Source–Sink Balance Optimization Depends on Soil Nitrogen Condition So as to Increase Rice Yield and N Use Efficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting topic with a three-year field experiment; however, the presentation of this manuscript cannot show the connections of this study with previous studies, the significance of this study, or the implications for future studies. A major revision may be considered to improve the presentation of this study, and detailed comments are listed as follows:

1.     Line 67-68, if the sink size is defined as a panicle size, what is the definition of a source?

2.     Line 75, the "spikelets to leaf area" ratio should be explained in detail. Are there any other references that use this ratio to examine the source-sink relationship in rice?

3.     Line 80-84, nitrogen fertilizer input does not equal the nitrogen uptake by the rice plants. How is nitrogen uptake measured?

4.     Line 88-90, any references to support this statement?

5.     Line 109-112, please specify whether the mean temperature is for the daytime or for the entire 24 hours.

6.     Why the experimental design was different in 2018 from the first two years?

7.     As this experiment was conducted from 2016 to 2018, are there any publications describing the experimental site and related studies?

8.     The temperature was higher in 2018 than it was in 2016 and 2017, while the precipitation was the smallest, which may induce variations in the canopy temperature in the rice field, affecting the grain yield as well as biomass allocation among organs in rice plants. For the statistical analysis, was the year's effect considered?

9.     The manuscript is not well structured, especially the discussion of the results obtained from a three-field experiment, which is obviously not enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am not really satisfied with material method section. The experimental design is not clear and randomly presented from line 114 till 145. Followed by analysis of different parameters, which are very roughly written without any references and without any information and mixed up manners.

The discussion and conclusion both the sections are very weak and need significant improvement. Discussion is lacking references. Please prove your results in the light of other refered works already being done. 

Conclusion section is not in it write format. It doesn't seem conclusion from any angle. Conclusion shows the outcome of your work and shouldn't be story and repeated statements from results and discussion or abstract. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for this excelent manuscript.

I just have a few suggestions (highlighted in the attached pdf).

Good luck

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

“Source-sink balance optimization depends on soil nitrogen condition so as to increase rice yield and N use efficiency“

Since the revised version improved the manuscript and most of the comments were answered, I would like to suggest that the editors accept this manuscript with minor revisions.

1.     One of the original co-authors has been removed. Check the journal rules

2.     Check the word limit for the abstract of the journal

3.     Line 164-165, the number of spikelets includes empty, partially filled and filled spikelets? Why three 30g, or three 2g, is there a ratio among the three types of spikelets? It is better to clarify this in the manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has improved his/her work and I am satisfied with his/her responses.

Author Response

Thank you for your advice, I have checked English spell in the manuscript.