CH4 and N2O Emission and Grain Yield Performance of Three Main Rice-Farming Patterns in Central China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports on a study that evaluated alternative cropping systems in rice, to determine their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Conducted over two years, this field study was well designed, and followed a straightforward methodology to determine GHG emissions. The manuscript requires some editing to improve its readability and composition and I have provided some suggestions in the attached copy of the manuscript. Overall the manuscript is well organized and the results are well presented, and discussed.
For the general non-specialist reader, the authors may want to define or to explain what does to ratoon rice production system consists off, and its timing or duration in the field during the experiment, as compared to the DR and MR systems. In the Results section, the author may want to cite some references, to indicate that the research protocol has been used by previous studies, and is a standard methodology. It would help to better outline the soil moisture pattern over the cropping cycles, and to specify the particular crop growth stage (for rice) at key flooding/drying field events-- to better understand the greenhouse gas emission dynamics.
In the Conclusions section, the authors may want to include suggestions for future research, to be conducted under different soil-types and environmental conditions, and to better unravel the underlying mechanisms that determine GHG emission dynamics under alternative cropping systems and management strategies.
Additional comments on the manuscript include,
L 68-72, Please rephrase. Double check the phrasing of the last/third objective.
L 81, Perhaps provide the extraction method or analysis protocol for Phosphorus.
L 96-96, Would it be possible to determine at what specific growth stage, each of the water, flooding/drying events took place?
L 160-162, Double check the phrasing of this sentence.
L 301-302, This phrase is unclear. Please rephrase.
L 341, Any directions or suggestions for future research? Perhaps evaluate the alternative cropping systems under different environmental and soil conditions?
Edit suggestions are included in the attached copy of the manuscript.
/////
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Editing is required throughout the manuscript to improve its English and readability. I included edit suggestions in the attached copy of the manuscript. In my review comments I included some phrases that are unclear, and suggest rephrasing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Article review
Chengwei Li, Jie Zhu, Xinyu Li, Jiao Deng, Wei Yang, Yong Zhou, Shaoqiu Li, Lixia Yi, Zhangyong Liu 1, Bo Zhu
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION AND GRAIN YIELD PERFORMANCE OF THREE MAIN RICE FARMING PATTERNS IN CENTRAL CHINA
In this manuscript, the authors describe the results of the field experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of the transforming from traditional double-cropping rice (DR) to maize-rice (MR) and ratooning rice (Rr) on greenhouse gases (GHG), soil environmental factors and yield. Results showed significant year effect on greenhouse gas emission in different cropping systems due to temperature and rainfall. Annual CH4 emission under MR and Rr were significantly lower than DR.
Research aimed at solving these problems is relevant. The uniqueness of the article is sufficient for publication.
Along with the positive aspects of the work, there are also negative ones that need to be corrected.
There are grammatical, stylistic and punctuation errors in the text.
It is accepted after minor revision (correction of minor methodological errors and text editing). After correcting these shortcomings, the article can be published in the journal "Agronomy".
Author Response
完成本文中的语法、文体和标点符号更正
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction section is weak and could benefit from further development.
Figure 1: The legends in the figure do not match the caption. Please double-check and ensure consistency.
Equations are not properly labeled. Please ensure that all equations are clearly labeled for easy reference.
The omission of CO2 in the calculation of global warming potential needs to be addressed and justified. Why was CO2 neglected in the analysis?
The comparison of soil management practices and crop densities appears unconvincing as they were different. Please provide additional clarification or adjust the comparison accordingly.
In the ANOVA analysis, it is unclear what the significant difference being referred to is. Please clarify and provide further details.
The quality and format of tables and figures do not conform to the journal's requirements. Please ensure that all tables and figures are formatted according to the journal's guidelines for consistency and clarity.
Overall, the paper requires significant improvements in language, clarity, and adherence to journal requirements for tables and figures. Please revise accordingly.
The English language needs thorough polishing as there are numerous typos and grammatical errors throughout the paper. These errors make it challenging to follow the authors' ideas and arguments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper describes a field experiment on GHG from rice production. The experiment appears to be carried out well, but the conclusions are hardly new. Still all field experiments give useful information as they give more evidence, and the study should be published in some form, but probably shorter with data more summarised and only shown once.
Furthermore, the introduction should state more about what is already known about GHG emissions from rice production, and discussion should mostly state that the study confirms that the general theory holds true also in this system.
The paper needs English language corrections.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript has improved, but I think further improvements are still needed. It is recommended to re-write some sections, rather than just changing some wording.
I did not find proper responce to reviewers?
English has improved, but further iprovements are still needed. Please first re-write sections, then get language corrections, prefereably by a person who also understands the subject matter.
Author Response
The more information on known greenhouse gas emissions from rice fields has been added to the introductory section in line 51-58. In addition, the content has been regrouped and added to the discussion section. We hope you will give us your comments. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
