Combined Di-Ammonium Phosphate and Straw Return Increase Yield in Sweet Corn

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was finely written, however, following part can be improved

1. Abstract, please add general conclusion of the study at the end of abstract

2. Introduction ok

3. Material and Method, please add explanation as indicated in reviewed manuscript

4. Result and Discussion, please add explanation as indicated in reviewed manuscript

5. Conclusion, please see manuscript

In general, revision is compulsory

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the opportunity to revise and thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript titled " Combined Di-ammonium Phosphate and Straw Return Increase Yield in Sweet Corn" [agronomy-2485528], and providing many helpful comments and suggestions, which will all prove invaluable in the revision and improvement of our paper, as well as in guiding our research in the future.

 

We have read and analysis the suggested reference with great attention and thank the reviewer for pointing out these mistakes in our writing. We have fixed all the problems in the revised version and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. All authors have approved the response letter and the revised version of the manuscript.

 

 

1. Abstract, please add general conclusion of the study at the end of abstract

ANS: Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. In conclusion, increasing the use of crop residuals can help reduce the expensive application of synthetic mineral fertilizers like SSP and NP, as well as the control group, while significantly increasing sweet corn production and improving profit margins. Considering the importance of environmental friendliness and sustainable agriculture, the combined use of DAP and straw return is considered a viable method.

 

2. Material and Method, please add explanation as indicated in reviewed manuscript
3. Result and Discussion, please add explanation as indicated in reviewed manuscript
4. 4. Conclusion, please see manuscript

 

ANS:Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly.Please see in the revised manuscript.

 

Details are as follows:

Question: Please mention the number of sample collected in each plot before composting?

ANS: Soil sample was collected from 5 different places in the field.

Question: please state the value of each soil characteristics as compared to standard, medium, low, high etc.?

ANS: Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions .Sorry for the inadvertent error, we have fixed it.And the basic values of soil nutrients of the experimental fields have been added in Table 1.

Question: Both figures do not have lines for monthly rainfall, please revise?

ANS: Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript

accordingly.

Question: Please explain how long the leftover remains in the plot before the study begin?

ANS: The crop straw was first chopped and then left in the field for one months and incorporate in the soil.

Question: Please when and how both synthetic fertilizer and residue were applied? 

ANS: The both crop straw of corn residue and sorghum residue was applying to the field before one month in chopped form on the basis of arranged plots while in case of synthetic fertilizer the different phosphorus sources were applied to the field before sowing

Question: Was Potash fertilizer applied?

ANS: We did not apply potash to the field.

Question: Please check the data on figure 2a what does the different letter means?

ANS: Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly.A different lower-case letter indicates differ significantly among the treatments by LSD test at P < 0.05.

Question: Please put table 1 before figure 2?

ANS: Done.

Question: it is suggested that the discussion stated from growth, then yield for better logical thinking?

ANS:  Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly.Our research findings indicate that based on two years of experimental data, sweet maize emergence of the seed, different growth stages of the crop and yield.

Question: Please refer to some references with similar soil properties?

ANS:  Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly.“This can be attributed to the fact that crop residues contain a significant amount of organic matter, which plays a crucial role in improving soil structure, fertility, and microbial activity. The addition of crop residues increased the availability of phosphorus in the soil by breaking down the chemical bonds between the nutrient and soil particles [1][21][34][43]”

Question: Please add explanation how this phenomenon occurs?

ANS: because DAP contain 46 percent of phosphorus which helps in the root developing and also in the fruit of the crops while in case of maize straw it contains different nitrogen content and potassium which is available to the crop after its decomposition.

Question: These sentences is suggested to be omitted?

ANS: The use of by-products generated from agro-industry can improve the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. However, it is essential to assess their suitability as substitutes or supplements for chemical fertilizers like use of crop straw which contain different nutrients and also protect our environment from toxic gases which is volatile and comes from chemical fertilizer

Question: Composted? If so, please explain it?

ANS:  We did not use any type of compost in this research work

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the ms entitled “Combined Di-ammonium Phosphate and Straw Return In-2 crease Yield in Sweet Corn” agronomy-2485528

The work reviewed deals with an important issue from the point of view of crop production, the application of phosphorus fertilisation. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a combination of phosphorus sources and crop residues could be effective for the improvement, development and yield of sweet corn. Experimental evaluation of yield after application of different phosphorus sources and use of crop residues is an important issue.

However, the work has several weaknesses. I will point them out below, most of them highlighted in colour and commented on in the text. Often these are similar, recurring errors.

1.       Experiment design. Were the same plots used in the design and execution of the experiment each year? The plots planted with maize were fertilised and the soil was fertilised in the first year of the experiment, this could have influenced the sweet maize parameters studied if the crop was grown in the same location in the second year. Please explain.

2.       Statistical analysis. Please describe in detail the statistical tests used. Did you compare differences within or between groups? Why were the analysed parameters not compared between years? The figures show the differences in some cases. This is very important because the results obtained are based on statistical analyses.

3.       Results. The description and presentation of the research results is the weakest part of the revised paper. The description of the results in the text does not match what is presented in the figures. Perhaps an explanation of how the statistical analyses were carried out would be helpful. The authors write next to each figure about marking statistically significant samples in the figures, but this is not present or not visible in the figures. This is repeated in all paragraphs and sets of figures. This detracts from the merit of the paper and the results have little credibility.

4.       Discussion. It needs to be reviewed after a thorough improvement of the research results.

The language of the peer-reviewed paper is correct, but needs to be revised in terms of style. The text should be revised by an English-speaking specialist in the field.

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We thank you for the opportunity to revise and thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript titled " Combined Di-ammonium Phosphate and Straw Return Increase Yield in Sweet Corn" [agronomy-2485528], and providing many helpful comments and suggestions, which will all prove invaluable in the revision and improvement of our paper, as well as in guiding our research in the future.

 

1.Experiment design. Were the same plots used in the design and execution of the experiment each year? The plots planted with maize were fertilised and the soil was fertilised in the first year of the experiment, this could have influenced the sweet maize parameters studied if the crop was grown in the same location in the second year. Please explain.

ANS: Yes, the experiment was designed again on the same location but crop was changed from NARC 16 to Kashmiri 19. This time we used the same location but sowing was done in another field quite near to that field to reduce the contamination problems in the soil. The same treatment, same layout, same parameter was studied again in the second year of the experiment.

 

2.Statistical analysis. Please describe in detail the statistical tests used. Did you compare differences within or between groups? Why were the analysed parameters not compared between years? The figures show the differences in some cases. This is very important because the results obtained are based on statistical analyses.

 

ANS:Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly.A total of 36 parameters from two seasons , Which is too difficult to describe all the data. Therefore ,we have considered the yield results of both years and the impact of natural disasters in the first seasons on the experiment. We have selected a subset of parameters that hold reference value and are relatively important for two-years comparisons (vs.line 272-272;line:194-310;line:339-347). For the remaining parameters, we prefer to summarize the trends observed in both years and highlight the reference value of the second year's data (vs.line259：A taller crop was reported in 2022 than 2021 (Figure 4b).line312:Yields were all higher in 2022 than in 2021.line:269: The non-treated field matured latest (93 days) in 2022 and took over 100 days to mature in 2021). We compare differences within groups.The collected data underwent statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference (LSD). When p < 0.05, it indicates a significant difference among the treatments. We have carefully reviewed and corrected some presentation errors.

 

 

3.Results. The description and presentation of the research results is the weakest part of the revised paper. The description of the results in the text does not match what is presented in the figures. Perhaps an explanation of how the statistical analyses were carried out would be helpful. The authors write next to each figure about marking statistically significant samples in the figures, but this is not present or not visible in the figures. This is repeated in all paragraphs and sets of figures. This detracts from the merit of the paper and the results have little credibility.

ANS: Authors are thankful for the helpful suggestions and we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the ms entitled “Combined Di-ammonium Phosphate and Straw Return In-2 crease Yield in Sweet Corn” agronomy-2485528

Round two

                Unfortunately, the most important comments I had on the text of the work under review were not taken into account.

I will briefly list them below:

1. The lack of the detailed description of statistical methods that I requested. How the assumptions of ANOVA were tested. Whether it was one-way ANOVA or multivariate ANOVA.

2. Also, Table 2, where I asked for the values of comparable means of the analysed parameters and standard deviations, was not corrected.

3. The chapter presenting the results of the study has not been sufficiently corrected. The graphs presenting the results obtained (Figures 3-7) are still incompatible with the text. The letters above the bars indicate the existence of statistical differences, and in the text this is not consistent, for example, lines 224-228. Figure 3a was not cited in this paragraph.

I am forced to refer the text for further improvement, as the presentation and interpretation of research results is a key part of the work.

I do not have any major comments.

Author Response

Dear

Reviewer

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article.As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed.According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

 

 

1. The lack of the detailed description of statistical methods that I requested. How the assumptions of ANOVA were tested? Whether it was one-way ANOVA or multivariate ANOVA.

 

ANS:  We feel sorry for our carelessness.The collected data was analyzed using Statistix 8.1 software (Tallahassee, Florida, USA).Means of phonological and growth parameters, yield and yield Components in different treatments were tested for normality and homogeneity, and the differences were assessed using one-way ANOVA (LSD test) at the 0.05 probability level. Each year of experimental results was analysed separately. Significant differences at p < 0.05 are indicated by different letters

 

2. Also, Table 2, where I asked for the values of comparable means of the analysed parameters and standard deviations, was not corrected.

 

ANS:Thanks for your suggestion. Because there were 12 treatments in this study, and two years of data, it would be difficult to present in tables. We added the results of the analysis of variance of “Table2” to the Bar chart (fig3-7)for more intuitive presentation.

 

3. The chapter presenting the results of the study has not been sufficiently corrected. The graphs presenting the results obtained (Figures 3-7) are still incompatible with the text. The letters above the bars indicate the existence of statistical differences, and in the text this is not consistent, for example, lines 224-228. Figure 3a was not cited in this paragraph.

 

ANS: Thanks for your careful checks. We tried our best to improve the part of results in the study and check the data carefully.For liners 224-228 , we revised to “The supplementation of phosphorus (P) or crop waste have a no significant (P > 0.05) influence on the emergence of sweet corn in both for 2021 and 2022 years of the experiment (Figure 3A).”And the other correction line including line243-244、307-310... etc.