Effects of Rotational Tillage on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield in a Rice–Wheat Double Cropping Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report
The authors present work on rotational tillage in rice-wheat double cropping systems and its effect on soil structure, nutrients and crop yield. This work is valuable given the extent of this cropping system in Asian countries as it may assist ensure sustainability of both crop yields and the soil.
Overall comments:
The article contains some good results however it seems rushed with many crucial details missing in the methodology (e.g. experiment design, soil analysis methods used, formulas). Moreover, there is not sufficient theoretical background provided to motivate for the work. This lack of literature evidence is also missing in the discussion as no cross-referencing is done.
The discussion of results needs significant improvement as it is currently shallow and does not explain with theoretical support the results observed. The interpretation of results needs to be improved.
The authors should ensure that the conclusions are coherent with the results reported as some are not.
Specific comments are given below and on the manuscript.
Abstract
Line 20 – 22 : specify which treatment is responsible for reported effects
Line 23 – 25 is too long and a bit confusing. Please rephrase
Line 27: “….the RT significantly increased the average tillage…..” what are you referring to here?
It is not clear how the soil parameters were affected by RT and CN as only results for RT are provided in the abstract. How did the other treatments affects measured soil parameters?
Introduction
Lacks sufficient theoretical background to better contextualize and motivate for the study. It is not clear why this work was necessary.
The objectives should be specified here
Materials and Methods
Table 1: Which paddy soil?
Line 115 – 120 – sentence too long and difficult to follow. Please revise.
Lins 158 – You mention here that treatments were repeated 3 times yet in line 92 you say there were no repeatitions – this is confusing
Line 157 – not clear – Were soil samples taken from the 3 depths?. It should be clear how the soil samples were taken.
Line 158 – 172. Provide references for methods used
Line 173 – Provide reference for method used
Line 183 – 187 – Data analysis needs to be written properly. It is not clear which test was used for what.
Results and Analysis
Line 191 – 207 – not results and should be removed
Line 222- 225 – arguments don’t make sense
Line 382 – 387 – Sentence too long and difficult to follow
Results are not discussed as often the explanation provided for observed trends is the stating of treatments. There should be a clear discussion of why the different tillage models would impact soil function thus resulting in changes reported.
There is also almost no cross referencing with existing literature.
It seems rushed thus not clearly bringing out the findings of the paper.
Discussion and Conclusion
Except for BD results, RT is either comparable to CN (macroaggregation and MWD at 0-10cm; PR (macroaggregation at 10-10cm) and better than both for the same parameter as deeper depths
For soil nutrients – RT has the same effect as both CN and PR for 0-10 and 10-20cm
This is not clearly described and discussed as such it has led to incorrect conclusion which seem to glorify RT over the other two tillage systems studied
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors should compare their results with other scientists in similar research in Discussion chapter. You need to analyse what you find out different about other investigations or not and to compare it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors had done a lot of jobs. However, this manuscript has many flaws in both English and structure.
Line 9:"energy comsumption" was not mentioned in MS.
Line 12-13: The sentence was confusion.
Line 23: what was the meaning of "balance"?
Line 35-37: The sentence was confusion.
Line 39-43: The sentence was confusion.
Line 79: Title of Table 1 was not correct.
Line 105: what was the meaning of "distribution"?
Line 150-151: the structure was confusion, ie., "2.4" was followed by "1".
Line 182-187: P could not be used to test the significance of deviation.
Line 189-190: what was "Effect on soil structure"?
All tables did not included "Standard Error"
Line 296-297: what was "Effect on soil nutrient content"?
Line 395: The title of Table 4 was not correct.
Line 413: The Discussion was not adequate to support conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The overall quality of the revised manuscript has been greatly improved.
