Long-Term Impact of Boron Addition at Various Dosages to a Groundnut-Cabbage System on Crop Yield and Boron Dynamics in Typic Haplustepts

Comments of Section Managing Editor

Response of authors

1. Two more reviewers also agreed to review your paper, so we may receive other review reports later. Once the reports are submitted, we will send a notice to you immediately. However, if we have not received the report before the revision deadline, we would cancel the review request. You may revise the manuscript according the two review reports at this moment.

As per the suggestion of the esteemed section managing editor, I have revised the manuscript as per the suggestions provided by the editor and the learned reviewers.

2. References should be cited with reference numbers in numeral order, and place the numbers in square brackets [ ], for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3], Please revise.

As suggested, I have cited the references with reference number in numeral order.

(I) Please revise your manuscript according to the referees’ comments and upload the revised file within 5 days.

I have revised the manuscript as per the comments of the reviewers.

(II) Please use the version of your manuscript found at the above link for your revisions. 

The revisions have been provided in the version of the manuscript provided.

(III) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.

I have checked all the references in the manuscript and only relevant references have been provided in the manuscript.

(IV) Any revisions made to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.

The revisions have been incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript using track change method for easy viewing by the editors and reviewers.

(V) Please provide a short cover letter detailing your changes for the editors’ and referees’ approval.

A letter detailing the changes undertaken in the manuscript as per the comments of the editors and reviewers (entitled as revision note) has been uploaded along with revised version of the manuscript for kind perusal of editors and reviewers.

Comments of Reviewer 1

please check the pdf file for minor revisions
peer-review-26186862.v1.pdf

I thank the learned reviewer for the suggestion given in the annotated version of the manuscript for its improvement. I have incorporated all the corrections as suggested by the reviewer.

Comments of Reviewer 2

The subject of the manuscript corresponds to the subject of the journal Agriculture. The study sheds light on the provision of plants with boron and is of great, although obviously local significance. Potentially, the manuscript can be recommended for publication. However, the text of the manuscript needs to be improved. Below I will give a few comments on the text.

I thank the esteemed reviewer for the kind observation about our manuscript and recommendation for publication.

I have revised the manuscript as per the suggestions of the reviewer.

Line 75 and throughout: Please use the word "content" instead of "concentration". The concentration is applicable only for liquids and gases, and the content - for solids.

As per the suggestion, the word “concentration” has been replaced with the word “content” throughout the manuscript.

Line 78: May be "directly or indirectly"?

The sentence has been modified as suggested.

Line 103: Please formulate the hypothesis/hypotheses that this study was devoted to testing.

The hypothesis of the study has been provided in the introduction part of the manuscript. The following information has been provided in the manuscript.

“It was, therefore, hypothesized that B application at different rates and frequencies influence crop yield in each cropping system. Further, long-term B application at various rates and frequencies influence soil B fractions.”

Line 231: The Results and Discussion sections should be separated.

The results and discussion sections have been separated in the manuscript, as per the suggestions of the learned reviewer.

Line 375: To what extent can the revealed regularities be applied to other types of soils, other regions of India or the region as a whole?

As per suggestion, the relevant information has been incorporated in the conclusion portion of the manuscript.

Comments of Section Managing Editor

Response of authors

1. Two more reviewers also agreed to review your paper, so we may receive other review reports later. Once the reports are submitted, we will send a notice to you immediately. However, if we have not received the report before the revision deadline, we would cancel the review request. You may revise the manuscript according the two review reports at this moment.

As per the suggestion of the esteemed section managing editor, I have revised the manuscript as per the suggestions provided by the editor and the learned reviewers.

2. References should be cited with reference numbers in numeral order, and place the numbers in square brackets [ ], for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3], Please revise.

As suggested, I have cited the references with reference number in numeral order.

(I) Please revise your manuscript according to the referees’ comments and upload the revised file within 5 days.

I have revised the manuscript as per the comments of the reviewers.

(II) Please use the version of your manuscript found at the above link for your revisions. 

The revisions have been provided in the version of the manuscript provided.

(III) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.

I have checked all the references in the manuscript and only relevant references have been provided in the manuscript.

(IV) Any revisions made to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.

The revisions have been incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript using track change method for easy viewing by the editors and reviewers.

(V) Please provide a short cover letter detailing your changes for the editors’ and referees’ approval.

A letter detailing the changes undertaken in the manuscript as per the comments of the editors and reviewers (entitled as revision note) has been uploaded along with revised version of the manuscript for kind perusal of editors and reviewers.

Comments of Reviewer 1

please check the pdf file for minor revisions
peer-review-26186862.v1.pdf

I thank the learned reviewer for the suggestion given in the annotated version of the manuscript for its improvement. I have incorporated all the corrections as suggested by the reviewer.

Comments of Reviewer 2

The subject of the manuscript corresponds to the subject of the journal Agriculture. The study sheds light on the provision of plants with boron and is of great, although obviously local significance. Potentially, the manuscript can be recommended for publication. However, the text of the manuscript needs to be improved. Below I will give a few comments on the text.

I thank the esteemed reviewer for the kind observation about our manuscript and recommendation for publication.

I have revised the manuscript as per the suggestions of the reviewer.

Line 75 and throughout: Please use the word "content" instead of "concentration". The concentration is applicable only for liquids and gases, and the content - for solids.

As per the suggestion, the word “concentration” has been replaced with the word “content” throughout the manuscript.

Line 78: May be "directly or indirectly"?

The sentence has been modified as suggested.

Line 103: Please formulate the hypothesis/hypotheses that this study was devoted to testing.

The hypothesis of the study has been provided in the introduction part of the manuscript. The following information has been provided in the manuscript.

“It was, therefore, hypothesized that B application at different rates and frequencies influence crop yield in each cropping system. Further, long-term B application at various rates and frequencies influence soil B fractions.”

Line 231: The Results and Discussion sections should be separated.

The results and discussion sections have been separated in the manuscript, as per the suggestions of the learned reviewer.

Line 375: To what extent can the revealed regularities be applied to other types of soils, other regions of India or the region as a whole?

As per suggestion, the relevant information has been incorporated in the conclusion portion of the manuscript.