Co-Incorporating Chinese Milk Vetch and Rice Straw Increases Rice Yield by Improving Nutrient Uptake during Rice Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled "Investigating the Effects of Residue Management on Rice Productivity and Soil Properties: A Pot Experiment" explores the co-incorporation of rice straw (RS) and Chinese milk vetch (MV) as a practice to improve rice yield and soil fertility in southern China. The study also highlights the mechanism and insights for promoting its use. The results also explore the positive impact of MV and RS application on grain yield, nutrient agreement, and soil properties.
The abstract should be more concise.
To enhance reproducibility, it would be better to provide more information regarding the experimental methodology, such as soil type, pot size, and specific growth conditions.
Also, the statistical analysis section could benefit from additional information.
The discussion section could be expanded to provide more context and relate the findings to the existing literature on similar practices and their implications for sustainable agriculture.
The manuscript could add a brief conclusion summarizing the key findings and their associations for future investigation and agricultural practices.
Please cite recent literature.
No Comments
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #1’s comments:
Reviewer’s comment 1: The abstract should be more concise.
Our response: We sincerely appreciate reviewer’s valuable suggestions. As requested, we have deleted part of information to make it concise and keep the key content. We have revised the relevant information in our revised manuscript. We revised the sentence “To better promote the use of this practice, more studies on its mechanism in improving rice productivity are needed” to “To better understand the mechanism of improving rice productivity through this practice, more studies are needed”. Secondly, We revised the sentence “Five treatments were included, i.e. CK (no residue and CF as a control), CF (CF without residues returning), FR (CF with RS returning), FM (CF with MV returning), FMR (CF with MV and RS returning)” to “Five treatments were tested: (i) CK (no residue and no chemical fertilizer); (ii) CF (chemical fertilizer); (iii) FM (CF with MV returning); (iv) FR (CF with RS returning) and (v) FMR (CF with mixture of MV and RS returning)”. Finally, We revised the sentence “co-incorporation management increased subsequent rice growth and nutrient uptake as well as promoted nutrient transfer to grain as compared to application alone. Co-incorporation management accumulated the highest soil available nutrients (Nmin, AP, AK and DOC) even after higher rice N, P and K uptake relative to application alone at all three stages, except AK in FR treatment at tillering stage. Overall, co-incorporation of RS and MV is a feasible practice to improve rice yield and soil fertility.” to “co-incorporation management promoted nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient uptake at jointing and maturity stages of rice as compared to application alone, resulting in higher rice yield. The incorporation of MV and/or RS increased the available nutrients in the soil and enhanced nutrient uptake by the crop, wide-scale adoption of the co-incorporation of residues would significantly increase rice yield and improve soil fertility”.
Reviewer’s comment 2: To enhance reproducibility, it would be better to provide more information regarding the experimental methodology, such as soil type, pot size, and specific growth conditions.
Our response: Thanks for your useful suggestions. We have added the relevant information on our work. We have supplemented the information “The soil was a Stagnic Anthrosol (FAO classification), derived from river alluvium deposits, with 345 g kg−1 sand, 359 g kg−1 silt and 296 g kg−1 clay” and “Fifty percent of Urea was broadcasted as a basal fertilizer, while the other 50% was top-dressed at the jointing-booting stage” in the materials and methods.
Reviewer’s comment 3: Also, the statistical analysis section could benefit from additional information.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comments on our work. We have added the relevant information of statistical analysis in our manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 4: The discussion section could be expanded to provide more context and relate the findings to the existing literature on similar practices and their implications for sustainable agriculture.
Our response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have corrected the relevant information in our revised manuscript. We added the content “In addition, previous studies demonstrated that co-incorporation management could also promote microbial growth, change soil microbial community structure, and increase soil enzyme activity, thereby further promoting the release of N, P, and K nutrients in soil, and thereby increasing shoot biomass and nutrient uptake” and “In recent decades, there were still a lot of practical problems such as waste of light and heat resources, difficult utilization of rice straw and loss of soil fertility in some areas of south China. In addition, the phenomenon of farmers burning straw after rice harvest still occurred from time to time for the sake of saving time and labor, which not only caused a waste of resources, but also polluted the environment and seriously affected the sustainable development of agriculture[48]. Intensive cropping with no return of crop residues and other organic inputs to the soil results in the loss of soil organic matter and nutrient supply and is assumed to be non-sustainable[49]. Sound agronomic practices are needed to maintain the carbon balance in an agro-ecosystem in order to sustain soil fer-tility. Previous studies in various cropping systems have shown that Chinese milk vetch or rice straw can increase soil C and N stocks, improve soil nutrient storage capacity, and thus enhance soil health and sustainability[50,51]. Our results showed that the co-incorporation management increased subsequent rice growth and nutrients uptake, accumulating the highest soil available nutrients. Chinese milk vetch and rice straw in-corporation also improved rice yield by affecting soil nutrients and manipulating the C/N ratios of residues. Overall, this technique may be recommended as a productive and sustainable practice for rice production in southern China” in the discussion.
Reviewer’s comment 5: The manuscript could add a brief conclusion summarizing the key findings and their associations for future investigation and agricultural practices.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful suggestion. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, and supplemented a brief conclusion in our revised manuscript. We improved the content “Co-incorporation management promoted nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient uptake at jointing and maturity stages of rice as compared to application alone, resulting in higher rice yield. In addition, co-incorporation management accumulated the highest soil nu-trients in comparison with the application alone in most cases. Overall, the co-incorporation of MV and RS is a feasible practice to solve the problem of rice straw resource utilization, and provide theoretical basis for crop high yield and agricultural sustainable development” in the conclusion.
Reviewer’s comment 6: Please cite recent literature.
Our response: Thanks for your useful suggestions. As requested, We have added some recent literature in our revised manuscript. The literatures were as follows:
- Zhou, G.; Chang, D.; Gao, S.; Liang, T.; Liu, R.; Cao, W. Co-incorporating leguminous green manure and rice straw drives the synergistic release of carbon and nitrogen, increases hydrolase activities, and changes the composition of main microbial groups. Fert. Soils.2021, 57, 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-021-01547-3.
- Liao, P.; Huang, S.; Van Gestel, N.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, Z.; Van Groenigen, K. Liming and straw retention interact to increase nitrogen uptake and grain yield in a double rice-cropping system. Field Crop. Res.2018, 216, 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.11.026.
- Zhou, G.; Cao, W.; Bai, J.; Xu, C.; Zeng, N.; Gao, S.; Rees, R. M.; Dou, F. Co-incorporation of rice straw and leguminous green manure can increase soil available nitrogen (N) and reduce carbon and N losses: An incubation study. Pedosphere2020, 30(5), 661-670. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(19)60845-3.
- Kumar, R.; Mishra, J.; Upadhyay, P.; Hans, H. Rice fallows in the Eastern India: problems and prospects. Indian J. Agric. Sci.2019, 89(4), 567-77. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i4.88838.
- Goswami, S.B.; Mondal, R.; Mandi, S.K. Crop residue management options in rice–rice system: A review. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.2020, 66, 1218-1234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1661994.
- Yang, F.; Xu, Z.; Huang, Y.; Tsang, D. C. W.; Ok, Y. S.; Zhao, L.; Qiu, H.; Xu, X.; Cao, X. Stabilization of dissolvable biochar by soil minerals: Release reduction and organo-mineral complexes formation. Hazard. Mater.2021, 412, 125213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125213.
- Li, Y.; Qing, C.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Song, J.; Xu, D. Will farmers follow their peers in adopting straw returning? Evidence from rural Sichuan Province, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.2023, 30, 21169-21185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23648-8.
- Kamran, M.; Huang, L.; Nie, J.; Geng, M.; Lu, Y.; Liao, Y.; Zhou, F.; Xu, Y. Effect of reduced mineral fertilization (NPK) combined with green manure on aggregate stability and soil organic carbon fractions in a fluvo-aquic paddy soil. Soil Till. Res.2021, 211, 105005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105005.
- Hong, X.; Ma, C.; Gao, J.; Su, S.; Li, T.; Luo, Z.; Duan, R.; Wang, Y.; Bai, L.; Zeng, X. Effects of different green manure treatments on soil apparent N and P balance under a 34-year double-rice cropping system. Soil. Sediment.2018, 19(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2049-5.
- Yang, L.; Zhou, X.; Liao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Nie, J.; Cao, W. Co-incorporation of Rice Straw and Green Manure Benefits Rice Yield and Nutrient Uptake. Crop Sci. 2019, 59(2), 749-759. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.07.0427.
Reviewer 2 Report
A pot experiment was performed to investigate the effects of different residues managements under chemical fertilization (CF) on rice productivity and soil properties. The meticulous logic and innovation are reflected in this study, but some modifications and improvements are needed before acceptance.
1: In Lines 155, What does RS mean? This must be clarified in the article.
2:In Figure 1, Why do three a's and two b's appear during the tillering stage, while the other two stages both appear as a, b, c, d, e.
3: Lines 66-68, Related description need strong references (â‘ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-023-10202-7 â‘¡https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2022.12.160 â‘¢https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114949 )as supporting basis.
4: In Table 1, What does 60 of Rice straw in FR and FMR mean? What conclusion does the difference between CK, CF, and FM indicate?
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #2’s comments:
Reviewer’s comment 1: In Lines 155, What does RS mean? This must be clarified in the article.
Our response: We sincerely appreciate reviewer’s valuable suggestions. RS means rice straw. We have explained the word in the abstract and introduction.
Reviewer’s comment 2: In Figure 1, Why do three a's and two b's appear during the tillering stage, while the other two stages both appear as a, b, c, d, e.
Our response: At tillering stage, rice plants mainly grow by tillers, that is, side branches grow from main stem base. At this stage, rice plants mainly invest energy and nutrients to support the growth of tillers, so there is no significant difference in aboveground biomass, because the main stem and tiller of the plant are growing rapidly. At jointing stage, rice plants enter the stage of jointing and heading. Rice plants at this stage mainly invest energy and nutrients to support the formation and elongation of inflorescences, so there will be significant differences in aboveground biomass because the growth of inflorescences consumes a lot of energy and nutrients. At maturity, rice plants enter the stage of grain formation and maturation. At this stage, the rice plants mainly invest energy and nutrients to support the formation and filling of seeds, so the aboveground biomass will also be significantly different, because the growth and filling of seeds will consume a lot of energy and nutrients.
In conclusion, the aboveground biomass of rice varies significantly in different growth stages due to different utilization of energy and nutrients.
Reviewer’s comment 3: Lines 66-68, Related description need strong references (â‘ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-023-10202-7 â‘¡https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2022.12.160 â‘¢https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114949 )as supporting basis.
Our response: Thanks for your useful suggestions. I have carefully read the three literatures given by the reviewers and found that they were not very relevant to our content. I have added the relevant strong references in the manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 4: In Table 1, What does 60 of Rice straw in FR and FMR mean? What conclusion does the difference between CK, CF, and FM indicate?
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comments regarding our work. In Table 1, 60 of Rice straw in FR and FMR means 60 g of rice straw (dry-weight basis) was put into each pot. The application of chemical fertilizer or MV returning evidently improved grain yields in comparison with CK treatment. Moreover, FM treatment significantly increased shoot biomass and shoot N, P and K uptake in comparison with CK treatment at all three stages. Furthermore, FM treatment significantly improved grain N, P and K uptake relative to CK and CF treatments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Due to the low level of English, it is difficult to understand the author. The text must be checked both grammatically and stylistically. There are many very long sentences. These need to be shortened to understand them better. Both the hypothesis and conclusions should be rethought and improved. Dynamic nutrient uptake is methioned once in Introduction. There is no informartion about this topic later. Please improve this.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Due to the low level of English, it is difficult to understand the author. The text must be checked both grammatically and stylistically. There are many very long sentences. These need to be shortened to understand them better.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #3’s comments:
Reviewer’s comment 1: Due to the low level of English, it is difficult to understand the author. The text must be checked both grammatically and stylistically. There are many very long sentences. These need to be shortened to understand them better.
Our response: We sincerely appreciate reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes accordingly. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but revised the relevant information in our paper. We appreciate review’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. In addition, we invited an English native speaker to revise the manuscript. Please see our responses below, along with our revised manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 2: Both the hypothesis and conclusions should be rethought and improved.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comments on our work. We have improved the relevant information of the hypothesis and conclusions in our manuscript. We improved the hypothesis “The objectives of our study were to investigate whether the co-incorporation of Chinese milk vetch and /or rice straw could promote nutrient uptake of rice during the critical growth period and thus increase rice yield” in the introduction. Additionally, we added the content “In addition, previous studies demonstrated that co-incorporation management could also promote microbial growth, change soil microbial community structure, and increase soil enzyme activity, thereby further promoting the release of N, P, and K nutrients in soil, and thereby increasing shoot biomass and nutrient uptake” and “In recent decades, there were still a lot of practical problems such as waste of light and heat resources, difficult utilization of rice straw and loss of soil fertility in some areas of south China. In addition, the phenomenon of farmers burning straw after rice harvest still occurred from time to time for the sake of saving time and labor, which not only caused a waste of resources, but also polluted the environment and seriously affected the sustainable development of agriculture[48]. Intensive cropping with no return of crop residues and other organic inputs to the soil results in the loss of soil organic matter and nutrient supply and is assumed to be non-sustainable[49]. Sound agronomic practices are needed to maintain the carbon balance in an agro-ecosystem in order to sustain soil fer-tility. Previous studies in various cropping systems have shown that Chinese milk vetch or rice straw can increase soil C and N stocks, improve soil nutrient storage capacity, and thus enhance soil health and sustainability[50,51]. Our results showed that the co-incorporation management increased subsequent rice growth and nutrients uptake, accumulating the highest soil available nutrients. Chinese milk vetch and rice straw in-corporation also improved rice yield by affecting soil nutrients and manipulating the C/N ratios of residues. Overall, this technique may be recommended as a productive and sustainable practice for rice production in southern China” in the discussion.
Reviewer’s comment 3: please change to "different" to selected.
Our response: We totally accepted the reviewer’s comment. As requested, we have changed to "different" to selected.
Reviewer’s comment 4: In abstract, Please rewrite “Five treatments were included, i.e. CK (no residue an CF as a control ), CF (CF without residues returning), FR (CF with RS returning), FM (CF with MV returning), FMR (CF with MV and RS returning)”.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comments on our work. We have rephrased this sentence “Five treatments were tested: (i) CK (no residue and no chemical fertilizer); (ii) CF (chemical fertilizer); (iii) FM (CF with MV returning); (iv) FR (CF with RS returning) and (v) FMR (CF with mixture of MV and RS returning).” in our revised manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 5: In lines 50, not clear, please rewrite.
Our response: We totally agree with reviewer’s comment. As requested, we have rewritten the sentence in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 6: In lines 53-54, sentence is too complicated, please rewrite.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful suggestion. We have rephrased this sentence in our revised manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 7: In paragraph 4 of the introduction, These information should be incorporated into discussion. Should not be here.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive suggestions regarding our work. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, we have added parts of the discussion related to this information. But this part of the content is mainly to point out the advantages of the co-incorporation of rice straw and Chinese milk vetch on the basis of the previous research results, provide a theoretical basis for our current research, and play the effect of connecting the upper and lower contents. So, we'd like to keep that part of it, we are looking forward to your understand.
Reviewer’s comment 8: There is no information about dynamic of nutrient uptake, please look into it.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive comments on our work. We have added information about dynamic of nutrient uptake in our revised manuscript.
Reviewer’s comment 9: In lines 92, please check “county”.
Our response: We are sorry for this mistake. We have corrected it.
Reviewer’s comment 10: how this soil was classified as fluvisol?
Our response: We are sorry for we did not clarify. We have carefully checked this sentence in the manuscript, Please see lines 93-94.
Reviewer’s comment 11: Please explain this, because through all paper you are using this phrase, which never was explained.
Our response: We are sorry for our unclear statement. “RS” represent rice straw (Oryza sativa L. ), thus, RS returning is a method of applying rice straw, which is not suitable for direct feed, into the soil after direct or cumulative decomposition.
Reviewer’s comment 12: The sentence “Urea was with 50% as the basal fertilizer and with 50% as the ear differentiation fertilizer.” is not clear.
Our response: We are sorry for our unclear expression. We have rephrased this sentence in our revised manuscript. Please see lines 114-115.
Reviewer’s comment 13: Please check “didn’t investigated”
Our response: Corrected. Please see lines 285.
Reviewer’s comment 14: In lines 302, Please rewrite.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful checking on our work. As requested, we have corrected. Please see lines 302.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author's new round of revisions did not achieve good results, and did not provide perfect answers to some questions. In addition, there are some new questions that need to be questioned and answered before proceeding to the next steps (rejection or revision).
1: In Table 1, Why do CK and CF exhibit different N-P-K values under the same Rice Straw and Green mantle？
2：In Lines 132，What is the purpose of choosing 80 ℃ for drying? Why not choose another temperature? Is this temperature fabricated by the author？
3：In Figure 4，How is the relevant data calculated？We can consider data without any calculation process or formula to be fabricated arbitrarily.
4：The answer to the 3 question in the first review was not satisfactory and requires a positive response.
5：The relevant language issues have not been revised, which is clearly a disregard for the review comments.
In short, the author's response to the reviewer's recovery is not comprehensive and relatively responsive, which is full of perfunctory. The author needs to take any questions raised by the reviewer seriously, which involves the final outcome of the article.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thanks for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Co-incorporating Chinese milk vetch and rice straw increases rice yield by improving nutrient uptake during rice growth” (2468181). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. The manuscript has been revised from the previous submission, following comments and suggestions from the editor and the reviewers. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Tingting Ma
On behalf of the authors
July 12, 2023
-------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer #1’s comments:
Reviewer’s comment 1: The author's new round of revisions did not achieve good results, and did not provide perfect answers to some questions.
Our response: Thanks for the positive comments and feedback. According to the reviewer's comments, we have revised and polished the manuscript again. And thank the chief editor for providing a shortcut to polish the manuscript. At the same time, we offer reasonable explanations and positive responses. Here we did not list the changes but revised the relevant information in our paper. We appreciate review’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Reviewer’s comment 2: In Table 1, Why do CK and CF exhibit different N-P-K values under the same Rice Straw and Green mantle？
Our response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments and feedback. In Table 1, there are not Chinese milk vetch and/or rice straw returning in CK and CF treatment, But compared to CK, the chemical fertilizer were applied in CF treatment. Chemical fertilizer contains N, P and K fertilizers, so CK and CF exhibit different N-P-K values.
Reviewer’s comment 3: In Lines 132，What is the purpose of choosing 80 ℃ for drying? Why not choose another temperature? Is this temperature fabricated by the author？
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments on our work. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns and we modified the text to avoid confusing the reader with ambiguous figures. We modified the sentences in the materials and methods (L.138-140) and added relevant literature to testify to them.
Reviewer’s comment 4: In Figure 4, How is the relevant data calculated？We can consider data without any calculation process or formula to be fabricated arbitrarily.
Our response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We modified sentences in the statistical analysis (L.164-165) and added the sentences (L.169-171) in order to supplement relevant information about relationships between residues, soil properties, rice plant nutrient uptake (N, P and K) and rice grain yield in partial least squares path modeling.
Reviewer’s comment 5: The answer to the 3 question in the first review was not satisfactory and requires a positive response.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful suggestion. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have read these literatures recommended by reviewers, but they are not relevant to the manuscript (â‘ Sediment Instability Caused by Gas Production from Hydrate-bearing Sediment in Northern South China Sea by Horizontal Wellbore: Evolution and Mechanism â‘¡Low-loading Pt nanoparticles combined with the atomically dispersed FeN4 sites supported by FeSA-N-C for improved activity and stability towards oxygen reduction reaction/hydrogen evolution reaction in acid and alkaline media â‘¢Preliminary experimental investigation on long-term fracture conductivity for evaluating the feasibility and efficiency of fracturing operation in offshore hydrate-bearing sediments). I have added the relevant strong references in the manuscript.
Reference
- Kumar, R.; Mishra, J.; Upadhyay, P.; Hans, H. Rice fallows in the Eastern India: problems and prospects. Indian J. Agric. Sci.2019, 89(4), 567-77. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i4.88838.
Reviewer’s comment 6: The relevant language issues have not been revised, which is clearly a disregard for the review comments.
Our response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments and for the critical and constructive suggestions. We apologize earnestly for our negligence. Thanks to the reviewer for giving us another chance to correct relevant language issues. We have polished this manuscript for revising the relevant language issues through the links provided by the editor. Please see the image below for proof of polishing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
no comments
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thanks for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Co-incorporating Chinese milk vetch and rice straw increases rice yield by improving nutrient uptake during rice growth” (2468181). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. The manuscript has been revised from the previous submission, following comments and suggestions from the editor and the reviewers. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Tingting Ma
On behalf of the authors
July 12, 2023
-------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer #1’s comments:
Reviewer’s comment 1: The author's new round of revisions did not achieve good results, and did not provide perfect answers to some questions.
Our response: Thanks for the positive comments and feedback. According to the reviewer's comments, we have revised and polished the manuscript again. And thank the chief editor for providing a shortcut to polish the manuscript. At the same time, we offer reasonable explanations and positive responses. Here we did not list the changes but revised the relevant information in our paper. We appreciate review’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Reviewer’s comment 2: In Table 1, Why do CK and CF exhibit different N-P-K values under the same Rice Straw and Green mantle？
Our response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments and feedback. In Table 1, there are not Chinese milk vetch and/or rice straw returning in CK and CF treatment, But compared to CK, the chemical fertilizer were applied in CF treatment. Chemical fertilizer contains N, P and K fertilizers, so CK and CF exhibit different N-P-K values.
Reviewer’s comment 3: In Lines 132，What is the purpose of choosing 80 ℃ for drying? Why not choose another temperature? Is this temperature fabricated by the author？
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments on our work. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns and we modified the text to avoid confusing the reader with ambiguous figures. We modified the sentences in the materials and methods (L.138-140) and added relevant literature to testify to them.
Reviewer’s comment 4: In Figure 4, How is the relevant data calculated？We can consider data without any calculation process or formula to be fabricated arbitrarily.
Our response: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We modified sentences in the statistical analysis (L.164-165) and added the sentences (L.169-171) in order to supplement relevant information about relationships between residues, soil properties, rice plant nutrient uptake (N, P and K) and rice grain yield in partial least squares path modeling.
Reviewer’s comment 5: The answer to the 3 question in the first review was not satisfactory and requires a positive response.
Our response: We appreciate the reviewer’s useful suggestion. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have read these literatures recommended by reviewers, but they are not relevant to the manuscript (â‘ Sediment Instability Caused by Gas Production from Hydrate-bearing Sediment in Northern South China Sea by Horizontal Wellbore: Evolution and Mechanism â‘¡Low-loading Pt nanoparticles combined with the atomically dispersed FeN4 sites supported by FeSA-N-C for improved activity and stability towards oxygen reduction reaction/hydrogen evolution reaction in acid and alkaline media â‘¢Preliminary experimental investigation on long-term fracture conductivity for evaluating the feasibility and efficiency of fracturing operation in offshore hydrate-bearing sediments). I have added the relevant strong references in the manuscript.
Reference
- Kumar, R.; Mishra, J.; Upadhyay, P.; Hans, H. Rice fallows in the Eastern India: problems and prospects. Indian J. Agric. Sci.2019, 89(4), 567-77. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i4.88838.
Reviewer’s comment 6: The relevant language issues have not been revised, which is clearly a disregard for the review comments.
Our response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments and for the critical and constructive suggestions. We apologize earnestly for our negligence. Thanks to the reviewer for giving us another chance to correct relevant language issues. We have polished this manuscript for revising the relevant language issues through the links provided by the editor. Please see the image below for proof of polishing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The author did not provide a very reasonable explanation for the question, and I believe that this study is not suitable for acceptance and publication.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
-------------------------------------------------
Response to Reviewer #1’s comments:
Reviewer’s comment 1: The author's new round of revisions did not achieve good results, and did not provide perfect answers to some questions.
Our response: Thanks for the positive comments and feedback. According to the reviewer's comments, we have revised and polished the manuscript again. And thank the chief editor for providing a shortcut to polish the manuscript. At the same time, we offer reasonable explanations and positive responses. Here we did not list the changes but revised the relevant information in our paper. We appreciate review’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Reviewer’s comment 2: Extensive editing of English language required
Our response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments and for the critical and constructive suggestions. We apologize earnestly for our negligence. Thanks to the reviewer for giving us another chance to correct relevant language issues. We have polished this manuscript for revising the relevant language issues through the links provided by the editor. Please see the image below for proof of polishing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
The author's revisions have a very serious perfunctory attitude, which I believe is not suitable for acceptance and publication.
Minor editing of English language required
