Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. L 16: What do you mean by fertilizer model?

2. L24-25: Revisit your final recommendation.

3. What are the traditional fertilization practices in cotton? Also, mention the difference in this approach with traditional fertilization.

4. L45-46: Add the following recent references: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112766

5. In the introduction, there is no proper mention of the novelty of the study. Moreover, the need for the study was not mentioned properly. Include these statements in the last paragraph of the introduction. 

6. L70: What was the soil available N status? 

7. The experimental setup is erroneous. How did the author make factorial RBD? clearly mention the experimental design.

8. Sample ANOVA must be submitted.

9. In factorial RBD, there should be interaction table. 

10. Discussion part is poorly written. The author needs to link the results with the scientific background.

11. Mention the limitation of the study.

Author Response

Agronomy-Basel

 

Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your usuful comments and suggestions for our manuscript, we have modified our manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

 

Reviewer1：Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. L 16: What do you mean by fertilizer model?

We have modified the expression.

 

2. L24-25: Revisit your final recommendation.

We have modified the final recommendation.

 

3. What are the traditional fertilization practices in cotton? Also, mention the difference in this approach with traditional fertilization.

The traditional fertilization practices is the CK2. The traditional fertilization practices was specified in L111.

 

4. L45-46: Add the following recent references: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112766

The references was added in the manuscript.

 

5. In the introduction, there is no proper mention of the novelty of the study. Moreover, the need for the study was not mentioned properly. Include these statements in the last paragraph of the introduction. 

We have modified the las paragraph of the introduction.

 

6. L70: What was the soil available N status? 

L102: available nitrogen of 69.1 mg·kg^-1

 

7. The experimental setup is erroneous. How did the author make factorial RBD? clearly mention the experimental design.
8. Sample ANOVA must be submitted.
9. In factorial RBD, there should be interaction table. 

We have modified the expression of experimental design. The experimental design was randomized complete block design with eight treatments and three replications. It was not two factor design, so no interaction between two factors and current table showed enough information.

10. Discussion part is poorly written. The author needs to link the results with the scientific background.

We have modified the discussion according to your comments.

 

11. Mention the limitation of the study.

We have the limitation added in L411.

We have modified the conclusions according to your comments.

Best Regards

Yi Lu

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Line 68-72 The authors should provide information on the soil type using the international soil classification WRB 2015. Additionally, they should indicate the methods used to determine the basic soil properties (e.g., available forms of phosphorus and potassium).

 

Line 79-86 The authors should provide information on the soil type using the international soil classification WRB 2015. Additionally, they should indicate the methods used to determine the basic soil properties (e.g., available forms of phosphorus and potassium).

Line 77-87 The authors should provide a criterion for determining the amount of fertilizer doses used in the experiment.

 

The authors should convert the unit "hm-2" throughout the manuscript to the SI-compliant unit "ha-1."

Line 152 In table number 2 and 4, please add a dividing line separating the first year of research from the second year.

The "References" chapter should be thoroughly revised and adapted to meet the journal's requirements in accordance with the author guidelines.

 

The manuscript can be published after minor revisions.

Author Response

Agronomy-Basel

 

Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your usuful comments and suggestions for our manuscript, we have modified our manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language required

( ) Moderate editing of English language required

( ) Minor editing of English language required

( ) English language fine. No issues detected

We have found an English speaking colleague to edit the English lauguage.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Line 68-72 The authors should provide information on the soil type using the international soil classification WRB 2015. Additionally, they should indicate the methods used to determine the basic soil properties (e.g., available forms of phosphorus and potassium).

Line 79-86 The authors should provide information on the soil type using the international soil classification WRB 2015. Additionally, they should indicate the methods used to determine the basic soil properties (e.g., available forms of phosphorus and potassium).

We have modified it according to your comments.

 

Line 77-87 The authors should provide a criterion for determining the amount of fertilizer doses used in the experiment.

The citation was listed in L327.

 

The authors should convert the unit "hm-2" throughout the manuscript to the SI-compliant unit "ha-1."

We have modified it according to your comments.

 

Line 152 In table number 2 and 4, please add a dividing line separating the first year of research from the second year.

We have modified tables according to your comments.

 

The "References" chapter should be thoroughly revised and adapted to meet the journal's requirements in accordance with the author guidelines.

We have modified References according to your comments.

 

Best Regards

 

 

Yi Lu

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The CURRENT research entitled ‘’ Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest’’ investigated the impact of different timings and dosages of slow-release nitrogen fertilizer application on the yield, nitrogen absorption, and utilization efficiency in direct-sown cotton after wheat harvest (DSCWH). The idea of the paper is interesting. The main problem of the paper is related to the discussion and conclusion section. There are some comments, please see them below:

In the text, there are a few grammatical mistakes and punctuation. So minor English editing is required.

 

Abstract

The abstract section is well written, with a suitable structure. However, there are some grammatical mistakes. For example:

Line 11: harvest(DSCWH) -- > harvest (DSCWH), need space. Please check whole the text.

Keywords should differ from the title. Please specify them.

 

Introduction

The introduction is not enough. The research background is poor. There is only two similar research in the text, so research innovation is not clear. Please bring some similar research to your work and highlight the gap in previous research. Also, the author should bring some research about utilization of directly sown cotton following wheat harvest. Please bring some similar works and improve the introduction.

-       Line 38. A space is missing between years and the references. Also in lines 42,43, 54, ....

 Please check whole the text.

 

Material and methods

I would suggest that the authors provide soil characteristics in the form of a table (lines 69-72).

Table 1: please bring the treatments in order.

Please add the irrigation information.

 

Results and Discussion

Table 2, 3, 4: Please add SD or SE (number ± SD or SE).

The result is well written, but discussion isn’t enough.

Line 278: The authors mention that ‘’ Previous studies …. ‘’ -- > bring the result of some of them.

This section needs more extant based on your findings and comparison with other studies.

Section 4.2: The content of this section is the repetition of results! What is other similar research?!!! Please add other research and compare the results of your work with them.

 

conclusion

Lines 322-323: The authors mention the below statement in several parts the paper (Lines 14-15, lines 22-23, lines 139-140)!!!

‘’ The study demonstrates that applying slow-release nitrogen fertilizer with a nitrogen dosage of 90 kg·hm^-2 at the 2-leaf stage can achieve a higher yield’’

 

The conclusion should be written with illustrations of the lack of knowledge, novelty of work, result of the study, and suggestions for future studies. Please rewrite the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Agronomy-Basel

 

Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your usuful comments and suggestions for our manuscript, we have modified our manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

Reviewer3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Abstract:The abstract section is well written, with a suitable structure. However, there are some grammatical mistakes. For example:Line 11: harvest(DSCWH) -- > harvest (DSCWH), need space. Please check whole the text.

We have modified the abstract according to your comments.

 

Keywords should differ from the title. Please specify them.

We have modified the keywords according to your comments.

 

Introduction: The introduction is not enough. The research background is poor. There is only two similar research in the text, so research innovation is not clear. Please bring some similar research to your work and highlight the gap in previous research. Also, the author should bring some research about utilization of directly sown cotton following wheat harvest. Please bring some similar works and improve the introduction.

We have modified the introduction according to your comments.

 

Line 38. A space is missing between years and the references. Also in lines 42,43, 54, .... Please check whole the text.

 We have modified the abstract according to your comments.

 

 

Material and methods

I would suggest that the authors provide soil characteristics in the form of a table (lines 69-72).

Since there were only 5 parameters, maybe it was not necessary to list them in a table.

 

Table 1: please bring the treatments in order.

We have modified the table according to your comments.

 

Please add the irrigation information.

We have added the irrigation information to your comments.

 

Results and Discussion

Table 2, 3, 4: Please add SD or SE (number ± SD or SE).

The result is well written, but discussion isn’t enough. Line 278: The authors mention that ‘’ Previous studies …. ‘’ -- > bring the result of some of them. This section needs more extant based on your findings and comparison with other studies. Section 4.2: The content of this section is the repetition of results! What is other similar research?!!! Please add other research and compare the results of your work with them.

We have modified the discussion according to your comments.

 

conclusion

Lines 322-323: The authors mention the below statement in several parts the paper (Lines 14-15, lines 22-23, lines 139-140)!!!‘’ The study demonstrates that applying slow-release nitrogen fertilizer with a nitrogen dosage of 90 kg·hm-2 at the 2-leaf stage can achieve a higher yield’’ The conclusion should be written with illustrations of the lack of knowledge, novelty of work, result of the study, and suggestions for future studies. Please rewrite the conclusion.

We have modified the conclusions according to your comments.

Best Regards

Yi Lu

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the MS well. It may be accepted now. 

Author Response

Agronomy-Basel

 

Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions for our manuscript.

 

 

Best Regards

 

 

Yi Lu

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your efforts, but there are still some points and should be modified:

 As I told before, keywords should differ from the title, but the authors only removed management strategy and replaced application time. Furthermore, direct-sown cotton after wheat harvest and Slow-release Nitrogen Fertilizer are phrases not keywords and there are exactly the same as title. Please specify them.

Line 75: Geng etal., -- > Geng et al.,                          A space is missing.

Line 399: (80-140kg·ha^-1) -- > (80-140 kg·ha-1)                    A space is missing.

 

There are some spaces missing in the text, please check whole the text!!!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Agronomy-Basel

 

Management Strategy of Slow-Release Nitrogen Fertilizers for Direct-Sown Cotton after Wheat Harvest

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions for our manuscript, we have modified our manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

 

Reviewer3：Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. As I told before, keywords should differ from the title, but the authors only removed management strategy and replaced application time. Furthermore, direct-sown cotton after wheat harvest and Slow-release Nitrogen Fertilizer are phrases not keywords and there are exactly the same as title. Please specify them.

We have modified the keywords.

 

2. Line 75: Geng etal., -- > Geng et al.,                          A space is missing.
3. Line 399: (80-140kg·ha-1) -- > (80-140 kg·ha-1)                   A space is missing.
4. There are some spaces missing in the text, please check whole the text!!!

We have modified the missing spaces and checked whole the text carefully.

 

5. Comments on the Quality of English Language Minor editing is required.

We have found an English speaking colleague to edit the English language.

 

Best Regards

 

 

Yi Lu