Effect of Foliar Application of Micronutrients and Fungicides on the Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Winter Wheat
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of micronutrients and/or fungicides on wheat yield. I suggest authors consider the following.
Novelty: These indices are used by many scholars before. The authors need to tell the readers how this study and the application of various indices in this study are different from previous similar studies.
English: Sentence structures are weird (Example, “Fungicide protection of winter wheat with fungicides affects the grain yield…”, “May was quite and June was dry”, “the second part of the season was less favorable because June was very dry and was July dry”, “The set of factors is treated as the sufficient condition” etc… ). The selection of nouns, adjectives, conjugations is also not correct. As a result, many sentences are very hard to understand. Substantial English editing (not only grammar but also sentence structure) is required for any further considerations.
Treatment used: The combined use of Cu+Mn looks problematic to me because it is confounding - either Cu is helping, or Mn is helping. What happens if we use only Cu or only Mn is largely unknown. Please clarify. Further, the majority of the fungicides are Cu-based. When the authors used Cu as a micronutrient and Cu as a fungicide, how did they adjust the right rate?
Statistics: Rather than *, **, ***, I suggest authors provide the actual P-values. As a rule of statistics, first, interaction effects (first 3-way, then 2-way) should be considered. If there is no interaction, then the main factor should be discussed.
Mean separation: The way authors compared means is not correct. As such means across treatment, combinations cannot be compared. For example, in Figure 2, N+Mi at 0 may be compared to N+P at 0, but N+Mi at 0 cannot be compared to N+P at 40. Each combination needs separate mean comparisons.
Use of indices: The authors should clarify the reason for using 11 indices in this study. Some of them do not look important compared to others. I suggest the authors only use the most important indices for this study.
Discussion: Many parts of the discussion look like “introduction”, a careful revision is needed.
Conclusion: The conclusion of the study should be re-written. Please focus on the important results and the implication of those results for improving wheat yield and/or conducting further research. I want to know the take-home message of this study. What is the unique finding of this study that makes this work different than similar previous studies?
Other: In figure 1, please use the second axis for precipitation so that it can still go along the x-axis (the inverted figure does not look good to me). L215? L125 Organic Carbon? L72 so-called? L58 root zone of the soil? L160 arranged I a two? L171 beginning of wheat vegetation? L170 up the N dose?
Author Response
Revision 1
Novelty: These indices are used by many scholars before. The authors need to tell the readers how this study and the application of various indices in this study are different from previous similar studies.
The reviewer's statement that the presented manuscript duplicates research to date is highly controversial. The number of scientific articles dealing with the problem of nitrogen effectiveness in terms of crop protection is small.
The authors clearly showed that:
- lack of plant protection, using fungicides leads to ineffective use of nitrogen at even medium rates;
2) micronutrients applied to wheat foliage cannot replace fungicides;3) the interaction of the fungicidal protection of wheat and micronutrients was revealed at a very high level of nitrogen fertilization, thus increasing its utilization (NUE), and in consequence the grain yield;4) the relationship between the fungicide protection of the wheat canopy and the number of grains per unit area (Grain density) with NUE and the grain yield was clearly related and demonstrated.
English: Sentence structures are weird (Example, “Fungicide protection of winter wheat with fungicides affects the grain yield…”, “May was quite and June was dry”, “the second part of the season was less favorable because June was very dry and was July dry”, “The set of factors is treated as the sufficient condition” etc… ). The selection of nouns, adjectives, conjugations is also not correct. As a result, many sentences are very hard to understand. Substantial English editing (not only grammar but also sentence structure) is required for any further considerations.
English has been substantially improved. The errors mentioned above appeared in the part of the description the meteorologcal conditions in which the technical terms in the footnotes to Table 2 were used.
Treatment used: The combined use of Cu+Mn looks problematic to me because it is confounding - either Cu is helping, or Mn is helping. What happens if we use only Cu or only Mn is largely unknown. Please clarify. Further, the majority of the fungicides are Cu-based. When the authors used Cu as a micronutrient and Cu as a fungicide, how did they adjust the right rate?
The amounts (doses) and dates of the micronutrients (Cu, Mn, Zn) used are within the recommendations for wheat, considering Poland, at least. In addition, there were no detected any symptoms of phytotoxicity just after application of the micronutrients mixture to wheat foliage. As shown in Table 1 the content of this set micronutrients in the soil was at the low or the medium level. Such a state of micronutrients availability for the plant means a high probability of its postive response, i.e. high yield.
Regarding the third question, I wouldlike to inform you about the fungicides used (Table 3). The active groups of the fungicides used in the study are classified as organic compounds. List below:
Capalo 337.5 SE is composed of:
- Fenpropimorph (a compound from morpholine group) - 200 g∙l-1 (19,49%)
- Epoxiconazole (a compound from triazole group) - 62,5 g∙l-1 (6,09%)
- Metrafenon (a compound from diphenyl ketone derivatives) - 75 g∙l-1 (7,31%)
Adexar Plus is composed of:
- Fluxapyroxad (a compound from carboxyamides group) - 41,6 g∙l-1 (3,98%)
- Epoxiconazole (a compound from triazole group) - 41,6 g∙l-1 (3,98%)
- Pyraclostrobin (a compound from strobilurin group) - 66,6 g∙l-1 (6,37%)
Osiris 65 EC
- Epoxiconazole (a compound from triazole group) - 37,5 g∙l-1 (3,7%)
- Metconazole(a compound from triazole group) - 27,5 g∙l-1 (2,7%)
Statistics: Rather than *, **, ***, I suggest authors provide the actual P-values. As a rule of statistics, first, interaction effects (first 3-way, then 2-way) should be considered. If there is no interaction, then the main factor should be discussed.
Mean separation: The way authors compared means is not correct. As such means across treatment, combinations cannot be compared. For example, in Figure 2, N+Mi at 0 may be compared to N+P at 0, but N+Mi at 0 cannot be compared to N+P at 40. Each combination needs separate mean comparisons.
The following answer applied to both of the above issues/questions. In most scientific articles, the notation type *, **, ** is accepted. There is no such suggestion in the instruction for Authors.The structure of the manuscript (tables, figures, appendics) fully complies with the given principle of a scientific article structure. The basis for the assessment of the range of experimental factors was related to the grain yield, which is the final indicator of the operation of the experimental factors. The grain yield (GY) significantly depended on the interaction of the fungicide protection (FP) and nitrogen rates, i.e. FP x N. This interaction is shown in Fig.2 and discussed with rules for the description of statistical results. All the observed regularities are summarized by appropriate regression models. The remaining studied features were discussed in relation to their weight of influence on the grain yield, which results from the correlation analysis. The first group of traits included kernel density and total biomass. The occurring dependencies-correlations (r) determined the level of detail in discussing these features.The condition FP x N was also met bya. GD and TGW (Table 4);b. NG and NHI (Table 5);c. PFP-N (Table 6). The key characteristics from the above list are shown in Figures 2, 3, 4. Others from this group have been discussed in the text.
Use of indices: The authors should clarify the reason for using 11 indices in this study. Some of them do not look important compared to others. I suggest the authors only use the most important indices for this study.
The discussed indices have been grouped into four groups of information:1) quantitative - basic (no 1-3);2) structural - nitrogen separation - NHI No. 4)3) nitrogen efficiencies as defined by Moll (1982) (5-7);4) nitrogen fertilization efficiency (8-11).The importance of individual indicators can be assessed after and not before the assessment of the obtained dependencies, which was done.
Discussion: Many parts of the discussion look like “introduction”, a careful revision is needed.
It has been deeply corrected.
Conclusion: The conclusion of the study should be re-written. Please focus on the important results and the implication of those results for improving wheat yield and/or conducting further research. I want to know the take-home message of this study. What is the unique finding of this study that makes this work different than similar previous studies?
It has been corrected.
The unique conclusion is that without fungicides there is no yield and nitrogen is unproductive. In this case, N ended up in the straw. In some cases the authors report that N left in the soil after wheat harvest is them leached (1 reference). Secondly, the interaction of fungicide protection and foliar-applied micronutrients was revealed by the increase in the number of grains, thus increasing the NUE.
Other: In figure 1, please use the second axis for precipitation so that it can still go along the x-axis (the inverted figure does not look good to me). L215? L125 Organic Carbon? L72 so-called? L58 root zone of the soil? L160 arranged I a two? L171 beginning of wheat vegetation? L170 up the N dose?
This type of graph for precipitation and temperature is found in dozens of published articles. Neither the reviewers nor the publishers denied this form of describing weather conditions. All other comments have been taken by into account and the relevant part of the text has been corrected.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript evaluates effect of foliar application of micronutrients and fungicides on winter wheat grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency indices. The project overall objectives and deliverables are not novel but three years of field data can add to the existing literature on the topic. The manuscript requires major revision though.
The manuscript lacks a statement of problem. What is the current problem this work is going to resolve with the hypothesis? This needs to be added to both abstract and introduction.
In the abstract, add the statement of problem first followed by your hypothesis.
It is really important for the authors to check the text for grammar and vocabulary. There are several grammatical/vocabulary flaws throughout the manuscript and needs to be corrected. I only mention a few of them here but there are ample and scattered throughout the text.
Line 160 delete “I” after arranged
Line 169-170 ad an “of” after “form”
Line 170, What do you mean by “up the N dose of …”
Line 174, what do you mean by “K in the dose of…”
Line 181 A single sample was first partitioning into… correct form is "was first partitioned into…" should use passive not gerund form here
Line 421, in spite the use of micronutrients…
These are only a few examples but there are many more in the text that should be corrected.
Other revisions required:
Table 1 materials and method. Clearly separate by growing seasons
Line 183 Add reference for kjeldahl procedure
Add references for regression models
Add references for all of the calculated parameters in page 5-7
Line 228, what do you mean by grain yield structure?
Tables 4, 5 and 6, Only the means of main effects are presented. In addition to the main effects provide means of significant interactions in a separate table.
Significant interactions are more important than single effects. Discuss interactions in the results section as well as the discussion.
Conclusion is simply repeating the results. Try to make it shorter and provide a broader image of what is important in wheat management when it comes to disease and nutrients, applicability of this practice, adoption and barriers to adoption, and the need for further research.
Author Response
Revision 2
The manuscript evaluates effect of foliar application of micronutrients and fungicides on winter wheat grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency indices. The project overall objectives and deliverables are not novel but three years of field data can add to the existing literature on the topic. The manuscript requires major revision though.
A manuscript has been deeply corrected following your suggestions.
The manuscript lacks a statement of problem. What is the current problem this work is going to resolve with the hypothesis? This needs to be added to both abstract and introduction.
The hypothesis has been added to both the abstract and the introduction.
In the abstract, add the statement of problem first followed by your hypothesis.
It has been added.
It is really important for the authors to check the text for grammar and vocabulary. There are several grammatical/vocabulary flaws throughout the manuscript and needs to be corrected. I only mention a few of them here but there are ample and scattered throughout the text.
English has been substantially improved.
Line 160 delete “I” after arranged
It has been deleted.
Line 169-170 ad an “of” after “form”
It has been added.
Line 170, What do you mean by “up the N dose of …”
The phrase "up to the N dose of" referred to the supplementation of nitrogen doses according to the experimental design.
Line 174, what do you mean by “K in the dose of…”
It has been corrected as shown below.
Phosphorus was applied at the rate of 17.2 kg P ha-1 in the form of triple superphosphate (46% P2O5). Potassium was applied at the rate of 100 kg K ha-1 as Korn-Kali (K-MgO-Na2O-SO3 à 40-6-3-12.5). Both fertilizers were applied two weeks before wheat sowing.
Line 181 A single sample was first partitioning into… correct form is "was first partitioned into…" should use passive not gerund form here
It has been corrected.
Line 421, in spite the use of micronutrients…
It has been corrected.
These are only a few examples but there are many more in the text that should be corrected.
The entire text has been checked and has been corrected if necessary.
Other revisions required:
Table 1 materials and method. Clearly separate by growing seasons
For winter wheat, the growing season is approximately 300 days. In Poland, wheat is sown at the end of September the previous year and harvested in July the next year. Thus, the growing season covers part of two consecutive calendar years, fo example from September 2014 to July 2015.
Line 183 Add reference for kjeldahl procedurÄ™
It has been added
Add references for regression models
It has been added.
Add references for all of the calculated parameters in page 5-7
The calculated parameters basis on variosus authors, which were cited in the paper by Congreves [2021]. Consequently the only this paper is referenced.
Line 228, what do you mean by grain yield structure?
This general term refers to yield components such as: i) number of ears per unit area (ED, ears density), number of grains per ear (GR), iii) number of grains per unit area (GD, grain density = ED x GR), grain weight, l expressed as thousand grain weight (TGW). These yield components form the „grain yield structure”.
Tables 4, 5 and 6, Only the means of main effects are presented. In addition to the main effects provide means of significant interactions in a separate table.
Significant interactions are more important than single effects. Discuss interactions in the results section as well as the discussion.
The following answer applied to both of the above issues/questions. In most scientific articles, the notation type *, **, ** is accepted. There is no such suggestion in the instruction for Authors.The structure of the manuscript (tables, figures, appendics) fully complies with the given principle of a scientific article structure. The basis for the assessment of the range of experimental factors was related to the grain yield, which is the final indicator of the operation of the experimental factors. The grain yield (GY) significantly depended on the interaction of the fungicide protection (FP) and nitrogen rates, i.e. FP x N. This interaction is shown in Fig.2 and discussed with rules for the description of statistical results. All the observed regularities are summarized by appropriate regression models. The remaining studied features were discussed in relation to their weight of influence on the grain yield, which results from the correlation analysis. The first group of traits included kernel density and total biomass. The occurring dependencies-correlations (r) determined the level of detail in discussing these features.The condition FP x N was also met bya. GD and TGW (Table 4);b. NG and NHI (Table 5);c. PFP-N (Table 6). The key characteristics from the above list are shown in Figures 2, 3, 4. Others from this group have been discussed in the text.
Conclusion is simply repeating the results. Try to make it shorter and provide a broader image of what is important in wheat management when it comes to disease and nutrients, applicability of this practice, adoption and barriers to adoption, and the need for further research.
It has been corrected.The unique conclusion is that without fungicides there is no yield and nitrogen is unproductive. In this case, N ended up in the straw. In some cases the authors report that N left in the soil after wheat harvest is them leached (1 reference). Secondly, the interaction of fungicide protection and foliar-applied micronutrients was revealed by the increase in the number of grains, thus increasing the NUE.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to authors
The current study “Effect of foliar application of micronutrients and fungicides on the nitrogen use efficiency by winter wheat” was established to determine the interactive effect of fungicide application and nutrient use in winter wheat. The study was well designed and the results were well presented. However, I given below general and specific comments that may enrich this manuscript when taken into consideration.
General comments
- In the pre-plant nutrient analysis, the authors reported some residual soil nutrient concentration as in table 1. Did they adjust for the nutrient content during the time of fertilizer application given the fact that some considerable quantity was already in the soil? Please, you need to describe this under the materials and methods so the reader can depict how the experiment was performed.
- From figure A1, it is clear that nitrogen recovery was high in 2015 compared to 2014 and 2016. Why was this so? Can you try to explain this under your discussion while relating to previous and similar studies?
- Overall, the results discussion section is not literature rich. Results are presented very well but during the discussion, the findings are not backed up with robust literature. The authors need to relate their work to previous and yet similar studies. As it appears now, the discussion section is very similar to the result section as the former section is shallowly supported by literature.
Specific comments
L 3: Please, consider replacing the conjunction “by” in your title with “in”. So the title should read “Effect of foliar application of micronutrients and fungicides on the nitrogen use efficiency in winter wheat”
L 16: Remove the highlighted word “with fungicides”. It appears as a reputation in the sentence.
L 31: Please include scientific name in parenthesis the first time you mention a crop
L 33: As one of the biophysical factors, please include nutrient deficiency in addition to temperature and rainfall. This is because it is one of the main discussion point here
L 34, 38 and others with similar formatting, please use come. “…. [2,3]…..” but not semicolon “….[2;3]…” to separate the numbers of the reference listing when inside the in-text citation. Please remember that this should be corrected all through the manuscript.
L 35: Please split the sentence into two as suggested. “......in recent decades. However, their sensitivity to environmental.......”
L 46: Please split this into two sentences as suggested here "......period is relatively low. However, this...."
L 52: Delete “to”
L 148 &149: Please rewrite ...and July was dry.
L 151: Incomplete sentence “…quite?...”. Please check the highlighted word.
L 168: Change “decade” to “week”. Hope you meant the third week of September
L 170: Please use a more technical name for saltpeter such ammonium nitrate (34:0:0). Hopefully you used ammonium nitrate salt.
L 174: Re-write the sentence as ...Phosphorus was applied at the rate of 17.2 kg ha-1.....
L 181: Please check the grammar in this sentence in such as way that maintains the intended meaning of the sentence.
L 302: “average” instead of “averaged”
L 385: Add "respectively" after 2014
L 415: Replace the crossed words with “harsh”
L 416 and 417: Replace the crossed words with “with”
L 484: Please replace “in-deep” with “in-depth”
L 550: Delete “fungicide” as suggested in the manuscript
L 561: Delete the adjective “much much”
L 565: Consider rewriting the last sentence like this. "In light of this, fungicide protection of wheat should be considered as an agronomic measure that supports N use efficiency"
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Revision 3
General comments
- In the pre-plant nutrient analysis, the authors reported some residual soil nutrient concentration as in table 1. Did they adjust for the nutrient content during the time of fertilizer application given the fact that some considerable quantity was already in the soil? Please, you need to describe this under the materials and methods so the reader can depict how the experiment was performed.
As shown in Table 1 the content of this set micronutrients in the soil was at the low or the medium level. Such a state of micronutrients availability for the plant means a high probability of its postive response, i.e. high yield. No additional soil analysis is performer at the time of fertilization with micronutrients. Optionally, the phytotoxicity of the macronutrients used is determined.
The amounts (doses) and dates of the micronutrients (Cu, Mn, Zn) used are within the recommendations for wheat, considering Poland, at least. In addition, there were no detected any symptoms of phytotoxicity just after application of the micronutrients mixture to wheat foliage.
- From figure A1, it is clear that nitrogen recovery was high in 2015 compared to 2014 and 2016. Why was this so? Can you try to explain this under your discussion while relating to previous and similar studies?
The total amount of nitrogen accumulated in wheat biomass at harvest on the absolute control was: 2014: 125, 2015 - 142 and 2016 – 140 kg ha-1. The maximum consumption was 299, 419 and 310 kg N ha-1, respectively. The high mineralization potential of soil was not exploited by wheat. The main reason was a disturbance in the N partitioning between grain and vegetative tissues of wheat during the period responsible for the grain density (BBCH 40-59). The reduced grain density resulted in a lower absorption capacity of the expanding grains for N during the grain filling period.
- Overall, the results discussion section is not literature rich. Results are presented very well but during the discussion, the findings are not backed up with robust literature. The authors need to relate their work to previous and yet similar studies. As it appears now, the discussion section is very similar to the result section as the former section is shallowly supported by literature.
The discussion was significantly improved.
Specific comments
L 3: Please, consider replacing the conjunction “by” in your title with “in”. So the title should read “Effect of foliar application of micronutrients and fungicides on the nitrogen use efficiency in winter wheat”
It has been corrected.
L 16: Remove the highlighted word “with fungicides”. It appears as a reputation in the sentence.
It has been removed.
L 31: Please include scientific name in parenthesis the first time you mention a crop
It has been inluded.
L 33: As one of the biophysical factors, please include nutrient deficiency in addition to temperature and rainfall. This is because it is one of the main discussion point here
This part of the introduction has been enriched, taking into accout the reviewer’s suggestion. This part. Is supported by two additional references.
L 34, 38 and others with similar formatting, please use come. “…. [2,3]…..” but not semicolon “….[2;3]…” to separate the numbers of the reference listing when inside the in-text citation. Please remember that this should be corrected all through the manuscript.
It has been corrected throughout the manuscript.
L 35: Please split the sentence into two as suggested. “......in recent decades. However, their sensitivity to environmental.......”
It has been corrected.
L 46: Please split this into two sentences as suggested here "......period is relatively low. However, this...."
It has been corrected.
L 52: Delete “to”
It has been deleted.
L 148 &149: Please rewrite ...and July was dry.
L 151: Incomplete sentence “…quite?...”. Please check the highlighted word.
The errors mentioned above appeared in the part of the description the meteorologcal conditions in which the technical terms in the footnotes to Table 2 were used.
L 168: Change “decade” to “week”. Hope you meant the third week of September
It has been changed.
L 170: Please use a more technical name for saltpeter such ammonium nitrate (34:0:0). Hopefully you used ammonium nitrate salt.
It has been changed.
L 174: Re-write the sentence as ...Phosphorus was applied at the rate of 17.2 kg ha-1.....
Phosphorus was applied at the rate of 17.2 kg P ha-1 in the form of triple superphosphate (46% P2O5). Potassium was applied at the rate of 100 kg K ha-1 as Korn-Kali (K-MgO-Na2O-SO3 à 40-6-3-12.5). Both fertilizers were applied two weeks before wheat sowing.
L 181: Please check the grammar in this sentence in such as way that maintains the intended meaning of the sentence.
L 302: “average” instead of “averaged”
L 385: Add "respectively" after 2014
L 415: Replace the crossed words with “harsh”
L 416 and 417: Replace the crossed words with “with”
L 484: Please replace “in-deep” with “in-depth”
L 550: Delete “fungicide” as suggested in the manuscript
L 561: Delete the adjective “much much”
All the above-mentioned remarks have been taken into account and corrected in the text.
L 565: Consider rewriting the last sentence like this. "In light of this, fungicide protection of wheat should be considered as an agronomic measure that supports N use efficiency"
This part of the text has been corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made some improvements but still, there are a lot of places to improve; and I have indicated them in the comment section. There are several minor and major flaws, which should be addressed for any further consideration.
Author Response
Response 1
The authors made some improvements but still, there are a lot of places to improve; and I have indicated them in the comment section. There are several minor and major flaws, which should be addressed for any further consideration.
Please be advised that apart from the above note, I have not found the comment section. The entire article has been revised again and, if necessary, corrected.Language proofreading was performed by MDPI Authors Service. The certificate is attached.
On behalf of the Authors Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript evaluates effect of foliar application of micronutrients and fungicides.
Authors have done a good job making requested changes and addressing the concerns. However, there are minor revisions and major revisions required before publishing.
Minor revisions:
As I commented in the first revision, add references for all of the calculated parameters in page 6-7 of the revised manuscript.
In the authors’ response, they mention that “calculated parameters basis on various authors, which were cited in the paper by Congreves [2021] and thus only that paper is cited.”
This is not acceptable and doesn’t make sense, you can’t have a shortcut for citing calculated parameters. Each calculated parameter should be cited with its relevant reference, i.e. Moll et al (1982), Dobermann (2007) etc.
Major revisions:
Unfortunately, the text still suffers from grammatical flaws and lack of fluency, in some cases the text is cumbersome and hard to understand. A manuscript should be prepared in a way that the readers enjoy going through it rather than making them frustrated struggling with the sentences.
Just in less than a page I found the following flaws and this list of incorrect sentences could continue on and on and I’m just brining these as examples. This is not reviewers’ responsibility to spend time re-writing the sentences. I consider this revision authors’ last chance to improve the text as this can become frustrating should authors do not improve the manuscript.
Line 266
“Both models are only apparently (!?) the same, as indicated by the parameters of the equations obtained.”
This is a scientific note, what do you mean by only apparently the same?!
Line 243 there is no space between the period and “The yield increased…”
Line 243: what do you mean by “The yield increased in the order: N+Mi < N+P < N+Mi+P.”
It should be either “in this order:” or “in the order of…”
Line 248 The yield on the N+Mi object increased significantly to the N dose of 80 kg ha-1, and then continued its growth, but at a much slower rate.
Using growth rate for yield?
Line 258, The intersection of both lines gave a peak indicating a change in the actual rate of increase in the grain yield in response to the dose of N.
This is just hard to read and digest!
line 259 As indicated by the value of the direction coefficient, each dose of N fertilizer above 78.9 kg ha-1 resulted in a 10-fold reduction in the rate of increase in the yield compared to its rate below this value.
Same here!
Line 276 The straw yield in 2015 was 21% higher compared to 2016 and by 33.8% compared to the lowest, recorded in 2014.
And here
Line 277-The significant difference between the years resulted from the specific tendency of the harvest index (HI).
Specific tendency ?!
Line 300- The only thousand grain weight (TGW) responded significantly to experimental factors and years.
The only thousand grain weight? How many thousand grain weights were there in your study?
This language and grammar is not acceptable to be published in an accredited journal.
Author Response
Response 2 .
Authors have done a good job making requested changes and addressing the concerns. However, there are minor revisions and major revisions required before publishing.
Minor revisions:
As I commented in the first revision, add references for all of the calculated parameters in page 6-7 of the revised manuscript.
In the authors’ response, they mention that “calculated parameters basis on various authors, which were cited in the paper by Congreves [2021] and thus only that paper is cited.”
This is not acceptable and doesn’t make sense, you can’t have a shortcut for citing calculated parameters. Each calculated parameter should be cited with its relevant reference, i.e. Moll et al (1982), Dobermann (2007) etc.
There have been added the appropriate references:
Moll, R. H.; Kamprath, E. J.; and Jackson, W. A.. Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization. Agron. J. 1982, 74, 562–564.
Dobermann, A. Nitrogen use efficiency—State of the art. In Proceedings of the IFA International Workshop on Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers, Frankfurt, Germany, 28–30 June 2005; pp. 1–16.
Major revisions:
Unfortunately, the text still suffers from grammatical flaws and lack of fluency, in some cases the text is cumbersome and hard to understand. A manuscript should be prepared in a way that the readers enjoy going through it rather than making them frustrated struggling with the sentences.
Just in less than a page I found the following flaws and this list of incorrect sentences could continue on and on and I’m just brining these as examples. This is not reviewers’ responsibility to spend time re-writing the sentences. I consider this revision authors’ last chance to improve the text as this can become frustrating should authors do not improve the manuscript.
Line 266
“Both models are only apparently (!?) the same, as indicated by the parameters of the equations obtained.”
This is a scientific note, what do you mean by only apparently the same?!
It has been corrected.
Both models differ in the parameters of the equations obtained.
Line 243 there is no space between the period and “The yield increased…”
It has been corrected.
Line 243: what do you mean by “The yield increased in the order: N+Mi < N+P < N+Mi+P.”
It should be either “in this order:” or “in the order of…”
It has been added “of”.. .
Line 248 The yield on the N+Mi object increased significantly to the N dose of 80 kg ha-1, and then continued its growth, but at a much slower rate.
Using growth rate for yield?
This sentence sounds now as follows:
The yield on the N + Mi plot increased significantly to the N dose of 80 kg · ha-1, and then increased to the N dose of 240 kg ha-1, but to a lesser extent.
Line 258, The intersection of both lines gave a peak indicating a change in the actual rate of increase in the grain yield in response to the dose of N.
This is just hard to read and digest!
line 259 As indicated by the value of the direction coefficient, each dose of N fertilizer above 78.9 kg ha-1 resulted in a 10-fold reduction in the rate of increase in the yield compared to its rate below this value.
Same here!
For a linear function:y = ax + btwo constants are present:a and b.The constant "a", i.e. the direction coefficient, refers precisely to the degree of reaction to the change in the magnitude of the independent variable. This authorizes to use the term: “change in the rate”. In this case, it relates to a change in the productivity of 1.0 kg of applied fertilizer N. The value of the direction coefficient for the first equation was exactly 9.6-times greater that for the second. According to mathematical principles, by solving two linear equations, you get a common point, also called the point of intersection. It can also be called the peak, provided that this value is greater than the rest of the analyzed values in the data set. It has been corrected and sounds as follows:The intersection of both lines indicated a change in the productivity of the applied fertilizer N. As indicated by the value of the direction coefficient, each kg of N fertilizer above 78.9 kg ha-1 resulted in a 10-fold reduction in the productivity of N compared to its productivity below this value.
Line 276 The straw yield in 2015 was 21% higher compared to 2016 and by 33.8% compared to the lowest, recorded in 2014.
And here
Line 277-The significant difference between the years resulted from the specific tendency of the harvest index (HI).
Specific tendency ?!
This sentences has been changed. The current version looks like this:
The straw yield in 2015 was the highest. In comparison to 2016, it was higher by 21% and by as much as 33.8% in 2014, where it was the smallest. A significant difference between the years resulted from the seasonal variability of the harvest index (HI).Line 300- The only thousand grain weight (TGW) responded significantly to experimental factors and years.
The only thousand grain weight? How many thousand grain weights were there in your study?
Definition of Thousand Grain Weight . TGW is the weight, in grams, of 1,000 seeds/grains from a random sample.
This language and grammar is not acceptable to be published in an accredited journal.
Included is the MDPI Editorial Service Language Editing Certificate.
On behalf of the Authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have put much effort in revising the manuscript which is now in a better shape. May be next time, they will also have to write brief responses to reviewer querries, in addition to incorporating suggested changes into the manuscript.
Author Response
Response 3
The authors have put much effort in revising the manuscript which is now in a better shape. May be next time, they will also have to write brief responses to reviewer querries, in addition to incorporating suggested changes into the manuscript.
Thank you for your comment.
It may only seemingly seem that the question of the role of plant protection in relation to nitrogen management in crops has been solved. This issue will increase significantly, mainly due to the reduction in the number of organic fungicides (active substances).
On behalf of the Authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
