Grain Yield, Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Antioxidant Enzymes of Rice under Different Fertilizer N Inputs and Planting Density

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research is important and has scientific merit, but some changes are needed before publication.
It is necessary for authors to change the form of statistical analysis and description of results, in relation to the analysis between the years of evaluation.
In the PDF document, specific suggestions were pointed out, which should be made in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Line 18: Different N source or dose? The keyword cannot appear in the title.
Response: It should be different quantities of nitrogen application, and we modified it in the revised MS.

Line 32-34: Affirm what is best.
Response: We gave a best suggestion from a comprehensive consideration of grain yield and N use efficiency in the revised MS.

Line 38: The keyword cannot appear in the title.
Response: We associated the key words with the title in the revised MS.

Line 40: It is necessary for the authors to specify the study environment, for better detailing of the results, as it is very specific to the study region.
Response: Yes, cultivation experiment very relies on study environment. We have added some detailed information such as environmental changes caused by nitrogen fertilizer and planting density in Introduction section, a detailed introduction of study environment in Material methods section. Effects of environment (year) and environment interactions by nitrogen fertilizer and
planting density on the tested traits were also incorporated in the Results and Discussion sections.

Line 58: Which are they? Were they studied here?
Response: We revised the statement of this sentence in the manuscript.

Line 90: And the years?
Response: We added information of years in the revised MS.

Line 91: What kind of environment? Soil, climate, ...
Response: The experimental environment and the soil and climate of the experimental location are described in the material and methods.

Line 111: And the years? Authors need to review this fact.
Response: We have added the years information in the revised MS.
Line 118: It was not necessary to apply other nutrients? Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Micronutrients?check the font and size.
Response: Yes, soil in our experimental site (Jingzhou of Hubie province) is not short of micronutrients. So, we don’t need to consider these micronutrients in our experiment design. The font and size have been checked.

Line 145: Check the font and size.
Response: We have checked and corrected the font and size in the revised MS.

Line 155: Inserts the mathematical model used in the statistical analysis.And the years of evaluation? Didn't they have an effect?
Response: We have inserted the mathematical model used in the manuscript.

Line 159: The statistical analysis took into account the years of cultivation. This fact needs to be reported throughout the document: title, objective, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.
Response: We evaluated the impact of the year and its interactions with other factors (N application and planting density) on the tested traits throughout the revised manuscript.

Line 162: And the years of evaluation? Didn't they have an effect?
Response: We evaluated effect of years on performance of tested traits and showed the effect in Tables and text in the revised MS.

Line 172: The statistical analysis took into account the years of cultivation. This fact needs to be reported throughout the document: title, objective, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.
Response: We evaluated the impact of the year and its interactions with other factors (N application and planting density) on the tested traits throughout the revised manuscript.

Line 175: If an interaction analysis was performed, the data are presented incorrectly. And the years?
Response: We presented the interaction effects on the tested traits in Tables and text in the revised MS.

Line 186: To check.
Response: This is our mistake, we have deleted it in the manuscript.
Line 207: In interaction analysis, data must be presented differently.
Response: We presented the interaction effects on the tested traits in Tables and text in the revised MS.

Line 218: Authors have to enter actual P values into tables.
Response: We used *, **, *** and ns in the Tables to show significant levels.

Line 221: The years of evaluation were analyzed and at no time were discussed.
Authors need to review this.
Response: We have supplemented this part of analyses and incorporated the results into sections of Results and Discussion in the revised manuscript.

Line 286: And the years?Authors need to review this fact.
Response: We have added the description of the year to the results and conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the paper is well written, well organised and the experimental procedures appear sound. I believe that the studies were analysed appropriately. Also, the study has novel aspects and is in an area appropriate for publication in Agronomy. However, there are quite a few “minor” points which need to be addressed:

 

L176-177: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 3.

L181-182: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 3.

L191-193: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 4.

L199-201: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 4.

In table 4 add the meaning of the abbreviations.

L206-217: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 5.

In table 5 add the meaning of the abbreviations.

 

Author Response

Line 176-177: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 3.
Response: This is our mistake and has been revised in the revised MS.

Line 181-182: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 3.
Response: The description of the error has been removed in the revised MS.

Line 191-193: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 4.
Response: We have modified it and added relevant descriptions in the revised MS.

Line 199-201: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 4. In table 4 add the meaning of the abbreviations.
Response: We have revised the relevant text in the manuscript. The meanings of abbreviations are added in Table 4 in the revised MS.

Line 206-217: Present the results based on the test of means (lower case) in table 5. In table 5 add the meaning of the abbreviations.
Response: This is our mistake and we have revised it in the manuscript. The meanings of abbreviations are added in Table 5 in the revised MS.

Reviewer 3 Report

agronomy-1494822

 General comments

The experiments to collect these data were designed and conducted properly and the manuscript is well written and delivers useful information.

 

Specific comments

L18: for consistency, please specify N rate of N0 using the same format than N1 and N2.

L21: I recommend to write “High compared to low density planting….” Instead of what it is written.

L224: “…provide more data…”?, I would say provide more insights or knowledge to justify such an expensive study.

L235: either there should be a period (.) before “thus” or “thus” should be lower case. instead of days.

Author Response

Line 18: For consistency, please specify N rate of N0 using the same format than N1 and N2.
Response: We have specified N rate of N0 using the same format than N1 and N2 in the revised MS.

Line 21: I recommend to write “High compared to low density planting….” Instead of what it is written.
Response: Thank you for your valuable advice, we have revised it in the revised MS.

Line 224: “…provide more data…”?, I would say provide more insights or knowledge to justify such an expensive study.
Response: Thank you for your valuable advice, we have revised it in the revised MS.

Line 235: Either there should be a period (.) before “thus” or “thus” should be lower case. instead of days.
Response: This is our mistake, we have revised it in the revised MS.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors and editor,

The changes made were sufficient for publication of the article.
I am in favor of publishing the article as presented.

Best Regards,