Improving Tea Quality by Balancing ROS and Antioxidant System through Appropriate Ammonium Nitrogen Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Over all the the MS need to improved and rewritten (Title in unclear, Abstract should be written concisely , Materials and methods need a serious improvement for research design and procedures , Results need should fits with research design , Discussion and Conclusion. The comments and suggestion see attached file.
The MS need to be send to proofers
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor
I carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled “Applying application of appropriate ammonium nitrogen is a crucial approach for improving drinking-used tea quality” (reference sustainability-1769763), by Xiang et al., which submitted to sustainability. The manuscript topic is adequate for the aims and scope of the journal. The authors should address the following comments and revise the manuscript accordingly:
1. The authors should better explain why this study is essential for Tea in the last paragraph of introduction section.
2. There are many new papers about the abiotic and biotic stress and nitrogen effects on plants. There are many papers about the serious environmental problem Saline-alkali Land.
3. Actually the treatment was N + S! I wonder how we should refer to this treatment throughout, what do you think? I have seen positive effect of sulphur on tea plants in many papers. How could you evaluate the single effect of N on tea in this research?
4. Section 2, What type of soil was used? I highly recommend the authors to introduce all of soil properties analyzed in the table including micro-and macro nutrients concentrations (especially N, P, K contents and so on), soil texture, pH, organic matter contents, and other important soil characteristics. How the soil properties were determined? Could you specify the methods with references added?
5. Section 2, Hypothesis and justification of the selection of the concentration of N are not explicitly mentioned in the material and methods.
6. When the crop harvested? What was the plant sowing rate, planting geometry, crop nutrition, plant protection? In which stage they were harvested. Please explain it carefully in the mentioned section.
7. I have not find any sentence about statistical analysis methods used in this paper. The Statistical analyses were performed by what? Please describe it carefully in the paper.
8. How many replicates for each assay? The replications should be explained in detail.
9. This study has been conducted in 10 years but data has been presented for one year. I do not understand it was for which year? The material and methods should be introduced more clearly.
10. Include the weather data during the course of studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript address the effects of different nitrogen rates on the variation of different physiological parameters of leaves of two tea varieties. Overall the manuscript is novel and written well. The manuscript studied and discussed several important physiological parameters on tea quality but my major concern is the manuscript doesn’t focus well on the appropriate rate of N fertilizer. I don’t find any information on the appropriate rates of N fertilizer in the abstract and conclusion. What is the recommendation of his study for the tea grower?
Some specific comments:
Ø The material and methods section mentioned three repeated experiments were performed. Here are three repeated experiments what does it mean three different trials or three replication?
Ø Didn’t find anything about the data analysis
Ø What was the hypothesis of this study?
Ø The study objective is not clear enough.
Ø Need more background information on N fertilizer management to clear the study's importance
Ø The discussion section needs to discuss more on N fertilizer application timing and rates on Tea quality.
Ø Few comments are in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In general the MS need to improved as listed in attached file (please follow the suggestion)
Title : just refine
Abstract : The objective should be presented sharp and clearly
Material and Methods : Procedure of pot experiment need be rewritten briefly and clearly
Synchronize the conclusion with the main objective of this research
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of the previous observations have been corrected. My major concerning are related to the how the authors have investigated sole effect of nitrogen on the measured parameters! I mean to say the authors have used N+S in their investigation and how they decided that the observations were for the sole effect of nitrogen! How could the authors have removed the effect of sulfur in plant development and the relevant parameters!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In the revised manuscript the authors carefully addressed the raised questions and concerns. I also note that great effort has been made to appease the other reviewers' comments. Overall, the manuscript reads well, has clarity, and communicates the work of the authors. In my opinion, this manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal.
Author Response
In the revised manuscript the authors carefully addressed the raised questions and concerns. I also note that great effort has been made to appease the other reviewers' comments. Overall, the manuscript reads well, has clarity, and communicates the work of the authors. In my opinion, this manuscript is suitable for publication in this journal.
Response: Thank you for your support and affirmation!
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-evaluate this paper. It can be accepted now.
