Evaluating Non-Composted Red Cotton Tree (Bombax ceiba) Sawdust Mixtures for Raising Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench) in Pots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an elegant experimental study to understand how we can utilise recycled products for food production, particularly in an urban setting, which I think should be more prominent in the introduction as an emerging but increasingly major food source for the future. This topic is highly relevant and of interest to the general plant science community. The introduction and text could be revised to make it more concise by avoiding repetition of statements (examples see below). I also think that the results section would be better presented as tables, rather than in text form, with reference to specific results in the text. The graphs are very clear and well presented. These small changes would make the paper more accessible and easier to read.

 

Specific points:

Repetition: example:

Lines beginning 28,150, 194, 463 and 578 : bananas as a source of K is repeated on every line

Line 193: B. ceiba in italic

Line 195: Urea – obtained from where would be a useful comment here – major sources, advantage? i.e.cost compared to other N based fertilisers

Lines 251-252: define S1 and S2 fully

Line beginning 537: A similar experiment but using larger amounts, i.e. 0,2.5 and 10 ton Ha-1 could be recalculated to the same units as this study to give a better comparison of results, particularly i9n terms of yield.

Reference list: referencing format is not consistent – dates in different places

Ali et al. refs not with a, b, c, or d in the ref list

Amu 2005 should be et. al. in the text

Ma et al. a, b or c not consistent in ref list

Hussain et al. has no date in ref list

Naz et al. 2022  - cited as 2024

Anwar T et al – 2021 – cited as 2023

Khan et al. – cited as 2023?

 

Author Response

Please see attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript review

The manuscript presents research carried out to test the feasibility of using non-composted sawdust from red cotton tree (Bombax ceiba) with organic additives in the form of banana peels, eggshells and urea fertilizer in different arrangements to okra pot growing. After reading the content, I have questions and concerns and suggestions that I think should be taken into consideration.

 

1) Since you have investigated whether non-composted (fresh) red cotton tree sawdust with added organic components can be an alternative to composted sawdust for okra production, why have you not evaluated/compared this option in experiments ?

2. Have you ever carried out composting of sawdust from red cotton tree since you suggest that it must be such a long process ?

3. The nutrient in the media was organic waste, which can only be a source of plant nutrients after mineralisation. So, from the start, okra had little chance of lush growth in sawdust, with banana peels and shells (T2, T3 and T4) compared to T5 where there was mineral nitrogen added.

4 In experiments with plants grown in pots, the assimilable element content is given in mg /l of substrate. It is easier to assess whether a species has optimal levels of available elements because content ranges for organic and mineral substrates have been developed for many horticultural species.

 

Title of the paper

I suggest including in the title, that the okra was grown in a container/pots.

The word 'production' connotes large-scale cultivation according to a developed technology.

Both red cotton tree and okra should be named by their full Latin names.

 

Abstract

- Please specify what the aim of the research was and summarise whether the aim was achieved and which variant was the best.

 Introduction

- its too broad and general, I suggest shortening the chapter to 1/2, limit literature items to the most relevant. The introduction should be concise, tight and limited to the essentials.

Materials and methods

- I suggest reorganising and naming the subsections more aptly,

- table 1 and 2 are the same (except for some data) as in Yasin et al. 2022; this is not good publishing practice!

- it would be good to give the nitrogen dose per pot or per litre of substrate - the urea dose in kg/ha is useful in field experiments.

- how many plants were evaluated at each T? If I understand correctly: at the beginning (S1) there were 16 seedlings, later 8 plants and in S2 4 plants  at 2 growing sites. This is a very small number of plants to evaluate, in this type of experiments the number of plants should be higher.

- Please explain, how the suspension for pH and EC was prepared, the proportions of water and substrate are important in interpreting the results

- Is the pH of the substrate proper for okra growing (pH range 7.8-8.5) in your study?

Results

I find the presentation of the results, however unobjectionable, to be essentially analogous to that of Yasin et al. 2022, with chinaberry sawdust - both the morphological and physiological parameters and the presentation.

Why didn't the authors develop the results in a different way?

Discussion

Does your research team have a new idea for the preparation of a good sawdust-based substrate without composting? But maybe a short composting with the addition of organic waste, e.g. nitrogen-rich waste from vegetable and fruit production, is needed? It is worth outlining in conclusion what the direction of further research might be.

References

Must be reviewed and corrected to the editor's requirements.

 

Author Response

Please see attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see the file in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for considering my comments.
Please consider one more:
The information on the origin of the urea fertilizer in the Introduction lines 200-202 should be moved to the Material and Methods chapter.

Author Response

Please see the file in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx