Impact of Rice–Wheat Straw Incorporation and Varying Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Wheat Grain Yield
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS ON THE MANUSCRIPT ID: agronomy-2557143
We have carefully checked your annotations in the pdf version and revised the manuscript accordingly. Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The hypothesis, which has been established and experimentally verified, is known and analyzed worldwide. In the absence of data from the area, the article makes sense. However, the results are handled poorly. Table 1 (N content), Table 2 (P content), Table 3 (K content), Table 4 (pH), Table 4 (moisture) are odd. It seems that the authors also compared different fertilization options with different straw rates at different stages of wheat development. That's why there are so many letters after the average values. This approach does not make sense and does not allow a clear evaluation, and the whole thing is unclear and impossible to follow. Each TSS should be evaluated separately. But this will make it much more difficult to interpret the results. Why did you decide to split the samples by TSS? What is the benefit? It would be simpler and more meaningful to evaluate the element concentrations in the soil and its properties (pH and moisture) before and after the experiment to clearly determine the advantages and disadvantages of each fertilisation treatment. You would reduce the number from 36 to 12 (as in Table 5). However, soil element concentrations should be linked to yield.
And what do the averages in Table 5 mean? After all, you are evaluating 12 fertiliser treatments, you should compare 12 averages (which you have in Table 5). But in addition, there are averages of averages (139.6, 577.6, 691.0, 713.3, etc.), these values don't make sense to me. They would make sense if you averaged the results from each fertilization treatment and from each year of the experiment. While now you are mixing different fertilization treatments (like SR0+SR50+SR100).
Next, you calculated the correlation. That doesn't make sense to me either. How is this analysis related to the fertiliser treatments you were evaluating?
L 459: "Our study found that returning crop litter to the field significantly increased wheat grain yield."
Really? In Table 5, SR50 and SR100 yields are always lower than SR0. So how did the application of SR increase yields?
Have you done the statistical analysis correctly? In MM you write that you used 2-way-ANOVA. But ANOVA requires several criteria to be met. Have you checked that the data are normally distributed? If so, write the result of that test. Did you check that the data have comparable variances? If yes, write the result of that test. Then you can use ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. If the data are not normally distributed, you must use non-parametric statistics and completely different tests. Similarly, if you do not have comparable variance between fertiliser treatments, you must use different tests. And the results will be completely different. All this needs to be published.
I would recommend a slightly different approach in terms of statistical analysis. Simplify the results - omit the TSS. From my perspective, TSS is meaningless, it just complicates things and doesn't produce usable results. Further, I would recommend a thorough analysis of the data (normality of distribution, agreement of variability, decide on the basis of the results of these tests for proper hypothesis testing). Since you are comparing so many fertilization variations, I would also recommend using PCA. PCA will show you everything nicely. Finally, I would recommend describing the results correctly. Look at Table 5. There too, in the yields (which are incomprehensible from my point of view), on the bottom right, you have the differences: 621 kg ha-1 (A), 516 kg ha-1 (B), 454 kg ha-1 (B).
PS: was the yield really in hundreds of kg ha-1?
When correcting the text, correct L 137 (ref or get full data from meteo station).
Figure 1: B sign is missing.
N rates: must be indicated in the methodology. You mention the rate in Table 1 (180 kg ha-1). Do not write percentages, but write N rates.
Figure 2: BT x BF!
Correct the pagination. Turning the page (page 11) has distorted it.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS ON THE MANUSCRIPT ID: agronomy-2557143
General comment: The hypothesis, which has been established and experimentally verified, is known and
analyzed worldwide. In the absence of data from the area, the article makes sense.
#Issue 1:
#1.1: However, the results are handled poorly. Table 1 (N content), Table 2 (P content), Table 3 (K content),
Table 4 (pH), Table 4 (moisture) are odd.
Response: We modified the Tables and Figures in the revised manuscript. Thank you.
#1.2: It seems that the authors also compared different fertilization options with different straw rates at
different stages of wheat development. That's why there are so many letters after the average values. This
approach does not make sense and does not allow a clear evaluation, and the whole thing is unclear and
impossible to follow. Each TSS should be evaluated separately. But this will make it much more difficult to
interpret the results. Why did you decide to split the samples by TSS? What is the benefit? It would be
simpler and more meaningful to evaluate the element concentrations in the soil and its properties (pH and
moisture) before and after the experiment to clearly determine the advantages and disadvantages of each
fertilisation treatment. You would reduce the number from 36 to 12 (as in Table 5). However, soil element
concentrations should be linked to yield.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion for us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We
have redone all the statistical analyses following your suggestions. For example, the various soil physicochemical properties were re-analyzed at each TSS and results presented in bar graphs. We performed
regression analyses on the assessed soil physico-chemical properties at each soil sampling time to evaluate
their effect on final grain yield. Results of those with significant effects are shown in Figure 7 and 8 in the
revised manuscript.
#Issue 2: And what do the averages in Table 5 mean? After all, you are evaluating 12 fertiliser treatments,
you should compare 12 averages (which you have in Table 5). But in addition, there are averages of
averages (139.6, 577.6, 691.0, 713.3, etc.), these values don't make sense to me. They would make sense if
you averaged the results from each fertilization treatment and from each year of the experiment. While
now you are mixing different fertilization treatments (like SR0+SR50+SR100).
Response: We have replaced ‘Table 5’ in the earlier version of the manuscript with ‘Figure 7’ in the
revised manuscript. Thank you.
#Issue 3: Next, you calculated the correlation. That doesn't make sense to me either. How is this analysis
related to the fertiliser treatments you were evaluating?
Response: Thank you, we have expunged the correlation analysis from the manuscript.
#Issue 4: L 459: "Our study found that returning crop litter to the field significantly increased wheat grain
yield." Really? In Table 5, SR50 and SR100 yields are always lower than SR0. So how did the application of
SR increase yields?
Response: This has been rephrased in the revised manuscript.
#Issue 5: Have you done the statistical analysis correctly? In MM you write that you used 2-way-ANOVA.
But ANOVA requires several criteria to be met. Have you checked that the data are normally distributed?
If so, write the result of that test. Did you check that the data have comparable variances? If yes, write the
result of that test. Then you can use ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. If the data are not normally
distributed, you must use non-parametric statistics and completely different tests. Similarly, if you do not
have comparable variance between fertiliser treatments, you must use different tests. And the results will
be completely different. All this needs to be published.
Response: We have revised the two-way ANOVA to a one-way as we used only 12 treatment combinations
as you suggested in your earlier comment. As internal quality control, all the data were subjected to
normality and continuous distribution test as reported under statistical analyses in the Materials and
Methods.
#Issue 6: I would recommend a slightly different approach in terms of statistical analysis. Simplify the
results - omit the TSS. From my perspective, TSS is meaningless, it just complicates things and doesn't
produce usable results. Further, I would recommend a thorough analysis of the data (normality of
distribution, agreement of variability, decide on the basis of the results of these tests for proper hypothesis
testing). Since you are comparing so many fertilization variations, I would also recommend using PCA.
PCA will show you everything nicely. Finally, I would recommend describing the results correctly. Look
at Table 5. There too, in the yields (which are incomprehensible from my point of view), on the bottom
right, you have the differences: 621 kg ha-1 (A), 516 kg ha-1 (B), 454 kg ha-1 (B).
Response: We have carefully followed and revised the manuscript. However, the PCA is been considered
for one of our manuscripts to evaluate variability of soil properties as a result of the 12 treatment
combinations. With exception of PCA, most of the issues mentioned here are repeated and have been
addressed in the revised manuscript. With regards to the PCA, we have included in the revised manuscript.
Thank you.
#Issue 7: PS: was the yield really in hundreds of kg ha-1?
Response: We have rectified this error.
#Issue 8: When correcting the text, correct L 137 (ref or get full data from meteo station).
Response: Thank you, it was typographical error, hence it has been deleted from the revised manuscript.
#Issue 9: Figure 1: B sign is missing.
Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this avoidable error. We have rectified it in the revised
version of the manuscript.
#Issue 10: N rates: must be indicated in the methodology. You mention the rate in Table 1 (180 kg ha-1).
Do not write percentages, but write N rates.
Response: We have incorporated the rate and time of application in the Table 1 in the revised
manuscript, thank you.
#Issue 11: Figure 2: BT x BF!
Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this avoidable error. We have rectified this in the
revised version of the manuscript.
#Issue 12: Correct the pagination. Turning the page (page 11) has distorted it.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. This has been rectified.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the fornt there is a manuscript in title Impact of Rice-Wheat Straw Incorporation and Varying Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates on Soil Physico-chemical Properties and Wheat Grain Yield title is very interesting and the manuscript is suitable for the journal but has some shortness I hope it will help the authors to improve the manuscript quality.
The question is why you use wheat straw word and I cant see any wheat straw in the manuscript, please remove wheat from the title.
Abstract: please add conclusion for the abstract not just material and results.
Introduction. Its very long and why authors using a lot of cited references? Authors don’t need to use all these cited reference.
Material and methods:
In line 149 50 % of SR were add after wheat you should write the amount (kg) you add to the soil for (50 and 100 %).
Line 152 authors should add the amount of urea they used not just write the percentage for all levels.
Line 181 add s to grain to become grains
Line 187 some spikes from the plot are not enough for calculating the grain yield /ha. Authors should collect all spike from the plot.
Results
Why the authors present the data for one year only? Authors may need to add the data for second year.
The common alphabet in the superscript in the table and figures don’t write all letters specially the one with more two letters just write first and last one like a-c or c-i. solve all common alphabet in all manuscript.
Authors need to add some information about microbial biomass and how it helps for sustainable wheat production
Discussion need more details about how these levels of straw helps for improving grain yield and productivity
The manuscript has good aim for sustainable production and keep the environment in a safe form
This manuscript need major revision.
English is well written and only need some minor revision
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 3 COMMENTS ON THE MANUSCRIPT ID: agronomy-2557143
General comment: In the fornt there is a manuscript in title Impact of Rice-Wheat Straw Incorporation and Varying Nitrogen Fertilizer Rates on Soil Physico-chemical Properties and Wheat Grain Yield title is very interesting and the manuscript is suitable for the journal but has some shortness I hope it will help the authors to improve the manuscript quality.
Response: Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully revised and responded to your comments and suggestions.
#Issue 1: The question is why you use wheat straw word and I cant see any wheat straw in the manuscript, please remove wheat from the title.
Response: We have added in the revised manuscript, specifically materials and methods section that ‘The practice of rice-wheat crop rotation dominates in Jianghan Plain (Yang et al., 2021)’, thus the experimental site is rotated between rice and wheat. In this field, wheat straws are also incorporated into the soil following the same description for rice straw reported in this manuscript.
#Issue 2: Abstract: please add conclusion for the abstract not just material and results.
Response: Due to the number of words limitation by the journal’s standard, we could not add any additional words to the conclusion. Thank you.
#Issue 3: Introduction. It’s very long and why authors using a lot of cited references? Authors don’t need to use all these cited references.
Response: The introduction has been reviewed and relevant editing done. All references cited are relevant to the study and these were same references used in the discussion section.
#Issue 4: Material and methods:
#4.1: In line 149 50 % of SR were add after wheat you should write the amount (kg) you add to the soil for (50 and 100 %).
Response: We have elaborated on this in Table 1 in the revised manuscript. However, the actual quantity of SR could be not presented as total straw per plot differed, therefore we weighed straws from each plot and returned only 50 or 100% to plots. Thank you.
#4.2: Line 152 authors should add the amount of urea they used not just write the percentage for all levels.
Response: We used 180 kg/ha of urea (46% N) and this has been specified in the revised manuscript.
#4.3: Line 181 add s to grain to become grains
Response: We have corrected as you suggested, thank you.
#4.4: Line 187 some spikes from the plot are not enough for calculating the grain yield /ha. Authors should collect all spike from the plot.
Response: We extrapolated the grain yield data from two independent 2 m2 plots, not from a number of spikes. Thank you.
#Issue 5: Results
#5.1: Why the authors presented the data for one year only? Authors may need to add the data for second year.
Response: We have added results from the two seasons. However, we have conducted new analyses following recommendations by Reviewer 2.
#5.2: The common alphabet in the superscript in the table and figures don’t write all letters specially the one with more two letters just write first and last one like a-c or c-i. solve all common alphabet in all manuscript.
Response: We are so grateful for your valuable suggestion that has enabled us to shorten the superscripts used in the manuscript.
#5.2: Authors need to add some information about microbial biomass and how it helps for sustainable wheat production
Response: We include microbial biomass and other related components such as diversity and abundance in this study. However, we have samples of soil from the study area securely stored for such analyses in our next experiments. Thank you.
#Issue 6: Discussion need more details about how these levels of straw helps for improving grain yield and productivity
Response: We have revised the discussion based on the direction of statistical analyses and comments from all reviewers. We hope this meet your expectations. Thus, we summarily expounded on the implications and impacts of the study findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your work, paper seems better now.
Reviewer 3 Report
authors revised the manuscript and answered all comments i made.
I think manuscript now is well and ready to publish
