Exploring Optimal Cropping System to Improve the Water Use Efficiency and Soil Water Restoration after Lucerne-to-Crop Conversion in the Semiarid Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

 

SUMMARY

The paper addresses the research area related to Innovative Cropping Systems in the MDPI Agronomy journal. I believe that the target journal is an appropriate forum for this article. The goal of this research was to look at soil water recovery and economic returns when lucerne was converted to crops.

 

BROAD COMMENT

This study is of great importance for agricultural production in China. The Introduction section is well written with recent references. The methods were well described and in detail allowing a good understanding of the results of the study. I appreciate the fact that the authors conducted a long-term field experiment from October 2012 to October 2018. This allows taking into account the variability due to the spatial distribution of the crops and minimizing the errors arising from the experimental design. They discussed well the results of the study. However, I have some concerns about the different parts of the manuscript. I suggest a major revision to address a few issues. If the authors address carefully the comments, I’ll recommend publication of the manuscript in the journal.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

-       Lines 165-169: To conduct an ANOVA, a parametric statistical test, one should make sure that the data is normally and homogeneously distributed. Did you conduct normality and homogeneity tests on the data before the ANOVA? Please, do include this in the manuscript.

-       Lines 173-174; 196-197; 254-255: Tables 2, 3, 4: Instead of using a and b use * and ** to indicate this because you have already used a, b, c for the significance. It is confusing.

-       Lines 216-220; 239-244: The description of the labels a, b, c put on the graphs appear in the caption of Figure 3 and Figure 4.

-       Lines 216-220; 239-244: Make sure the scale of the x-axis is the same for all the graphs in Figure 3: that is 0.6 to 13 g/kg.

-       Lines 239-244: Make sure the scale of the x-axis is the same for all the graphs in Figure 4: that is 0 to 300 mg/kg.

-       Lines 302-336: Discussion: the authors should avoid using the same references used in the introduction section, and the discussion section. Do consider using additional references to discuss in-depth the findings of the study.

 

-       The authors failed to put the implications of the findings of the study for crop production in China in the conclusion and abstract sections. Please, do include that. 

Author Response

Dear Ms. Zoe Xu, Thank you very much for your letter on 1 August 2022 regarding manuscript (agronomy-1816399)“ Exploring optimal cropping system to improve the water use efficiency and soil water restoration after lucerne-to-crop con-version in the semiarid environment.” We are grateful to you and the reviewers for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions for improving this manuscript. Based on those comments and suggestions, we carefully revised the original manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your journal’s standards for publication. However, we are open to addressing further questions or suggestions that may arise from this revision. Thank you for your time and help with this manuscript. Our detailed point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are below. Revisions to the original version of the manuscript are shown with track changes. The line numbers listed in our responses below are those in the revised version of the manuscript with track changes showing. Reviewer 1: • 1. Lines 165-169: To conduct an ANOVA, a parametric statistical test, one should make sure that the data is normally and homogeneously distributed. Did you conduct normality and homogeneity tests on the data before the ANOVA? Please, do include this in the manuscript. Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation, which we have followed. We rewritten the section, in the revised version they read as follows (Lines 166-171): SAS software was used to do the analysis of variance (ANOVA) (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to conduct normality and homogeneity tests on the data before the ANOVA. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the distributions of data were a typical normal distribution (P < 0.05). Therefore, all data were statistically analyzed as a completely randomized design with four replications using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The significant differences be-tween the means were estimated at 95% confidence level using Fisher’s protected LSD test. • 2. Lines 173-174; 196-197; 254-255: Tables 2, 3, 4: Instead of using a and b use * and ** to indicate this because you have already used a, b, c for the significance. It is confusing? Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation, which we have followed. • 3. Lines 216-220; 239-244: The description of the labels a, b, c put on the graphs appear in the caption of Figure 3 and Figure 4. Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation, which we have followed. • 4. Lines 216-220; 239-244: Make sure the scale of the x-axis is the same for all the graphs in Figure 3: that is 0.6 to 13 g/kg. Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation. The value difference between the two indicators (Soil organic carbon vs. total nitrogen) is too large, so the same value cannot be used. • 5. Lines 239-244: Make sure the scale of the x-axis is the same for all the graphs in Figure 4: that is 0 to 300 mg/kg. Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation. Thank you for this observation. The value difference between the two indicators (Soil mineral nitrogen vs. available potassium) is too large, so the same value cannot be used. • 6. Lines 302-336: Discussion: the authors should avoid using the same references used in the introduction section, and the discussion section. Do consider using additional references to discuss in-depth the findings of the study. Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation, which we have followed. • 7. The authors failed to put the implications of the findings of the study for crop production in China in the conclusion and abstract sections. Please, do include that. Authors’ response: Thank you for this observation, which we have followed. • 3. Lines 216-220; 239-244: The description of the labels a, b, c put on the graphs appear in the caption of Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled “ Exploring optimal cropping system to improve the water use efficiency and soil water restoration after lucerne-to-crop conversion in the semiarid environment“. I find the idea interesting and in line with the aim of the journal. I have some concerns about the experimental setup to justify what the authors claim. Moreover, the rationale behind some of the data presented was not entirely clear. I also recommend to the authors improve their references by conducting a more extensive review of international literature. Particularly, the introduction statements are not supported by the references selected by the authors. The logic of some sentences is also questionable. Below is my point-to-point analysis of the manuscript.

 The abstract is not properly written, it should be crisp, it should contain an introduction aim hypothesis aim result, and conclusion. The introduction section is too long in the abstract; one line of the background of the study in the abstract attracts the reader the most. A connective link is missing between different sections. Also, the concluding part of the introduction is missing at the end of the introduction. The author should make the introduction section crisp and to the point related to research, which I don't find in the present form of the manuscript. 

My main concern with a manuscript is the statical test.
what is the value of n while calculating ANOVA? n Value (3) used in the manuscript is too few to examine the normal distribution of variables in the sample, however, the Shapiro-Wilk test is appropriate for samples from 3 to 5000 but for the lesser value of n it receives the non-normal distribution. Thus ANOVA which is a parametrical test is incorrect for such small samples.

 Error Bar

 

Secondly, the error bar in the figures are not properly explained it seems they correspond to standard deviation which does not make any sense, that is merely for decorative purposes. I highly recommend using a 95% confidence interval instead of a Standard deviation, in the error bar.

Author Response

Dear Ms. Zoe Xu,

 

Thank you very much for your letter on 1 August 2022 regarding manuscript (agronomy-1816399)“ Exploring optimal cropping system to improve the water use efficiency and soil water restoration after lucerne-to-crop con-version in the semiarid environment.” We are grateful to you and the reviewers for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions for improving this manuscript. Based on those comments and suggestions, we carefully revised the original manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your journal’s standards for publication. However, we are open to addressing further questions or suggestions that may arise from this revision.

Thank you for your time and help with this manuscript. Our detailed point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are below. Revisions to the original version of the manuscript are shown with track changes. The line numbers listed in our responses below are those in the revised version of the manuscript with track changes showing.

 

Reviewer 2:

• The abstract is not properly written, it should be crisp, it should contain an introduction aim hypothesis aim result, and conclusion. The introduction section is too long in the abstract; one line of the background of the study in the abstract attracts the reader the most. A connective link is missing between different sections. Also, the concluding part of the introduction is missing at the end of the introduction. The author should make the introduction section crisp and to the point related to research, which I don't find in the present form of the manuscript.

Authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion, which we have followed.

 

 

• My main concern with a manuscript is the statical test. what is the value of n while calculating ANOVA? n Value (3) used in the manuscript is too few to examine the normal distribution of variables in the sample, however, the Shapiro-Wilk test is appropriate for samples from 3 to 5000 but for the lesser value of n it receives the non-normal distribution. Thus ANOVA which is a parametrical test is incorrect for such small samples.

Authors’ response: We apologize for the lack of details on the ANOVA in the original manuscript. We rewrite the ANOVA process in detail.

 

SAS software was used to do the analysis of variance (ANOVA) (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to conduct normality and homogeneity tests on the data before the ANOVA. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the distributions of data were a typical normal distribution (P < 0.05). Therefore, all data were statistically analyzed as a completely randomized design with four replications using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The significant differences be-tween the means were estimated at 95% confidence level using Fisher’s protected LSD test.

 

• Secondly, the error bar in the figures are not properly explained it seems they correspond to standard deviation which does not make any sense, that is merely for decorative purposes. I highly recommend using a 95% confidence interval instead of a Standard deviation, in the error bar.

Authors’ response: Thank you for this suggestion, but we don't agree with you.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have undertaken a review of the manuscript (revised) as well as the attached author responses to the initial review. I am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors as they have addressed most, if not all, of my initial comments. Therefore, I do believe that the manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in Agronomy. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend accepting MS in its present form.