, the quantity of irrigation water required was not measured as the research did not include studying the water needs of olive. This will be taken into account in the future

• Discussion needs improvements and should be reduced to some useful points or explanations and not repetitions. You must often say: possibly or similar words when you did not measure something …

Re. I answered that in comment #3 

Many thanks to Reviewer 3 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

September 20, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Accept in the present form

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1914768

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear Reviewer No. 1

        I would like also to thank very much the reviewer No. 1 for their efforts and valuable comments. Also, thank you very much for accepting the manuscript for publishing. Where i am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you.

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

September 28, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for your revision, I would accept your manuscript in its present form, please reformat as requested by the journal 

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1914768

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear Reviewer 2

        I would like also to thank very much the reviewer No. 2 for their efforts and valuable comments. Also, thank you very much for accepting the manuscript for publishing. Where i am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you.

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

September 28, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

p.5 1^st paragraph, 7^th line: do not use point for thousands, it is the decimal for English! Use nothing or comma

2.1 1^st paragraph and Table 2: the ‘five’ times is vague. You applied the total quantity in five doses: how much per dose and when? Write: … split application in five doses of equal quantity at … add when each dose was applied

Table 3 for the two fertilizers you used the chemical type and for UP you use the nutrient content. Uniformity, please.

Conclusions L4: what is the meaning of the two values separated by vs? Show that values are for the two years of study …

Conclusion L5 the our results could be concluded as three

main points   could be written clearly as: from our results three main points could be concluded …

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1914768

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear Reviewer NO. 3

Dear Ms. Tallulah Zhou

Assistant Editor. Agronomy - MDPI

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where I am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and I have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2:

Open Review
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
(x)	I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
(  )	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x)	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research	(x)
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)

Comments and suggestions for authors

• 5 1^st paragraph, 7^th line: do not use point for thousands, it is the decimal for English! Use nothing or comma.

Re. done (line 113).

• 1 1^st paragraph and Table 2: the ‘five’ times is vague. You applied the total quantity in five doses: how much per dose and when? Write: … split application in five doses of equal quantity at … add when each dose was applied.

Re. In the table 3, third column, i mentioned the total quantities used in kg tree^−1, and in the fourth and fifth columns, i noted that the total quantities were divided by five equally doses. In addition to the timing of the application. However, I explained it more clearly in lines 172-174.    

• Table 3 for the two fertilizers you used the chemical type and for UP you use the nutrient content. Uniformity, please.

Re. done. i fixed the nitrogen %, irrespective of N form.

• Conclusions L4: what is the meaning of the two values separated by vs?. Show that values are for the two years of study …

Re. done (Lines 597-698).

• Conclusion L5 the our results could be concluded as three main points. could be written clearly as: from our results three main points could be concluded

Re. done (Lines 598-699). 

  Many thanks to Reviewer 3 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

September 28, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Remarks – main isues

1.     The title is too descriptive and should be more informative. It should also refer to the research hypothesis.

2.     The introduction of the article focuses on secondary and tertiary issues. However, there is no justification for the selection of the tested phosphorus fertilizer carriers. What is the geochemical role of the nitrogen they contain?

3.     The research hypothesis is substantially too narrow. This type of research cannot be limited to the comparison of the tested fertilizers and their doses.

4.     Difficult to consider CSP as a control as long as this fertilizer was used in a granular form with others that were applied in (solid - crystalline; solid - granular, liquid) ?! The method of applying fertilizers requires an unequivocal explanation.

5.     The description of a table or figure cannot start with the conclusion, and then move on to the details.

6.     The Result section is shown in the form of a report. In order for this work to meet the conditions of a scientific journal, which is Plant, it is necessary to:

a.     use sophisticated methods for assessing the nutritional status of plants, for example Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System, Compositional Nutritional Diagnosis norms for example;

b.     at least statistical methods such as simple or stepwise regression must be used.

One of the latest articles in this area: Gimenez M. et al. (2021): Nutritional diagnosis

norms for three olive tree cultivars in superhighdensity orchards. Int. J. Agric. Nat.

Resour. 48(1):34-44. 2021.

7.     The discussion is descriptive. In fact, the reader does not find an answer to the hypothesis. Too large part is devoted to considerations typically academic or not supported by own results.

8.     Conclusions have the same disadvantage as the discussion.

Detailed remarks are included directly in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Plants - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Plants-1842923

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear first reviewer

Dear Ms. Hana Liang

Assistant Editor. Plants-MDPI

         Thank you for your efforts and i would like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where i am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and i have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1:

Open Review
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(  )	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x)	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?			(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research			(x)
Is the research design appropriate?			(x)
Are the methods adequately described?		(x)
Are the results clearly presented?			(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?			(x)

Comments and suggestions for authors:

• The title is too descriptive and should be more informative. It should also refer to the research hypothesis.

Re. I think that the title of our manuscript is more appropriate to its content, taking into account the reduction of the number of words. But in general. The title does not necessarily include the research hypothesis. As the final title was suggested after completing the manuscript preparation and based on reviewing the results. The hypothesis was added in the last paragraph of the introduction section by adding the word ”potential”.

2- The introduction of the article focuses on secondary and tertiary issues. However, there is no justification for the selection of the tested phosphorus fertilizer carriers. What is the geochemical role of the nitrogen they contain?

Re. After reviewing the introduction again, I found that it did not include the secondary and tertiary issues, but we tried to summarize the causes of the problems that hinder the absorption of the elements, which is the high soil pH, which is the main problem in Egypt, where the alkalinity of the soil resulting from multiple environmental reasons led to the high salinity and calcification, as this manuscript is just an attempt to find solutions to reduce the efficiency of the plant to absorb nutrients, as most of them are related to the inappropriate high soil pH, and on this basis, high soluble fertilizers with an acidic effect were chosen. In addition to the pivotal role of phosphorous and its effect on most other elements, especially microelements, through antagonism relationships.

3- The research hypothesis is substantially too narrow. This type of research cannot be limited to the comparison of the tested fertilizers and their doses.

Re. This research has a larger hypothesis, which is to compare the most common and widespread fertilizer for most farmers in Egypt due to their weak financial ability. Compare that with using highly soluble fertilizers at high prices, which are more suitable for farms with high purchasing power, in addition to the possibility of using fertilizers that contain two fertilizer components in the same chemical composition instead of adding phosphorous and nitrogen individually.

4- Difficult to consider CSP as a control as long as this fertilizer was used in a granular form with others that were applied in (solid - crystalline; solid - granular, liquid) ?! The method of applying fertilizers requires an unequivocal explanation.

Re. GSCP fertilizer is available in two forms, the crystal form and the granular form, both of which contain the same percentage of P₂O₅ (15.5%), and the same soil pH (7.51). the first form is accepted in heavy clay soils, while the second is preferred in sandy or loamy soils. This suggestion may be acceptable if two forms are applied that are different from each other. For example, one of the two fertilizers is liquid while the other is solid. On the contrary, the manuscript was dealt with in terms of equal coefficients, calculating the amount of nitrogen required in each treatment separately. The design of the experiment is completely sound, as the study did not include forms of different fertilizers, but the study included different types of phosphate fertilizers with different content of phosphorous and nitrogen. Based on the chemical composition of the fertilizer used, the treatments were carried out as shown in Table 2.

5-The description of a table or figure cannot start with the conclusion, and then move on to the details.

Re. After reviewing the discussion section, I found that the sequence of displaying the results was logical, especially since I sometimes referred at the beginning to the general direction of the results and then the details of the presented results were explained, whether in tables or figures.

6- The Result section is shown in the form of a report. In order for this work to meet the conditions of a scientific journal, which is Plant, it is necessary to:

1. use sophisticated methods for assessing the nutritional status of plants, for example Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System, Compositional Nutritional Diagnosis norms for example;

Re. In our organization, we have a laboratory that contains the modernist scientific equipment according to our capabilities. As shown in the microelement determinations made using the ICP device.

 At least statistical methods such as simple or stepwise regression must be used one of the least articles in this area Gimenez M. et al. (2021): Nutritional diagnosis norms for three olive tree cultivars in super high density orchards. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 48(1): 34-44. 2021

Re. According to the parameters of the field experiment before implementation, the most appropriate statistical design is the random complete sectors, but what I will provide is the regression as you requested.

7- The discussion is descriptive. In fact, the reader does not find an answer to the hypothesis. Too large part is devoted to considerations typically academic or not supported by own results.

Re. After reviewing the discussion again, I have added some explanations related to the absorption of nutrients that may make this section more clear as shown in lines (519-527 and 541-544). I hope is satisfied for you

8- Conclusions have the same disadvantage as the discussion

 Re. We have rewritten the conclusion again, and I hope is satisfied for you

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

August 12, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application" describes an olive growing experiment conducted in a limestone and saline area of the Egyptian Fayoum. The olive grove, irrigated with drip irrigation, was treated with two different types of phosphate fertilization at three different levels and compared with the phosphate fertilization of granular calcium super phosphate. During the two experimental years, all growth and productivity parameters were measured, as well as nutrient uptake and physico-chemical characteristics.

The work is well set up and the analyzes carried out are correct and conducted with adequate methodologies. The results are correctly commented and described with exhaustive graphs and tables. The discussion is thorough.

Line numbering starts on page 17: please correct.

In the fifth last line of the introduction "at three different three levels" please remove the second three.

However, I have a basic criticism of the work. In a stressful situation, like the one reported, phosphate fertilization and chemical fertilizers in general, are treatments that in the long run impoverish the soil and increase its salinity. What needs to be done to truly recover a productive environment, is to reconstitute the organic substance of the soil, albeit very slowly given the environmental conditions. I do not think that in a few years you will be able to maintain the productivity levels you have achieved. I think you should think about restoring a rhizosphere microbial community by providing an organic fertilization, for example with a composting of pruning waste and irrigation of the vegetation waters from olive pressing, or other. This would allow for a minimum of support for nitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphate solubilizers, mycorrhizae and the microbial community that degrades and recycles dead biomass. This would activate a cycle of nutrients and the production of organic matter that would keep even the minimum of fertilization that might be needed close to the roots.

Another piece of advice I give you is to use a cover crop, but composed of several species, leguminous in particular, in the inter-row both for production and for green manuring. The biodiversification of vegetation leads to an activation of the microbial ecosystem, to its biodiversification and to an acceleration of the cycle of organic matter. These are long but permanent processes!

 

Author Response

Plants - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Plants-1842923

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear second reviewer

Dear Ms. Hana Liang

Assistant Editor

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where I am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and I have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2:

Open Review
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(  )	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(x)	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(  )	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research	(x)
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?			(x)

Comments and suggestions for authors

The manuscript "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application" describes an olive growing experiment conducted in a limestone and saline area of the Egyptian Fayoum. The olive grove, irrigated with drip irrigation, was treated with two different types of phosphate fertilization at three different levels and compared with the phosphate fertilization of granular calcium super phosphate. During the two experimental years, all growth and productivity parameters were measured, as well as nutrient uptake and physico-chemical characteristics

The work is well set up and the analyzes carried out are correct and conducted with adequate methodologies. The results are correctly commented and described with exhaustive graphs and tables. The discussion is thorough.

NO	Comment	Response
1	Line numbering starts on page 17: please correct.	Done
2	In the fifth last line of the introduction "at three different three levels" please remove the second three	Done
3	However, I have a basic criticism of the work. In a stressful situation, like the one reported, phosphate fertilization and chemical fertilizers in general, are treatments that in the long run impoverish the soil and increase its salinity. What needs to be done to truly recover a productive environment, is to reconstitute the organic substance of the soil, albeit very slowly given the environmental conditions. I do not think that in a few years you will be able to maintain the productivity levels you have achieved. I think you should think about restoring a rhizosphere microbial community by providing an organic fertilization, for example with a composting of pruning waste and irrigation of the vegetation waters from olive pressing, or other. This would allow for a minimum of support for nitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphate solubilizers, mycorrhizae and the microbial community that degrades and recycles dead biomass. This would activate a cycle of nutrients and the production of organic matter that would keep even the minimum of fertilization that might be needed close to the roots.	Dear reviewer, At the outset, I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation for your valuable information and for providing some excellent research ideas. But we inform you that the culture of farms in Egypt in general and specifically for small farmers in terms of bio-fertilization still needs continuous support and joint effort from both research and academic bodies. Mineral fertilization applications are still the most accepted and common in Egypt. I am fully convinced of the negative effects of the continued use of mineral fertilizers on the long term, but the use of mineral fertilizers can be controlled by reducing the quantities used and relying partially and not entirely on bio-fertilization. Indeed, I started applying bio-fertilization through research published in agronomy journal-MDPI titled “Mitigation of CaCO3 influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1571. https:/10.3390/agronomy 12071571Â
4	Another piece of advice I give you is to use a cover crop, but composed of several species, leguminous in particular, in the inter-row both for production and for green manuring. The bio diversification of vegetation leads to an activation of the microbial ecosystem, to its bio diversification and to an acceleration of the cycle of organic matter. These are long but permanent processes	This idea also deserves respect, and this is what our next research study through participating with specialists from the specialties of vegetables and field crops, which is the intercropping system between horticulture and some vegetable crops or field crops, especially legumes.

 

Many thanks to Reviewer 2 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

August 12, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments – main isues

I suggest re-reading my comments.

1.     The title is too descriptive and should be more informative. It should also refer to the research hypothesis.

2.     The introduction of the article focuses on secondary and tertiary issues. However, there is no justification for the selection of the tested phosphorus fertilizer carriers. What is the geochemical role of the nitrogen they contain?

3.     The research hypothesis is substantially too narrow. This type of research cannot be limited to the comparison of the tested fertilizers and their doses.

4.     Difficult to consider CSP as a control as long as this fertilizer was used in a granular form with others that were applied in (solid - crystalline; solid - granular, liquid) ?! The method of applying fertilizers requires an unequivocal explanation.

5.     The description of a table or figure cannot start with the conclusion, and then move on to the details.

6.     The Result section is shown in the form of a report. In order for this work to meet the conditions of a scientific journal, which is Plant, it is necessary to:

a.     use sophisticated methods for assessing the nutritional status of plants, for example Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System, Compositional Nutritional Diagnosis norms for example;

b.     at least statistical methods such as simple or stepwise regression must be used.

One of the latest articles in this area: Gimenez M. et al. (2021): Nutritional diagnosis

norms for three olive tree cultivars in superhighdensity orchards. Int. J. Agric. Nat.

Resour. 48(1):34-44. 2021.

7.     The discussion is descriptive. In fact, the reader does not find an answer to the hypothesis. Too large part is devoted to considerations typically academic or not supported by own results.

8.     Conclusions have the same disadvantage as the discussion.

 

Specific  remarks are included directly in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Plants - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Plants-1842923

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear first reviewer

Dear Ms. Hana Liang

Assistant Editor. Plants-MDPI

         Thank you for your efforts and i would like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where i am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and i have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1:

Open Review
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(  )	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x)	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?			(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research			(x)
Is the research design appropriate?			(x)
Are the methods adequately described?		(x)
Are the results clearly presented?			(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?			(x)

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

We have rewritten the introduction section, again as shown in red color. (lines 16-118) and (Lines 124-131).

Are all the cited references relevant to the research

We reviewed everything in the manuscript with the relevant references and made sure that all data matched with references.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes, all data were reviewed again from the obtained results of statistical analysis and we made sure it was correctly.

Are the results clearly presented?

 The results section has been modified as required, and I hope that it will be satisfied for you.

 Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Also, the conclusion has been modified as required.

Dear Reviewer

All modifications to the manuscript have been subjected to linguistic revision via MDPI’s English editing service dated August 8, 2022 (Invoice No. 48682)

Comments and suggestions for authors:

• The title is too descriptive and should be more informative. It should also refer to the research hypothesis.

Re. Regarding changing the title of the manuscript to include the hypothesis of the research. First, the title of the manuscript was suggested and confirmed by all authors after completing the experiment and reviewing the results obtained, taking into account that the title should contain the least number of words in addition to that the title does not necessarily include the research hypothesis and this title is called an informative title. Accordingly, we found that the title is very appropriate to the content of the manuscript. Meanwhile, if the reviewer insists on changing the title of manuscript. We suggested 2 title to choose one of them Title NO. 1 "Differential Action of MAP and UP Applications on Nutrients Uptake and Productivity of Olea europaea Trees Grown under Multi-abiotic Stressesâ"

Title NO. 2 "Potential Impacts of MAP and UP Application on Nutrients Uptake and Productivity of Olea europaea Trees Grown under Multi-abiotic stresses" 

2- The introduction of the article focuses on secondary and tertiary issues. However, there is no justification for the selection of the tested phosphorus fertilizer carriers. What is the geochemical role of the nitrogen they contain?

Re. After reviewing the introduction again, I found that it did not include the secondary and tertiary issues, but we tried to summarize the causes of the problems that hinder the absorption of the elements, which is the high soil pH, which is the main problem in Egypt, where the alkalinity of the soil resulting from multiple environmental reasons led to the high salinity and calcification, as this manuscript is just an attempt to find solutions to reduce the efficiency of the plant to absorb nutrients, as most of them are related to the inappropriate high soil pH, and on this basis, high soluble fertilizers with an acidic effect were chosen. In addition to the pivotal role of phosphorous and its effect on most other elements, especially microelements, through antagonism relationships.

3- The research hypothesis is substantially too narrow. This type of research cannot be limited to the comparison of the tested fertilizers and their doses.

Re. This research has a larger hypothesis, which is to compare the most common and widespread fertilizer for most farmers in Egypt due to their weak financial ability. Compare that with using highly soluble fertilizers at high prices, which are more suitable for farms with high purchasing power, in addition to the possibility of using fertilizers that contain two fertilizer components in the same chemical composition instead of adding phosphorous and nitrogen individually.

4- Difficult to consider CSP as a control as long as this fertilizer was used in a granular form with others that were applied in (solid - crystalline; solid - granular, liquid) ?! The method of applying fertilizers requires an unequivocal explanation.

Re. GSCP fertilizer is available in two forms, the crystal form and the granular form, both of which contain the same percentage of P₂O₅ (15.5%), and the same soil pH (7.51). the first form is preferred in heavy clay soils, while the second is preferred in sandy or loamy soils. This suggestion may be acceptable if two forms are applied that are different from each other. For example, one of the two fertilizers is liquid while the other is solid. On the contrary, the manuscript was dealt with in terms of equal coefficients, calculating the amount of nitrogen required in each treatment separately. The design of the experiment is completely sound, as the study did not include forms of different fertilizers, but the study included different types of phosphate fertilizers with different content of phosphorous and nitrogen. Based on the chemical composition of the fertilizer used, the treatments were carried out as shown in Table 2.

5-The description of a table or figure cannot start with the conclusion, and then move on to the details.

Re. In the results section, we made the required modifications, which are a detailed explanation of the tables and figures and then we moved to make a summary of the general trend of the results obtained as shown in red color.

6- The Result section is shown in the form of a report. In order for this work to meet the conditions of a scientific journal, which is Plant, it is necessary to:

1. use sophisticated methods for assessing the nutritional status of plants, for example Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System, Compositional Nutritional Diagnosis norms for example;

Re. In our organization, we have a laboratory that contains the modernist scientific equipment according to our capabilities. As shown in the microelement determinations made using the ICP device.

 At least statistical methods such as simple or stepwise regression must be used one of the least articles in this area Gimenez M. et al. (2021): Nutritional diagnosis norms for three olive tree cultivars in super high density orchards. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 48(1): 34-44. 2021

Re. According to the parameters of the field experiment before implementation, the most appropriate statistical design is the random complete sectors. In addition, the obtained data put to the stepwise regression as you requested. In addition to the use of the research proposed as shown in discussion section (Lines 566-574) and references section (NO. 51)

7- The discussion is descriptive. In fact, the reader does not find an answer to the hypothesis. Too large part is devoted to considerations typically academic or not supported by own results.

Re. After reviewing the discussion again, I have added some explanations related to the absorption of nutrients that may make this section more clear as shown in lines (519-527 and 541-544). I hope is satisfied for you

8- Conclusions have the same disadvantage as the discussion

 Re. We have rewritten the conclusion again, and I hope is satisfied for you

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

August 14, 2022  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

S  Specific comments are in a separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Plants - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Plants-1842923

Manuscript Title:  "Improving Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application"

=====================================================================

Dear second reviewer

Dear Ms. Hana Liang

Assistant Editor

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. Where I am very happy that our manuscript was satisfied with you, and I have the great honor to publish in your valuable journal. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2:

Open Review
(  )	I would not like to sign my review report
(x)	I would not like to sign my review report
English language and style
(  )	Extensive editing of English language and style required
(  )	Moderate English changes required
(  )	English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x)	I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?			(x)
Are all the cited references relevant to the research			(x)
Is the research design appropriate?		(x)
Are the methods adequately described?			(x)
Are the results clearly presented?			(x)
Are the conclusions supported by the results?			(x)

Comments and suggestions for authors

NO	Comment	Response
1	The title does not match the content of the manuscript. There is nothing in the manuscript about the uptake (accumulation) of nutrients by the olive tree.	The title has been modified to “Improving Nutritional Status and Productivity of Stressed Olive Trees with Mono-Ammonium Phosphate and Urea Phosphate Application”
2	The abstract was not corrected. A correct abstract includes: a-200 words, b-working hypothesis, c-material – experimental design, d-main results, e-final conclusion.	we have written the abstract again, taking into account all the required criteria
3	The first, introductory sentence in the abstract is not a research hypothesis of this study.	We removed it from the abstract
4	The introduction does not provide relevant information on the reason for the choice of the phosphorus carriers tested, including: a-their effect on the availability of N and P, and other nutrients in the soil for the tested plant, b-technical aspects of the advantage of MAP, UP application to the oil tree over CSP.	we have added the required topics in introduction section as shown with red color (Lines )
5	The detailed description of P function in a plant is too extensive.	we removed the paragraph” causing the appearance of P deficiency ….. and timing of application” without prejudice to the meaning
6	Why did the authors include Table No. 5 and 6, the results of which are discussed in detail only in the discussion?	Both tables 5 & 6 were explained in the results section in details, but in the discussion section the results were presented briefly as a basic for interpretation.
7	Tables 5 and 6 are the key in this manuscript to evaluate the effect of the tested P fertilizers on the nutritional status of the test plant.	we have written the discussion section again and supporting the obtained results with some interpretations. I hope it is satisfactory to you.
8	As I suggested in the previous comment, the methods of assessing the nutritional status of the plant during its vegetation should be used, for example: example Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System, Compositional Nutritional Diagnosis norms.	I have read the referenced paper more than once. Despite the high value of this research, the conditions of conducting it differ from the conditions of conducting our research, as our research was conducted in multi-stressed soil in terms of high salinity and calcium carbonate with different climatic conditions between Egypt and Spain, Also, the cultivation system is different. As shown in our research, the estimations of the elements were conducted in both the newly-grown branches and leaves, not in the leaves only, and this is the explanation for the difference in the values of all nutrients
9	I added an example of a scientific artilce in this area: Gimenez M. et al. (2021): Nutritional diagnosis  norms for three olive tree cultivars in super high density orchards. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 48(1):34-44. 2021.	It was answered in the previous comment
10	The authors should have no trouble finding more suitable methodological articles.	All research related to the use of high soluble phosphate fertilizers such as UP, MAP, DAP and MKP are very few and most of them did not address the explanatory aspect as it should be. But we have tried hard to explain the results obtained in a scientific way, according to our academic and applied experiences from the point of view of plant nutrition.
11	This analysis is the basis for assessing the response of the yield characteristics to the tested P fertilizers.	What analysis do you mean?
12	Only in the context of the above remarks it is possible to make a methodically correct assessment of the tested fertilizers.	We have re-evaluated and corrected the manuscript on a logical scientific basis based on you valuable comments, and I hope will be satisfied to you
13	An alternative solution for authors is to submit the manuscript to a typical agricultural journal.	No comment

 

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

August 19, 2022 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf