Effect of Nitrogen Management on Wheat Yield, Water and Nitrogen Utilization, and Economic Benefits under Ridge-Furrow Cropping System with Supplementary Irrigation
, Bing Lan 1, Fei Mo 1, Yuncheng Liao 1 and Yang Liu 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- introduction and result sections need to be shorten focusing on the most significant idea and findings
- All over the manuscript, replace the the term " water use efficiency" by " water productivity
- what is the references used for assessing water productivity, Nitrogen use efficiency and statistical analysis ?
- in the discussion section, the effect of nitrogen should be supported by more recent citations as suggested:
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/00103624.2022.2109659
https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/00103624.2020.1744631
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We thank the reviewers for providing useful comments for improving our paper. We responded point by point to the referee’s comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the revised location in the latest main text. In addition, all of changes were marked in red font (“Track Changes”) throughout the revised submission. Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.
- introduction and result sections need to be shorten focusing on the most significant idea and findings
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised and shortened the introduction and results.
- All over the manuscript, replace the the term " water use efficiency" by " water productivity
Response: Done as suggested, please see L176 of the revised version.
- what is the references used for assessing water productivity, Nitrogen use efficiency and statistical analysis?
Response: Done as suggested, please see L182, L198 and L203 of the revised version.
- in the discussion section, the effect of nitrogen should be supported by more recent citations as suggested:
Response: Done as suggested, please see L552 and L927-L932 of the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript provides up-to-date knowledge about the response of wheat to nitrogen management under ridge-furrow cropping system analysing crop yield, water and nitrogen use efficiency and economic issues. Especially the experimental investigation of environmentally friendly and resource saving efforts justifies the actuality of the study.
The manuscript is based on an extensive study with high scientific soundness, but at the same time the practical utilization of the results is also strongly justified. Nevertheless, the general justification of the study should be removed from the Discussion section and added to the Introduction.
Such a study dedicated to the examination of the complex effects of soil cultivation, nitrogen nutrition and irrigation in wheat production can contribute to the recent knowledge utilizable in the agriculture in several regions (which should be mentioned among the conclusions). The article highlights all the national and international references relevant to the topic.
The study is quite complete, though I feel some disharmony between the laconic methodology section and the very detailed explanation of the tables and figures of the results section. Even the tables and figures are expected to be self-explanatory, such wordy legends are not necessary, but detailed and more expressive description of the treatments is recommended in the Materials and Methods section to make the understanding easier for the readers.
The discussion of the results is well structured and sufficiently detailed citing relevant references.
The Conclusion part contains statements based on own results. Nevertheless, I suggest to extend it with another sentence mentioning the possibility of the extension of the results to other areas.
Some specific technical terms are not properly used, revision is needed in this respect. A few minor grammar mistakes can also be found in the manuscript, I made some corrections, but also recommend its proofreading by a native English speaker.
I inserted some sticky notes with my specific comments, questions and corrections in the pdf file of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We thank the reviewers for providing useful comments for improving our paper. We responded point by point to the referee’s comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the revised location in the latest main text. In addition, all of changes were marked in red font (“Track Changes”) throughout the revised submission. Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.
- The general justification of the study should be removed from the Discussion section and added to the Introduction.
Response: We have removed the general justification of the study from the Discussion section and added to the Introduction. please see L446-L451 of the revised version.
- Even the tables and figures are expected to be self-explanatory, such wordy legends are not necessary, but detailed and more expressive description of the treatments is recommended in the Materials and Methods section to make the understanding easier for the readers.
Response: We've changed all the legends and about the Materials and Methods, table 1 is produced (L161).
- The discussion of the results is well structured and sufficiently detailed citing relevant references. The Conclusion part contains statements based on own results. Nevertheless, I suggest to extend it with another sentence mentioning the possibility of the extension of the results to other areas.
Response: Done as suggested, please see L622-L624 of the revised version.
- Some specific technical terms are not properly used, revision is needed in this respect. A few minor grammar mistakes can also be found in the manuscript, I made some corrections, but also recommend its proofreading by a native English speaker. I inserted some sticky notes with my specific comments, questions and corrections in the pdf file of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your careful revision and marking, we have revised according to your sticky notes.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID agronomy-2315292
Effect of nitrogen management on wheat yield, water and nitrogen utilization and economic benefits under ridge-furrow cropping system with supplementary irrigation
Yi Yang , Qun Qin , Qi Li , Vinay Nangia , Bing Lan , Fei Mo , Yuncheng Liao , Yang Liu *
Comments and suggestions for authors
The research topic is relevant and important these days. The authors conducted a detailed study. I would like to make a few comments:
1. I think that two years of research is not much for field experiments.
2. Citations are not prepared according to the requirements for authors. It is necessary to fix.
3. References must be rearranged as specified in the requirements for the article. This section is prepared dismissively and carelessly. It is necessary to fix.
4. L 113: P or P2O5 ? K or K2O? Please specify
5. L 113: “available P,” exchangeable 113 K“. what is the difference between these forms? . It is necessary to unify.
6. What methods are used to determine the agrochemical indicators of the soil? This info must be added.
7. L 113: „20.3 mg kg-1 available P, and 242.3 mg kg-1 exchangeable 113 K.“. More than 10 times more potassium than phosphorus. Can 50 kg of phosphorus with fertilizer balance nutrients? Fertilization is very questionable.
8. L 142: „50 kg P ha-1 was applied“. P or P2O5 ?
9. Table 1: I suggest changing "Mode" to “Fertilization mode”.
10. In section „2.2.1. Plant growth, grain yield and quality“ it is not specified how did you set stability time and development time. Whose indicators are these? Gluten or dough? Please describe the analysis in detail
11. Figure 2: use SI units, tiller number / m2.
12. I suggest reducing Figure 7.
13. Table 4. - select the MDPI table title font.
14. L 407-409 : why some words are underlined. Apply MDPI text font.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We thank the reviewers for providing useful comments for improving our paper. We responded point by point to the referee’s comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the revised location in the latest main text. In addition, all of changes were marked in red font (“Track Changes”) throughout the revised submission. Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.
- I think that two years of research is not much for field experiments.
Response: In these two years of researches, both rainfall, climate and wheat growth patterns were extremely similar and similar to the normal year, so we believe that the study is representative of local production levels and has some production guidance.
- Citations are not prepared according to the requirements for authors.It is necessary to fix.
Response: We have fixed the Citations.
- References must be rearranged as specified in the requirements for the article. This section is prepared dismissively and carelessly.It is necessary to fix.
Response: We have fixed the References. Done as suggested, please see L805-L963 of the revised version.
- L 113: P or P2O5? K or K2O? Please specify
Response: It are P and K. We measured the P and K in the soil.
- L 113: “available P,”exchangeable 113 K“. what is the difference between these forms? It is necessary to unify.
Response: We have changed the “exchangeable” to “available”, please see L120 of the revised version.
- What methods are used to determine the agrochemical indicators of the soil? This info must be added.
Response: Done as suggested, please see L121-L124 of the revised version.
- L 113: „20.3mg kg-1 available P, and 242.3 mg kg-1 exchangeable 113 K.“. More than 10 times more potassium than phosphorus. Can 50 kg of phosphorus with fertilizer balance nutrients? Fertilization is very questionable.
Response: This is reasonable, the soil in the Loess Plateau is rich in potassium(K), so we don't apply K fertilizer, only phosphorus (P) fertilizer.
- L 142: „50 kg P ha-1 was applied“. P or P2O5 ?
Response: It is P2O5, we have fixed and please see L154 of the revised version.
- Table 1: I suggest changing "Mode" to “Fertilization mode”.
Response: We have changed.
- In section „2.2.1. Plant growth, grain yield and quality“ it is not specified how did youset stability time and development time. Whose indicators are these? Gluten or dough? Please describe the analysis in detail
Response: The grain samples were dried naturally for quality analysis. The grain protein concentration and wet gluten concentration of dough were determined by a near-infrared grain analyzer (DA7250; Perten, Sweden). The content in the dough is measured and use wheat kernel. We have revised(L175).
- Figure 2: use SI units,tiller number / m2.
Response: We have fixed and please see L308 of the revised version.
- I suggest reducingFigure 7.
Response: We have reduced.
- Table 4. - select the MDPI table title font.
Response: We have fixed and please see L431 of the revised version.
- L 407-409 : why some words are underlined. Apply MDPI text font.
Response: We have fixed.
Reviewer 4 Report
The author collects a lot of data that is easy to measure. Many readers would regard it as not worth discussing without more years and points.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We thank the reviewers for providing useful comments for improving our paper. We responded point by point to the referee’s comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the revised location in the latest main text. In addition, all of changes were marked in red font throughout the revised submission. Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.
- The author collects a lot of data that is easy to measure. Many readers would regard it as not worth discussing without more years and points.
Response: While we appreciate the reviewer's feedback, we respectfully disagree. We think this study makes a valuable contribution to the field because in these two years of researches, both rainfall, climate and wheat growth patterns were extremely similar and similar to the normal year, so we believe that the study is representative of local production levels and has some production guidance. The objectives of this experiment were to investigate the effects of nitrogen(N) management on wheat yield, quality, water and N use efficiency, and economic efficiency under the Ridge-furrow cropping system. It also provides a reference for the feasibility and sustainability of wheat cultivation under the RF cropping system in the dry farming areas of the Loess Plateau and other drought areas.
