Next Article in Journal
Optimized Supply Chain Management of Rice in South Korea: Location–Allocation Model of Rice Production
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of the UAN Fertilizer Application on Quantitative and Qualitative Changes in Semi-Natural Grassland in Western Carpathians
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Assessing the Potential of Polymer Coated Urea and Sulphur Fertilization on Growth, Physiology, Yield, Oil Contents and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Sunflower Crop under Arid Environment

Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 269; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020269
by Sonia Perveen 1, Saeed Ahmad 2, Milan Skalicky 3, Ijaz Hussain 1, Muhammad Habibur-Rahman 2,4, Abdul Ghaffar 2, Muhammad Shafqat Bashir 5, Maria Batool 6, Montaser M. Hassan 7, Marian Brestic 3,8, Shah Fahad 9 and Ayman EL Sabagh 10,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 269; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020269
Submission received: 15 January 2021 / Revised: 25 January 2021 / Accepted: 27 January 2021 / Published: 31 January 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for Authors

„Assessing the potential of polymer coated urea and sulphur fertilization on growth, physiology, yield, oil contents and nitrogen use efficiency of sunflower crop under arid environment

The  subject is interesting and fall within the scope of the journal. The manuscript presented results of field experiment. The Authors examined  effects of polymer coated urea and sulphur fertilization on growth, physiology, yield, oil contents and nitrogen use efficiency of sunflower crop under arid environment. The experimental dataset undoubtedly are useful experiments and constitutes some scientific values. The scientific manuscript has scientific merit and quality to be considered, enabling great information for the scientific community.

The following points may be addressed by the Authors to enhance the usefulness of the paper.

The introduction part is well organized and the objectives described correspond to the work addressed.

Results

The description of the results was done correctly.

Discussion

The discussion of the results is usually done correctly. The repetition in the Discussion and Introduction chapter should be verified.

Conclusion

The presented conclusions are correct.

References

These references are not cited in the article:

Heydamezhad, F.; Shahimrokhsar, P.; Vahed, H.S.; Besharati, H. Influence of elemental sulphur and sulphur 389 oxidizing bacteria on some nutrient deficiency in calcareous soils. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2012, 4(12), 735-739. 390

Abilash, B.N. Effect of different sources and levels of sulphur on yield, sulphur uptake and quality of rainfed 391 sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). J. Pharmacognosy Phytochem. 2019, 8(5), 1385-1388.

Specific comments:

Lines 87-88 – coordinates should be improved

Line 101 – remove sulfur doses and complete the name of the sulfur-containing fertilizer

Line 109 – which phosphorus, potassium and sulfur fertilizers were used? (names). Why was this dose of potassium used?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1 

General comments

The subject is interesting and fall within the scope of the journal. The manuscript presented results of field experiment. The Authors examined effects of polymer coated urea and Sulphur fertilization on growth, physiology, yield, oil contents and nitrogen use efficiency of sunflower crop under arid environment. The experimental dataset undoubtedly are useful experiments and constitutes some scientific values. The scientific manuscript has scientific merit and quality to be considered, enabling great information for the scientific community.

The following points may be addressed by the Authors to enhance the usefulness of the paper.

The introduction part is well organized and the objectives described correspond to the work addressed.

Results

The description of the results was done correctly.

Discussion

The discussion of the results is usually done correctly. The repetition in the Discussion and Introduction chapter should be verified.

Conclusion

The presented conclusions are correct.

We are thankful to worthy reviewer for comments and especially good suggestion for the improvement of manuscript. Now, the extensive revision of the manuscript has been done while suggestion and comments have been incorporated as guided by the worthy reviewer.

  1. The repetition in the discussion and introduction chapter has also revised.
  2. Sentence structure, grammar, and short sentences are made as guided by the reviewer.
  3. We have also improved the writing style and language of the article. Article has also been edited for English language and grammar as guided.

Specific comments

Line #

Comment/suggestion

Response

 

These references are not cited in the article:

Heydamezhad, F.; Shahimrokhsar, P.; Vahed, H.S.; Besharati, H. Influence of elemental sulphur and sulphur 389 oxidizing bacteria on some nutrient deficiency in calcareous soils. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2012, 4(12), 735-739. 390

Abilash, B.N. Effect of different sources and levels of sulphur on yield, sulphur uptake and quality of rainfed 391 sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). J. Pharmacognosy Phytochem. 2019, 8(5), 1385-1388.

Thanks for correction. References have been revised.

87-88

coordinates should be improved

Thanks for correction. It has been revised.

101

remove sulfur doses and complete the name of the sulfur-containing fertilizer

Thanks for kind suggestion, it has been revised.

109

Which phosphorus, potassium and sulfur fertilizers were used? (Names). Why was this dose of potassium used?

It has been revised. As Potassium doses are already recommended so we used these.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 23 - Delete furthermore, instead use on the other hand.... 

Line 32 - were increased by .....

Line 33 What is PCU and CU. You need to write words completely first before using the acronym

Line 36 What is So?

Line 166 - Table 1: Make sure you indicate the meaning of all the abbreviations in the table. eg what is So?

Line 282 - The references need to be organized in alphabetical order. 

Talking about NUE, you need to reference this paper below.

Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production WR Raun, GV Johnson - Agronomy journal, 1999

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2

General comments

We are thankful to worthy reviewer for comments and especially good suggestion for the improvement of manuscript. Now, the extensive revision of the manuscript has been done while suggestion and comments have been incorporated as guided by the worthy reviewer.

  1. Sentence structure, grammar, and short sentences are made as guided by the reviewer.
  2. We have also improved the writing style and language of the article. Article has also been edited for English language and grammar as guided.

Specific comments

Line #

Comment/suggestion

Response

23

Delete furthermore, instead use on the other hand.... 

Thanks for correction. It has been revised.

32

were increased by.....

Thanks for correction. It has been revised.

33

What is PCU and CU. You need to write words completely first before using the acronym

Thanks for kind suggestion, it has been revised.

36

What is So?

It has been revised.

166

Table 1: Make sure you indicate the meaning of all the abbreviations in the table. e.g. what is So?

It has been revised.

282

The references need to be organized in alphabetical order. 

Organized according to Journal pattern

 

Talking about NUE, you need to reference this paper below.

Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production WR Raun, GV Johnson - Agronomy journal, 1999

It has been incorporated.

 

Back to TopTop