The Fate and Balance of Nitrogen on a Sloped Peanut Field on Red Soil
, Jichao Zuo 1,3, Shiyu Liu 2 and Jinhua Cheng 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
45 row and can remove from soil to environment - the sentence is unclear
Used chemical methods are not cited - For example which methods are used for TN, N min, N hydrolysable determination@
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for spending time reviewing our manuscript and providing us with very important comments. We have made improvements according to your opinions, and all the changed sections are marked.
- 45 row--and can remove from soil to environment - the sentence is unclear
Reply: What we’re trying to say is that the fertilizer N can be removed from the soil to rivers, the atmosphere, and the soil in another place by erosion, leakage, NXO emission, NH3 emission, and other pathways. The original description does have some problems, so we delete the word “environment” at 60 row.
- Used chemical methods are not cited - For example which methods are used for TN, N min, N hydrolysable determination@
Reply: We are so grateful to get your suggestion. Nmin was calculated by subtraction method at 197-201 row (Ding et al, 2015). According to 《Soil Agrochemical Analysis Method》(142 row), we examined the relevant indicators of the soil according to Lu (2000) at 158 row. We tested the relevant indexes of water samples（such as TN） by referring to the methods of Guo et al (2018)(165 row). Other methods have been cited in the original manuscript(171 row).
- Ding, Y.; Yang, X.; Tong, Y A.; Han, Z.; Chen, C.; Tang, X. Characteristics of N leaching and apparent N budget in cultivated lands under a winter wheat-summer maize rotation system, Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae 2015, 35, (6), 1914-1921.
- Lu, R. Soil agrochemical analysis method. China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000, pp 146–195
- Guo, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Chen, L. Effects of different fertilization modes on nitrogen loss by surface runoff and the apparent nitrogen balance in the vegetable fields of Taihu Lake region, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 2018, 32(4), 37-42, 50.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors have filled each chapter with pertinent and satisfactory data and information, so I recommend publishing the article in its revised form.
Author Response
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. It’s really a great honor for us to get the affirmative from you. We wish you a happy life.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The author has taken considerable care in writing the article. It is also very interesting in terms of subject matter. Most importantly, this research work has been done in the field and multiplies its value. The following tips will improve it. 1- The title is too long. 2- The results in the abstract section should be shorter. 3- At the end of the introduction, an innovation should be presented. 4- Summarizing the review of sources, the introduction part is forgotten. 5- Provide more detailed goals. 6- Provide more pictures of the Sabbath under study. 7- Remove the naming of the contents in section 2.2.3. 8- In the results section, short tables should be merged.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thanks very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. I appreciate all your comments and suggestions. We have made improvements according to your opinions, and all the changed sections are marked. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript "agronomy-1918461" should be reconsidered for re-evaluation after major corrections. In this study, the authors have tried to establish the effect caused on N concentration by crop slope, at different seasonality. The summary sections are generally good. The introductory section should introduce the reader more to the problem of N loss and contamination, as well as make comparisons with other similar types of studies or with other crops, and the statistical hypothesis of the study should be stated. The methodology section requires the establishment in greater detail of all parameters measured during the study, as well as their references. Statistical analyses are conspicuous by their absence; they should be described in detail. The results and discussion section complies with the presentation of the results; however, it is necessary to increase the discussion of the results, as well as to correct errors in the tables, as well as contradictions between the discussion and the results. Comments and suggestions should be addressed by the authors before the manuscript is considered suitable for publication. Comments and suggestions should be set out below:
- L12-16. The region where the study was conducted is not stated.
- L16. The experimental design implemented is not mentioned.
- L21. The meaning of TN is not stated.
- L22. The meaning of the acronym V is not stated.
- L33. The acronym N used for Nitrogen, has been previously used in the abstract section, it is necessary to use it from the indicated section.
- L38. The acronym for Nitrogen should be used throughout the text.
- Introduction. It is necessary to go deeper into the problems related to the overuse of fertilizers and their underutilization by crops.
- L67-80. This paragraph should be the first in the introduction section.
- L116-119. It is recommended to use acronyms for properties.
- L130-131. It is not clear the fertilization percentages used, they are based on what?
- 141-149. There is some reference for this methodology section.
- L158-164. The methodology used needs to be further developed.
- L165-170. Reference would be missing.
- L212-214. No reference is made to the normality tests used to analyze the data. In addition, it is not clear whether the experimental units were analyzed in a paired manner or not? The post hoc test performed is not stated.
- L212-214. Why was time not taken into consideration in your analysis of variance?
- L234. NT was already used as an acronym, as was CF.
- L263. You are referring to Table 5, right?
- L267. Table 5 is not there.
- L279-292. The information placed in these two paragraphs is already present in Table 7. It is not necessary to place it.
- L322. It is necessary to revise the numbering of the tables in the text.
- L340. There is no reference in this statement.
- L344-345. If time is one of the main factors involved in N losses, why was it not considered in the analysis of variance?
- L375-377. It is still stated that the process that generates the greatest N loss is erosion, however, in Table 8, it is stated that other processes such as nitrification, denitrification and loss by volatilization generate more than 40% of the losses.
- L394-395. The meaning of type V water was never mentioned in the text.
- Discussion. Many data are handled, it is necessary to refer to the tables where these data are found.
In general, the references are very old; it is recommended that more current studies be used.
I look forward to reading the revised version of this study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We are so appreciating for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. The comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have carefully reviewed the suggested studies. Insights from these studies have been integrated into our research with proper references. Kindly refer to the revised manuscript for details. We have summarized problems into four types and made a correction which hopes to meet with approval. For your convenience, we have numbered your suggestions, and in parenthesis for each reply is the number of the corresponding suggestion. All changed sections are marked. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript "agronomy-1918461" should be reconsidered for re-evaluation after minor corrections. In this study, the authors have tried to establish the effect caused on N concentration by crop slope at different seasonalities. The abstract sections have been improved. The introductory section was improved. The methodology section was specified and referenced; however, information on normality analysis should be added to the statistical section. The results section complies with the presentation of the results. The discussion section was expanded. In addition to the above, practically all the recommendations of the observations made by the previous review were covered, as well as the appearance of new observations due to modifications made by the authors. The observations and suggestions are presented below:
Modifications not made
- L250-258. No reference is made to the normality tests used to analyze the data.
Changes made
- L12-16. The region where the study was conducted is not stated.
- L17. The modification was made
- L16. The experimental design implemented is not mentioned.
- L14. The modification was made
- L21. The meaning of TN is not stated.
- L23. The modification was made
- L22. The meaning of the acronym V is not stated.
- L24. The modification was made
- L33. The acronym N used for Nitrogen, has been previously used in the abstract section, it is necessary to use it from the indicated section.
- L. The modification was made
- L38. The acronym for Nitrogen should be used throughout the text.
- L. The modification was made
- Introduction. It is necessary to go deeper into the problems related to the overuse of fertilizers and their underutilization by crops.
- The introduction section was improved
- L67-80. This paragraph should be the first in the introduction section.
- L33-57. The modification was made
- L116-119. It is recommended to use acronyms for properties.
- L155-156. The modification was made
- L130-131. It is not clear the fertilization percentages used, they are based on what?
- L170-174. The modification was made
- 141-149. There is some reference for this methodology section.
- L158-164. The methodology used needs to be further developed.
- L165-170. Reference would be missing.
-. The modification was made
- L212-214. Why was time not taken into consideration in your analysis of variance?
- Table 1. The modification was made
- L234. NT was already used as an acronym, as was CF.
-. The modification was made
- L263. You are referring to Table 5, right?
-. L310. The modification was made
- L267. Table 5 is not there.
-. Table 5. The modification was made
- L279-292. The information placed in these two paragraphs is already present in Table 7. It is not necessary to place it.
-. L326-339. The modification was made
- L322. It is necessary to revise the numbering of the tables in the text.
-. The modification was made
- L340. There is no reference in this statement.
-. L.398 The modification was made
- L344-345. If time is one of the main factors involved in N losses, why was it not considered in the analysis of variance?
-. The modification was made
- L375-377. It is still stated that the process that generates the greatest N loss is erosion, however, in Table 8, it is stated that other processes such as nitrification, denitrification and loss by volatilization generate more than 40% of the losses.
-. The modification was made
- L394-395. The meaning of type V water was never mentioned in the text.
- L454. The modification was made
- Discussion. Many data are handled, it is necessary to refer to the tables where these data are found.
- L378, 391, 403, 436,450 and 460. The modification was made
In general, the references are very old; it is recommended that more current studies be used.
-. The modification was made
Other modifications
- L12. Place space between nitrogen and (N).
- L123. Place space between N loss and (2).
- L196-202. Revise the way nitrogen compounds are stated throughout the text.
- L256. Statistical package reference
- Why anova and post hoc analyses were not performed on Table 7?
I look forward to reading the revised version of this study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thanks very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. I appreciate all your comments and suggestions. We have made improvements according to your opinions, and all the changed sections are marked.
Point 1: L12. Place space between nitrogen and (N).
Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistake. We have place space between nitrogen and (N).
Point 2: L123. Place space between N loss and (2).
Response 2: Thank you very much. We have place space between N loss and (2).
Point 3: L196-202. Revise the way nitrogen compounds are stated throughout the text.
Response 3: According to your suggestion, we have revised the way that nitrogen compounds were stated at L193-202.
Point 4: L256. Statistical package reference
Response 4: Thanks a lot, we have added the reference [1] about statistical package at L502. The serial numbers of references have been updated.
- Felipe, D.; Reinhard, S.;. Agricolae- Ten years of an open source statistical tool for experiments in breeding, agriculture and biology, PeerJ PrePrints 2015, 3, (e), 1404.
Point 5: Why anova and post hoc analyses were not performed on Table 7?
Response 5: The main purpose of this table is to show the state of N balance in peanut growing period. The emphasis of this paper is not on the comparison of nitrogen losses between CF and NF. We want to use the subtraction method to calculate the amount of fertilizer N losses through different ways. Meanwhile, the ANOVA analyses about N surface runoff loss, N sediment loss, and N leaching loss were performed on Table 2, 4, and 6. So anova and post hoc analyses were not performed on Table 7.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper mainly deals with the evaluation of N losses both by leaching and runoff in a lysimeter trial on a sloped soil. Although the topic is relevant, the literature is abundant, and the paper does not add significant novelties to the state of the art.
In addition, as thoroughly described in the M&M section, the main bias of the paper lies on the fact that the research has been carried out in lysimeters whose soil profiles have been reconstructed by sieving the surface soil layers of the surrounding area. This represents a major weakness, particularly in leaching and runoff studies, where soil manipulation is expected to affect significantly both physical (e.g. soil permeability and structure) and chemical (mineralization, and related mineral N availability) soil traits. Therefore, the comparison between treatments is questionable, and the results by far cannot be considered as representative of field conditions.
Many other points reduce the scientific soundness of the paper:
- as peanut is a legume, therefore taking advantage from symbiotic N fixation, it is rather surprising that it has been fertilized with more than 150 kg/ha of N, introducing a significant issue in N balance;
- it is not clear weather the research has been carried out in 2018 in the same lysimeters of 2017, as the physical and chemical properties of the soil are rather different (see Table 1);
- very poor information on statistical treatment of data is provided: does the analysis has been carried out separately for the two years? What do the values after the ± symbol in tables represent? Which was the statistical test used for mean separation?
- no data on plant growth traits other than N content are provided;
- some assumptions (e.g. atmospheric nitrogen deposition, biological nitrogen fixation, and nitrogen input in irrigation water were equivalent to the background loss of soil nitrogen without fertilization) as well as N balance hypothesis (e.g., null gaseous losses, etc.) are questionable, as they do not consider unaccounted issues of the balance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Table 1. Some unexplained differences exists between 2 years. It is better to have data only for the 1st year. Parameters shown in table could not change so quickly.
2.2.3. Observation items and methods - All applied methods must be cited by article or book
141 row - collected in plastic bags and dried through - I think that dried must be changed by sieved
231 row and all other rows containing DTN - DTN include N-NO3, N-NH4 and N organic soluble in water. It must be mentioned. Always a difference remain unexplained. N org ws must be included in the text.
In table 8 and figure 2 some data exists in the text which is not shown in the table. Maybe they must be included in separate column.
In table 8 for example is mentioned Nitrogen mineralization. In the first year it include the nitrogen fixed from the atmosphere which is not measured and accounted but is real. In the second year it include the nitrogen fixed from the atmosphere and the nitrogen from fertilizers immobilized in the soil organic matter which is not measured and accounted but is real, too.
Such data could be obtained by the 15N labeled fertilisers application which is not previewed in this study. But it must be listed as nitrogen source.
It must be included in the text everywhere it is needed as well in Conclusions.
The lysimeters are well constructed and will be a good base for enlarging such studies with isotopic nitrogen, for example.
Reviewer 3 Report
The relevance of the article consists in the economic importance of the peanut crop in the world, China being the most important peanut grower. The regulation suggestions to reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers, come in support of the environmental protection philosophy, which seems to be embraced more and more by China and the entire world.
