Revolutionizing Maize Crop Productivity: The Winning Combination of Zigzag Planting and Deep Nitrogen Fertilization for Maximum Yield through Root–Shoot Ratio Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors studied existing (CK, LD20, and ZD10) and improved (ZD20) maize cultivating strategies to enhance the maize yield. The work is a significant contribution to the field and is well-organized and well-written. However, a few minor comments require attention.

To start with, the figures and tables should be appropriately described and labeled to ensure the readers can easily understand the presented information. Specifically, the legend of Figures 5 needs an explanation of the meaning of the different colors and sizes of circles.

Furthermore, the resolution of the figures should be enhanced before resubmitting the paper to improve the readability and clarity of the figures.

Moreover, the discussion section of the manuscript needs improvement to clearly present the authors' insights and the applicability of the results for future work. The discussion should not only provide insights but should also answer several crucial questions. For instance, the authors should address research gaps that their study can help solve, identify who will benefit from the improvements, and specify the next steps that can be taken to apply the results of the study. By focusing on these aspects, the authors can more clearly state the contribution of the paper.

Overall, this study has significant potential, but addressing these minor comments can help the authors present their work more clearly and effectively.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript, Revolutionizing Maize Crop Productivity: The Winning Combination of Zigzag Planting and Deep Nitrogen Fertilization for Maximum Yield through Root-Shoot Ratio Management, is of interest to agricultural science and practice. I appreciate that this was a field experiment conducted over two years. However, the results could have been published earlier. I have included some of my comments in the original text (pdf). I hope they will help the authors to improve the article. After corrections, I recommend the manuscript for publication in the journal Agronomy.

General remarks:

in the Abstract and Conclusion, write whether the results were repeatable in the years,
add the Latin name of corn to the keywords, it will facilitate the search in scientific databases
write whether it was a one-factor or two-factor experiment
what form of nitrogen was used,
what was the forecrop and how the plantation was protected
Figure S2. Planting manner in this study. Maybe it's better to transfer this figure to the text. I leave it to the authors and editors to decide
All tables and figures should be referenced in the text
Check the units used to see if they are compliant with world standards
Revise the bibliography as required by the journal or see recent issues
Other minor remarks are in the original text

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I read the manuscript with interest. Is there any equipment in agricultural practice that will allow sowing corn (zigzag planting) and fertilizing to such a depth?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Here is my technical opinion applied in order to collaborate with the scientific quality of the referred manuscript.

The manuscript presents an original and relevant theme, deserving attention regarding the possibility of publication. However, some points should be revised and clarified by the authors.

First, would witness treatments involving conventional management of nitrogen fertilizer be necessary under the two types of sowing?

Even though the work presents results from 2 agricultural years, the authors report that the experiment was installed in the randomized block design, with 4 treatments arranged in 3 replications, totaling 12 experimental units. Thus, the number of degrees of freedom does not allow statistical confidence. Additionally, it was not described whether the anova procedure was applied considering both seasons (joint anova) or each season separately. In this case, the ideal would be to apply the joint anova of the data.

Additionally, I recommend inserting a summary table of the joint ANOVA, presenting the respective mean squares of errors, coefficients of variation and means of each variable referring to each season and, later, the figures (already inserted in the manuscript).

It is worth noting that the application of joint anova will reflect positively on the presentation of results and their respective discussion, directing the conclusions parsimoniously.

Sincerely!

Other notes about the manuscript:

'Line 213 - In my study, I used' (not usual in scientific papers).

Overall, the manuscript was well written (language and structure). However, I recommend that authors apply a general review of spelling and grammar, adapting the text and format of the manuscript to the Agronomy Instructions for Authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx