Year-Round Production of Cotton and Wheat or Rapeseed Regulated by Different Nitrogen Rates with Crop Straw Returning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the paper is relevant. Addresses nitrogen (N) fertilization and efficiency of systems involving cotton-wheat-rapeseed in several provinces of China, for several years. The data, if properly analyzed and discussed, can generate important information for the positioning of technologies (N doses, crop rotation...) in the region, in addition to contributing to the advancement/consolidation of knowledge on the subject. A large set of evaluations were carried out from the point of view of productive efficiency, land use and economic benefits. At the same time, the authors tried to give greater importance to the variation in the dose of N used as treatment. It should be understood that this made the work more complex and with less focus. Data from the different evaluations were presented and there is a lack of depth in the exploration of the results and in the discussion. The statistical approach needs to be revised and the results of the new analysis need to be considered in the other parts of the paper. It is considered more appropriate to use regression and not the comparison of means (Duncan’s multiple comparisons) for applied quantitative treatments. Through regression, it would be possible to establish the N dose of maximum technical efficiency and maximum economic efficiency. As shown, one dose (N1) is generally identified as lower and the others are accepted as higher, despite comments being made about increasing or decreasing trends without statistical support. Another issue that should be reviewed is the fact that the statistical analysis shown informs that there were interactions between treatments and these interactions are not addressed in the article, prioritizing the main effects. Also, statistical analyzes of land use efficiency estimates and economics are lacking. There is a lack of methodological details and information in the tables that need to be supplemented for a better understanding of the reader.

Author Response

We will make corresponding modifications based on the comments of the editor in chief, but regarding the application of statistical methods, in terms of economic benefits, we use averages. Due to the simplicity of the data, the difference is equal to the previous production data, and the relevant methods can be found in other documents. We hope that the editor will reconsider the application of the analysis method of averages.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors used the test of means for quantitative data, which is not indicated, especially when performing an economic analysis, since the maximum point is not detected, which makes it difficult to identify the maximum technical efficiency, as well as the maximum economic efficiency . In addition, throughout the text, they use N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 to refer to the nitrogen doses used, and if they describe their respective values, this would greatly facilitate the reader's understanding.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Quantitative data is derived from the variance analysis（Duncan’s multiple comparisons） results of production data. For the sake of brevity of the data table, it should be scientific and reasonable to directly use the average of production data. The maximum value appears in the column of the average. In the article, N1 and N5 are distinguished and explained in detail in the method, also for the sake of brevity of the article, so N1 was used instead.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

Line 25 please change 90 kg hm^–2 with 90 kg ha^-1 and later in all manuscript and in all Tables. We have use SI unit

Material and Methods

Generaly The authors should explain why they did not use the control without fertilization. It is a necessary object when calculating fertilization efficiency

Line 95 Figure. 1 Distribution of five experimental sites in Hubei Province Please ad one figure with map of VChina and localization experimental sites

Line 108 Authors should add what verietes of cotton was cultivated

Line 112 Authors should add what verietes of wheat was cultivated

Line 176 „2.7 yuan/kg, and the purchase price of rapeseed is 7 yuan/kg.„ In all manuscript Authors should use USD not Yuan. Please change it in all manuscript. Yuan is very important in China. In international trade, we sell goods in USD. It is all the more important that the authors used plants commonly cultivated in the USA and Europe, such as wheat, in their experiments. This also applies to economic calculations

 

Conclusion

When describing the relationships and referring them to the level of fertilization, the authors should add information about the amount of fertilizer doses in parentheses. e.g. N2-N5 (180 - 270 kg ha⁻¹)

Author Response

We agree with all the editorial changes regarding the format

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the paper is relevant. Addresses nitrogen (N) fertilization and efficiency of systems involving cotton-wheat-rapeseed in several provinces of China, for several years. The data, if properly analyzed and discussed, can generate important information for the positioning of technologies (N doses, crop rotation...) in the region, in addition to contributing to the advancement/consolidation of knowledge on the subject. A large set of evaluations were carried out from the point of view of productive efficiency, land use and economic benefits. At the same time, the authors tried to give greater importance to the variation in the dose of N used as treatment. It should be understood that this made the work more complex and with less focus. Data from the different evaluations were presented and there is a lack of depth in the exploration of the results and in the discussion. The statistical approach needs to be revised and the results of the new analysis need to be considered in the other parts of the paper. It is considered more appropriate to use regression and not the comparison of means (Duncan’s multiple comparisons) for applied quantitative treatments. Through regression, it would be possible to establish the N dose of maximum technical efficiency and maximum economic efficiency. As shown, one dose (N1) is generally identified as lower and the others are accepted as higher, despite comments being made about increasing or decreasing trends without statistical support. Another issue that should be reviewed is the fact that the statistical analysis shown informs that there were interactions between treatments and these interactions are not addressed in the article, prioritizing the main effects. Also, statistical analyzes of land use efficiency estimates and economics are lacking. There is a lack of methodological details and information in the tables that need to be supplemented for a better understanding of the reader.

Author Response

There are many references to the application of Duncan multiple comparison method in agricultural field experiments, and I have also referred to many previous analysis methods for data processing. I have initially adopted regression analysis method, and the results of the two methods have the same trend. If the results of regression analysis are used again for all data, the workload will still be quite large and more time and cycles will be required to complete.

Another issue is the interaction. In my article, I only briefly described the impact of environmental factors on yield and efficiency. Due to the soil and climate impacts in the four locations, the interaction analysis is relatively cumbersome. We focus on the impact of nitrogen fertilizer.