Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The results of a combination of different fertilizer forms (N, P, K) are very important. The authors give the mean values including the statistical test for all combinations and for the increase/change of each of the three fertilizers. Sometimes it's not easy to follow because the authors are dealing with three-factor interactions and they have to be described. I would like to encourage the authors to try to draw a three-dimensional figure whose surface can be represented by a grid so that the reader can follow the interaction of these complex agents with the factor effects and with the interaction effects.
Nothing is stated in the manuscript about the monetary and ecological costs of fertilizers. But that's also important. Nowadays even the CO2 requirement of fertilizer production has to be considered. I think this is an important point as the recommended T6 combination does not differ significantly (or often not) from the T3 combination. Given the cost and especially the carbon footprint, the recommendation given should be broader than just the highest yield or quality. There may even be a plateau in the nitrogen fertilization effect from T3 through T6 to T11 since the non-linear factor X2 in the equation in Table 11 is very low. If, as suggested, the authors could be able to show three-dimensional graph for the most relevant traits, a putative plateau might or might not be seen.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We wish to re-submit the attached manuscript titled “Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet” for publication in Agronomy. The manuscript ID is agronomy-2511488.
The manuscript has been rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with your suggestions. Our responses to your comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
We thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and produced a better and more balanced account of the research. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication in Agronomy.
Sincerely,
Siyu Hou
College of Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China
Hou Ji Laboratory in Shanxi Province, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030031, China
Email: [email protected]
Yuanhuai Han
State Key Laboratory of Sustainable Dryland Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University, 030031, China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report
Title: Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet
This manuscript shows well design and data and merits publication in Agronomy. However, there are still some minor issues that need to be revised prior to publication. Some descriptions need to be concise and clarify.
Comments:
1. The language of the article is generally assured, but some grammar usage should be checked
again.
2. In the abstract, please mention treatments of study which are missing; only one treatment (T6) combination is mentioned, give the detail of treatments with experimental design and number of replications
3. Add the solid conclusion at the end of the abstract section according to study hypothesis
4. Add the results in the abstract in percentile like how much percent increase through application of NPK ratio or how much percent decrease.
5. In the Instruction, there is little reports which focused on NPK ratio please add it.
6. Hypothesis of the study is missing; add the study gap (what is new in this study?). Authors should provide a clear research question and explain clearly what is new about your work and provide a clear hypothesis.
6. In materials and methods, Please add the statistical section, write in detail SE (Standard error), detail of turkey’s test and ANOVA process and level of significance etc.
7. Why author used only one variety specifically “(cv. Jingu21 (JG21)”
8. Results and discussion section of the article is weak, authors mainly focused on their results but they did not discuss them according to international standards. Moreover the writing style of results and discussion section is also ambiguous, with long and weak sentences and in a repetitive way. I am not convinced with the way of discussion of the authors, in its current form it cannot be accepted in agronomy. I will recommend a thorough revision of this section.
9. Quality of figures should be improved. They must be uniform in format, letter font and size should be the same as the remaining manuscript body.
10. The conclusions should answer the hypothesis of your study and should focus on the implication of your findings. Please, avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in this section
11. The reference of the article needs to be checked, revised and formatted.
Language, wording and paraphrasing should be carefully reviewed and improved. A native English-speaking scientist or professional English editing service must edit your manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We wish to re-submit the attached manuscript titled “Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet” for publication in Agronomy. The manuscript ID is agronomy-2511488
The manuscript has been rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with your suggestions. Our responses to your comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
We thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and produced a better and more balanced account of the research. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication in Agronomy.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Siyu Hou
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor and authors, although the work focuses on an interaction that is often reported in the literature (NxPxK), the authors bring a new perspective on the subject, providing a basis for studies to be carried out in the field, especially in a plant with little information . However some points need to be improved, as follows below, so I recommend major revisions.
Introduction
- Some paragraphs in the introduction are long, I suggest splitting this one in two, since the information contained in it is important.
Material and Methods
-Soil properties need to be better described, such as granulometric analysis, and other macro and micronutrients. Furthermore, when talking about nutrient availability, the method used to estimate this availability must be described and referenced (example P evaluable by resin method).
-There was no pattern in the distribution of N, P and K doses, so the authors need to make it clear how they based these tested doses, either on other articles or previous experiments.
-But in general, the material and methods need to be improved and more information needs to be provided, in order to guarantee the reproduction by others of the experiment and analyzes made.
-The acronyms used in the measurement of photosynthetic parameters, is not the common one used in experiments with the same technique (example: photosynthetic rate acronym is A), I suggest the authors search in other articles and standardize with these, because after the authors' article, can be searched more easily
- The average yield per hectare calculated by authors is wrong, because as the conditions of experiments in pots are contrasting with field conditions, such as the volume occupied by the root per soil, spacing between pots and others, it is correct to show the production per pot and not per hectare, as this experiment shows potential but cannot be explored for field production.
Results
- The quality of figure 1 is poor, small writing and poor quality, redo the same.
- Why the authors show the data in a table and sometimes in figures? I suggest standardizing the article.
- This definition of optimal dose of N, P and K is wrong, as it cannot consider only one variable without statistical basis without taking into account that it tests different levels of other variables at the same time, so for it to adjust an optimal dose of N , P and K he must take into account the interaction between the three, so he would need to set up a multiple regression, so I recommend removing Figure 2, or redoing the data analysis in the form of multiple regression. This argument also applies to Table 11.
- In figure 3, remove the acronyms X1, X2, X3 and X4 and use the same ones used previously in the article, standardizing the acronyms
- This information that forms the basis for the PCA does not need to remain in the article, and can be inserted in a new file as a supplementary document.
- In figure 4, what does the color palette mean? – authors need to make this clear in the figure caption.
Discussion
- To remove the separation by topics and separating information from some paragraphs. They are long.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We wish to re-submit the attached manuscript titled “Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet” for publication in Agronomy. The manuscript ID is agronomy-2511488
The manuscript has been rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with your suggestions. Our responses to your comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
We thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and produced a better and more balanced account of the research. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication in Agronomy.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Siyu Hou
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Work well achieved with simple but correct conclusions. The work is important for the use of a cereal plant that is robust and much used in poor countries and lacking food capacity. A good opportunity to remember lost genetics that have fed millions and can help in this complex phase of climate change The work is well planned and correctly presented.good work good i
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We thank you for your thoughtful approval, which have enriched the manuscript and produced a better and more balanced account of the research. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication in Agronomy.
Sincerely,
Siyu Hou
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript “Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet” deals with the goal of optimizing fertilization parameters for foxtail millet in China. The study examines how nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) fertilizers affect foxtail millet's agronomic traits, photosynthetic characteristics, yield, and quality. The research design appears comprehensive and includes pot experiments with the JG21 foxtail millet variety using the "3414" fertilizer effect scheme. A rational fertilizer application is recommended based on the correlation between nutrient levels and specific crop traits presented in the paper. The findings are noteworthy and contribute to a better understanding of foxtail millet cultivation. In order to enhance the clarity and impact of the study, some areas need to be addressed.
Comments:
· The author should provide line no. It is very difficult to provide the specific comment.
· In the abstract section, author can add one line on the future impact of the present study.
· The author should provide few line on the importance of nitrogen to fox tail millet.
· The author should provide the latitudinal and longitudinal detail of where the experiment on foxtail was conducted.
· In section 2.2: The author must cite the table provided.
· Fig. 1: The author can provide the figure in portrait mode for better clarity and visibility.
· In Fig. 3: which value is represented inside the block. Provide detail in caption.
· Auhto can provide table 6 and 7 in supplementary files.
· As compared to the result section provided by the author, the discussion section is short and needs to be elaborated.
· The future thrust should be included in the conclusion section also.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We wish to re-submit the attached manuscript titled “Influence of Different Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fertilizer Ratios on the Agronomic and Quality Traits of Foxtail Millet” for publication in Agronomy. The manuscript ID is agronomy-2511488
The manuscript has been rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with your suggestions. Our responses to your comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
We thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and produced a better and more balanced account of the research. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication in Agronomy.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Siyu Hou
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript may be accepted in the current form.
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript can be accepted now.
Minor editing of English language required
