Maximizing Grains While Minimizing Yield-Scaled Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Wheat Production in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this paper provides a good summary of the need for the research the methods used, and conclusions drawn from the research. However, a few edits would improve the manuscript.  I will highlight page and line numbers here.

Abstract - minor English errors

Abstract line 23; from the paper, these yields are actual empirical data, not simulated, correct?  This should be clarified.  Then the empirical data was used to estimate the GHG emissions relative to yield.

pg 2 line 85 refers to Fig. S1, which now seems to be Fig. 1

pg 2 line 93 they hypothesis (called "conjecture?")  is only related to N rate and "productivity" of the soil."  This might also be related to organic matter content.  In hindsight, this should have been included in the experimental methods.  For now, add it to the introduction, discussion and conclusions.  If the data exists from these research plots, it should be added to the study.

pg 4 line 151; please add details about who supervised the application of fertilizer levels to the plots, who harvested the plots and collected the data?  Did farmers do this?  Extension collaborators?  This information tells us a little more about the quality of the data.

Lines 173, 174, 175 - the equations show us how you calculate emmisions due to N.  However, they don't show us the CO2 equivalents that are presented in Table S1. Can you add that to these equations, and/or add one or two N rate examples to  Table S1, so we can compare the effect of different N rates to the other inputs?

Page 5 line 188 - you tell us that the CO2 equivalent is in Table S2, but I can only see the model parameter estimates.  The actual CO2 equivalent isn't clear.  Also this table, and many others need to be formatted on "landscape" layout to be read.  The pdf version that I got had many unreadable tables.

Lines 205 to 211 - this is an exact repeat of lines 191-200 above and can be deleted. Please proof-read manuscripts better before submission.

Lines 213 and 214 are also a repeat of lines 215 and 216.  Again, proofread and delete one of the repetitions.

Line 220 says "data not shown," but some of it is in Table S2?  Please clarify, and if possible, include the data if it isn't there now.

Line 223 "Subsection" should be used for your sub-sub-section. For example, line 224 should start out as 3.1, not 3.1.1.

pg 6 line 237 states "using establish models...." but nothing is cited.  Add citation here.

line 243 heading number should be 3.2, not 3.1.2.

pg 7 Table 1 is not complete on my copy, because it needs landscape format.

pg 8 Fig. 2; spell out "RNR."  Figure and Table captions need to be complete without referring back to the text.

Table 2 - also, I couldn't read all the columns on this table due to formatting issue.

pg 11, paragraph starting line 432 - also discuss the role of soil organic matter and soil productivity.

pg. 13 Table S1 and Table S2 both need landscape format for me to read them.

line 472 - I think the normal protocol would be for the "references for appendix A" to be added to the normal list of references cited, and not separated out.  I'll leave that decision to the journal editor however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English in general is fine.  There were some English errors in the abstract, and also in the discussion section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

     Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Our response to your comments are listed one by one in the Word.

 

Kind regards,

Qi Miao

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English language requires deep correction. In its current form it is quite difficult to understand. Some descriptions need to be simplified to make them more understandable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

     Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Our response to your comments are listed one by one in the Word.

 

Kind regards,

Qi Miao

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript reports a research conducted on three different ecologies, irrigated, rainfed with no moisture stress, rainfed with stress of water with 4 N rates. The of estimating GHG under different soil and crop productivity levels is really innovative. The experiment was replicated in a large number of locations. There were 2293 experimental sites. Generally, the research is conducted following standard procedures. However, what you mean by cumulative temperatures, amounting to more than 3000 degree Celsius. Please clarify. Also, there are some typos which need to be addresses. Overall, it is an interesting work.  I have done some corrections in pdf. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language is standard, but many places sentences can be shortened. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

  Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made revisions to the manuscript based on the comments of all reviewers. Please review the manuscript again and provide valuable feedback.

 

Yours sincerely，

Qi Miao

 

Reviewer 4 Report

In my opinion, the study is interesting. However, it needs improvements. The weaker side of the study is the lengthiness of the argument. Therefore, I propose that the Authors discuss step by step what and how it will be implemented in the introduction. I suggest developing a research procedure scheme. This will be more understandable to readers. In the methodology, I propose to indicate the advantages and limitations of the adopted research procedure. I suggest justifying the choice of research approach. In the final conclusion, formulate a sentence on the acceptance or rejection of the research hypothesis formulated in the introduction. The conclusions should be extended by mentioning directions for further research. Moreover, the conclusions should be supported by the analysis carried out. It is worth mentioning the methods used. I propose that the conclusions be supported by the research objective specified at the beginning of the study.

In the content, the Authors mention Figure S1 (line 90), but I don't see it in the article. The authors appear to have referred to Figure 1.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

      Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made revisions to the article based on the comments of all reviewers. Please refer to the attachment for your response to your comments.

 

Yours sincerely,

Qi Miao

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for responding to all my comments. I wish you good luck in your scientific work.

 

Kind regards

Reviewer

Reviewer 4 Report

I don't have any additional suggestions. The Authors responded to the comments and made appropriate additions.