Organic Manure Coupled with Inorganic Fertilizer: An Approach for the Sustainable Production of Rice by Improving Soil Properties and Nitrogen Use Efficiency
, Liang He 1, Aziz Khan 1, Shangqin Wei 1, Kashif Akhtar 2, Izhar Ali 1, Saif Ullah 1, Fazal Munsif 3, Quan Zhao 1 and Ligeng Jiang 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have made good effort to address reviewers comments and the manuscript has improved now.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief: Ms. Iris Qiao
Agronomy
Subject: Re-submission of revised manuscript R2: 618063
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Enclosed please find our revised manuscript entitled “Organic manure coupled with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for sustainable production of noodle rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency” for possible publication in Agronomy. We would like to thank all the reviewers for their critical reviewing on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and suggestions raised, and have found that all comments are very constructive and strengthen our manuscript. Therefore, we have incorporated all comments into the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected English errors.
We have used the services of MDPI English editing for improving English language and correcting grammatical mistakes. We have kindly asked our colleague to revise the manuscript. Our point by point responses to your and reviewers’ comments are itemized below. The changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. We hope that you would find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in your journal. In the response to reviewer’s letter, the blue color represents response of author while black color represents comments/suggestions from reviewers.
Note: English editing certificate are attach below.
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors have made good effort to address reviewer’s comments and the manuscript has improved now.
Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
After careful reading of the manuscript by Iqbal et al. I can say that it has been significantly improved; particularly, the use of English language has improved and the manuscript reads much better now. There are, however, a few aspects that are concerning regarding this revision. Specifically, after reading the response to the reviewer’s comments and the revised manuscript, I noticed that previous comments have not been adequately addressed:
For instance, in comment 1, authors are asked to better explain the interest of the study. In Their response, authors state that the interest of this paper is the evaluation of a specific cultivar, Zhenguia. However, this is not what it is stated in the introduction of the revised version of the manuscript.
In the request to provide more information on the methods used to analyze soils and fertilizers, the authors responded they have followed the suggestion, yet, no changes have been made to the revised manuscript (see lines 154-159).
Line 56 in the original manuscript states that organic manure is used to overcome soil and environmental contamination. In my first review I asked the authors to modify this statement since it is biased. In their letter, the authors agree and state they have changed the text accordingly. However, this statement has not been modified in the revised version of the manuscript (see Line 61).
Please explain this lack of consistency between the answer to the reviewer’s comments and the changes made in the manuscript.
Other minor comments:
Abstract
Line 16: combined
Line 23, 29: delete one period
Line 30: Nuptake???
Line 20-33. Reduce the results and elaborate more on the possible mechanisms of the treatments to enhance crop growth and yield
Introduction:
Line 43: ‘Loss of applied N losses ..’ please correct
Line 49: ‘and greenhouse gas emission’ redundant with previous sentence
Lne 50: check punctuation
Lines 82-84: provide references for this
Methods
Line 101: ‘The early season receive 660 mm, while the late season receive 335mm’ check verb tense
Line 157-159: please explain these methods more in detail.
Results
Line 217: please delete
Discussion
Line 422-505: fix line spacing
Formatting
Table 3 needs format editing, it’s blurry and difficult to read
Make sure to have consistent line spacing throughout the paper
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief: Ms. Iris Qiao
Agronomy
Subject: Re-submission of revised manuscript R2: 618063
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Enclosed please find our revised manuscript entitled “Organic manure coupled with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for sustainable production of noodle rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency” for possible publication in Agronomy. We would like to thank all the reviewers for their critical reviewing on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and suggestions raised, and have found that all comments are very constructive and strengthen our manuscript. Therefore, we have incorporated all comments into the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected English errors.
We have used the services of MDPI English editing for improving English language and correcting grammatical mistakes. We have kindly asked our colleague to revise the manuscript. Our point by point responses to your and reviewers’ comments are itemized below. The changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. We hope that you would find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in your journal. In the response to reviewer’s letter, the blue color represents response of author while black color represents comments/suggestions from reviewers.
Note: English editing certificate are attach below.
Reviewer
After careful reading of the manuscript by Iqbal et al. I can say that it has been significantly improved; particularly, the use of English language has improved and the manuscript reads much better now. There are, however, a few aspects that are concerning regarding this revision. Specifically, after reading the response to the reviewer’s comments and the revised manuscript, I noticed that previous comments have not been adequately addressed:
For instance, in comment 1, authors are asked to better explain the interest of the study. In Their response, authors state that the interest of this paper is the evaluation of a specific
cultivar, Zhenguia. However, this is not what it is stated in the introduction of the revised version of the manuscript.
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We have added information related to interest of cultivar in the revised introduction section.
In the request to provide more information on the methods used to analyze soils and fertilizers, the authors responded they have followed the suggestion, yet, no changes have been made to the revised manuscript (see lines 154-159).
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We are sorry for this mistake; we have provided all the concerned information in the revised manuscript.
Line 56 in the original manuscript states that organic manure is used to overcome soil and environmental contamination. In my first review I asked the authors to modify this statement since it is biased. In their letter, the authors agree and state they have changed the text accordingly. However, this statement has not been modified in the revised version of the manuscript (see Line 61).
Thanks for your comments. We have cleared the confusion in the revised version.
Please explain this lack of consistency between the answer to the reviewer’s comments and the changes made in the manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. The suggestion was followed.
Other minor comments:
Abstract
Line 16: combined Line 23, 24: delete one period Line: 30 Nuptakes???
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. We have corrected it in the revised version.
Line 20-33. Reduce the results and elaborate more on the possible mechanisms of the treatments to enhance crop growth and yield.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have elaborated on the possible mechanisms in the revised version.
Introduction:
Line 43: ‘Loss of applied N losses ..’ please correct
Line 49: ‘and greenhouse gas emission’ redundant with previous sentence
Line 50: check punctuation
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. We have checked and corrected it in the revised version.
Lines 82-84: provide references for this
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. We have provided in the revised version.
Methods
Line 101: ‘The early season receive 660 mm, while the late season receive 335mm’ check verb tense
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. We have corrected it in the revised version.
Line157-159: please explain these methods more in detail
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more detail as you suggested in the revised version.
Results
Line 217: please delete
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. We have deleted.
Discussion
Line 422-505: fix line spacing
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. We have done in the revised manuscript.
Formatting
Table 3 needs format editing. It’s blurry and difficult to read
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have changed it in the revised manuscript.
Make sure to have consistent line spacing throughout
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have done as you suggested.
English Editing Certificate
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article by Iqbal et al. presents the results of a study assessing the effects of different amounts of poultry and cattle manure on the growth, physiology and yields of rice. This is a nice and well executed experiment, with clear results. However, the topic is not completely novel and the authors need to make a better effort in explaining the interest of this study and the relevance of the results in a mechanistic way.
The hypothesis and justification for the choice of treatments need to be more elaborated; for instance, why mixing different proportions of poultry and cattle manure would result in different results?
Also, I believe that it is essential that the amount of nutrients provided with each treatment needs to be shown in this paper and discussed as a possible mechanism explaining the differences observed.
Finally, the use of English language needs to be thoroughly revised and improved. This article is not publishable in it’s current form.
Minor comments:
Author affiliations, correct to match the names with the affiliations
Line 44: show evidence of this by including more references
Line 56: this is biased, manure can also cause contamination
Sections are in the wrong order, Material and Methods should go after introduction.
Material and Methods
Line 368: experimental site
Line 369: why was the soil dried and pulverized? This is not representative of field conditions
Lines 376-377: what is the justification for these doses? What was the nutrient content in each treatment?
383: provide chemical composition of the manures
Lines 402-405: provide more information on the methods used
Results:
Lines 87-95 and Table 1: this is probably not relevant
Lines 98-103 and Table 2: this should be presented in Material and Methods
Line 110: differences in BD between the treatments were significant but minimal
Discussion
Lines 267-268: there is weak evidence for this
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief: Ms. Iris Qiao
Agronomy
Subject: Re-submission of revised manuscript R1. 587962
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Enclosed please find our revised manuscript entitled “Organic manure coupling with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for sustainable production of noodle rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency” for possible publication in Agronomy. We would like to thank all the reviewers for their critical reviewing on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and suggestions raised, and have found that all comments are very constructive and strengthen our manuscript. Therefore, we have incorporated all comments into the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected English errors.
We have used the services of MDPI English editing for improving English language and correcting grammatical mistakes. We have kindly asked our colleague to revise the manuscript. Our point by point responses to your and reviewers’ comments are itemized below. The changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. We hope that you would find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in your journal. In the response to reviewer’s letter, the blue color represents response of author while black color represents comments/suggestions from reviewers.
Dear editor, as you suggested to submit the revised version a new submission, due to journal time line criteria, and promised to us that will send our article to the respective handling reviewers. Therefore, we are here by submitting manuscript as a new submission.
Note: English editing certificate are attach below.
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article by Iqbal et al. presents the results of a study assessing of different amounts of poultry and cattle manure on the growth, physiology and yield of rice. This is a nice and well executed experiment, with clear results. However, the topic is not completely novel and the authors need to make a better effort in explaining the interest of this study and the relevance results in a mechanistic way.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In the present study the knowledge regarding growth, physiology, yield of rice cultivar “Zhenguiai” ( use for noodles) in general and particularly nutritive quality (amylose content, gel consistency, protein content, and alkali spreading value) of rice under combined application of manure and mineral fertilizer not been fully studied in Ultisols in southern China. Therefore, we assumed that this cultivar may react differently in terms of growth, grain yield and especially quality under different organic and inorganic fertilizer treatment. This cultivar has high (24-30%) amylase content (AC) compared to Japonica rice (< 18%) and quality of noodles made from rice flour mainly depended on AC (high AC has good noodles quality). In-addition, we have also determined the correlation of root morphological traits with N uptake, biomass accumulation and grain yield at various growth stages in our study. We have addressed the important of this study with clear results to show the interest of combined fertilizer application compared with sole urea application.
The hypothesis and justification for the choice of treatments need to be more elaborated; for instance, why mixing different proportions of poultry and cattle manure would results in different results?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We hypothesized that organic manure has the potential to provide sufficient nutrient and should be replace partially by inorganic fertilizer to sustain soil health, and crop productivity. The combination of different proportion of organic and inorganic fertilizer was aimed due to excessive use of inorganic fertilizer negatively affect soil health and crop quality. In fact, organic manure alone might not meet the plant’s requirements due to the relatively low nutrient contents and the slow release of plant nutrients (Aguilera et al., 2012). Organic manure coupled with synthetic fertilizers have confirmed to be a better approach to improve and sustain soil fertility and crop production than sole application of mineral or organic manure (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2010). Therefore, to maintain a sustainable crop production without compromising soil quality, we designed our treatment combination (organic manure + inorganic fertilizer) in different proportion to check out the most valuable and economical ratio of both fertilizer that how it effect soil properties and noodle rice productivity. The results are in favor of our hypothesis and clearly showed obvious differences among treatments.
Also, I believe that it is essential that the amount of nutrients provided with each treatment need to be shown in this paper and discussed as a possible mechanism explaining the differences observed.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have provided the amount of nutrient for each treatment as you suggested is the following. For details kindly go through manuscript (Table 3). In light of your eminent direction we further elaborated the results in a best possible way to satisfy the reviewer and viewers.
Table. Nutrient content and amount provided for each treatment and fertilizer application timing.
Finally, the use of English needs to be thoroughly revised and improved. This article is not publishable in its current form.
Response: Thank you so much for your suggestion. We have used the services of MDPI English editing company for improving English language and correcting grammatical mistakes.
Some further miner comment:
Author affiliations, correct to match the name with affiliations.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The suggestion was followed.
Line 44: shows evidence of this by including more references
Response: Thank you so much for your comments. We have provided more references as you recommended in the revised version.
Line 56: this is biased manure can also cause contamination
Response: We are thankful for your comments. Organic manure also cause contamination; but the rate is quite lower as compared to chemical fertilizers. Moreover, many previous studies have focused on applying manure on a weight basis (Arif et al, 2014; Zhang et al, 2018). They have typically neglected the total nitrogen (N) composition of the manure. Therefore, organic manure apply at high rate or manage improperly can cause contamination. In the present study, we applied N from poultry or cattle manure, and urea depending on the total N content of each fertilizer.
Sections are in wrong order, Materials and Methods showed go after introduction
Response: We are sorry for this mistake and the suggestion was followed in the revised manuscript.
Materials and Methods
Line 368: experimental site
Response: Thank you very much for your reminder. The suggestion was followed.
Line 369: why was the soil dried and pulverized? This is not representative of field conditions
Response: Thank you so much for your suggestion. The experiment conducted in pots, so before starting of experiment, soil was air dried in the shed (not in oven) and pulverized the soil to remove unwanted stone, clods and trash from the soil. Further to make the soil more suitable for mixing manure completely with soil. However, all other practices such as (irrigation, insecticides and pesticides) were similar to filed condition.
Line 376-377: what is the justification for these doses? What was the nutrient content in each treatment?
Response: Thank you so much for your constructive comment. This question is already addressed in the previous answer (Que. 2). The detail nutrients content for each treatment is presented in Table 3.
Line 383: provide chemical composition of the manure
Response: We have accepted your suggestion. The chemical composition of manure has been mentioned in Table 2 in the manuscript.
Line 402-405: provide more information on the methods used
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have provided more information on the method used for soil porosity, moisture content and soil pH in the revised manuscript.
Results
Line 87-95 and Table 1: this is probably not relevant
Response: We apologize for this error. We have deleted irrelevant sentences.
Line 98-103 and Table 2 this should be presented in Materials and Methods
Response: Thank you for your comment. The suggestion was followed in the manuscript.
Line 110: difference in BD between the treatments were significant but minimal
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have conducted the current study under Ultislos soil which was nutrient deficits, contains low organic matter, high soil bulk density (BD), low porosity also early reported by Soelaeman et al. (2012). Organic manure significantly reduced the BD of soil compared with inorganic fertilization. It is noticed that among our treatments as the ratio of organic manures increase it caused a decrease in BD, changes in BD is a time taken process that’s why there is significant variation among our treatments but not up to mark.
Discussion
Line 267-268: there is weak evidence for this
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more evidence relevant to our findings in the revised manuscript.
Referance
Aguilera, J., Motavalli, P.P., Gonzales, M.A., Valdivia, C., 2012. Initial and residual effects of organic and inorganic amendments onsoil properties ina potato-based cropping system in the Bolivian Andean Highlands. AJEA 2, 641–666
Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Misra, A.K., Ghosh, P.K., Hati, K.M., 2010. Effect of integrated use of farmyard manure and chemical fertilizers on soil physical properties and productivity of soybean. Soil Tillage Res. 110, 115–125
Soelaeman, Y., & Haryati, U. (2012). Soil Physical Properties and Production of Upland Ultisol Soil. AGRIVITA, Journal of Agricultural Science, 34(2), 136-143.
English editing Certificate
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for this very interesting manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief: Ms. Iris Qiao
Agronomy
Subject: Re-submission of revised manuscript R1. 587962
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Enclosed please find our revised manuscript entitled “Organic manure coupling with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for sustainable production of noodle rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency” for possible publication in Agronomy. We would like to thank all the reviewers for their critical reviewing on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and suggestions raised, and have found that all comments are very constructive and strengthen our manuscript. Therefore, we have incorporated all comments into the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected English errors.
We have used the services of MDPI English editing for improving English language and correcting grammatical mistakes. We have kindly asked our colleague to revise the manuscript. Our point by point responses to your and reviewers’ comments are itemized below. The changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. We hope that you would find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in your journal. In the response to reviewer’s letter, the blue color represents response of author while black color represents comments/suggestions from reviewers.
Dear editor, as you suggested to submit the revised version a new submission, due to journal time line criteria, and promised to us that will send our article to the respective handling reviewers. Therefore, we are here by submitting manuscript as a new submission.
Note: English editing certificate are attach below.
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I thank the authors for this interesting manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.
English editing Certificate
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manipulating the organic and inorganic soil inputs to improve soil health will improve the environmental sustainability of crop production. This manuscript investigated the effect of organic manure and inorganic applications on soil properties, nitrogen use efficiency and noodle rice yield and growth. The design and statistical analysis are appropriate. Significant work went into this study including laborious root studies. The content is relevant to the readership of the journal. The results of the investigation provide additional data to improve sustainable rice production. The data generated is publishable. However, the manuscript needs significant improvement in terms of addressing what is new in this study was not reported in the past. There are several studies that report a combination of organic and inorganic fertiliser as a sustainable solution to feed the growing population. Rather than having a routine hypothesis, authors need to interpret the data to find novelty in results.
Specific comments
line 19 what is the %CF for T4
line 21 gain yield or grain yield?
line 23 SOC, TN, AP and AK are used the first time and needs abbreviation.
Line 32 change nutrients use efficiency to nutrient use efficiency
Line 79- 84: The first sentence is a more routine hypothesis. Instead, the specific objective should be refined to form an improved hypothesis to find novelty in results. To develop, that the previous introduction paragraphs need to address what combination ratio was tried before and why this new combination ratio of organic and inorganic fertiliser ratio was tried? and how it is different or similar or better than previous combinations needs to be presented in results and discussion improved.
Line 136- The abbreviation TRL, TRSA, TRV and TARD were first used the first time and needs to be described.
The discussion and conclusion need to be improved to address specific research questions on fertiliser combination ratio rather than just stating the established findings on 'organic and inorganic combination is a better sustainable option'
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief: Ms. Iris Qiao
Agronomy
Subject: Re-submission of revised manuscript R1. 587962
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Enclosed please find our revised manuscript entitled “Organic manure coupling with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for sustainable production of noodle rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency” for possible publication in Agronomy. We would like to thank all the reviewers for their critical reviewing on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and suggestions raised, and have found that all comments are very constructive and strengthen our manuscript. Therefore, we have incorporated all comments into the manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected English errors.
We have used the services of MDPI English editing for improving English language and correcting grammatical mistakes. We have kindly asked our colleague to revise the manuscript. Our point by point responses to your and reviewers’ comments are itemized below. The changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. We hope that you would find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in your journal. In the response to reviewer’s letter, the blue color represents response of author while black color represents comments/suggestions from reviewers.
Dear editor, as you suggested to submit the revised version a new submission, due to journal time line criteria, and promised to us that will send our article to the respective handling reviewers. Therefore, we are here by submitting manuscript as a new submission.
Note: English editing certificate are attach below.
Reviewer 3
Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Manipulating the organic and inorganic soil inputs to improve soil health will improve the environmental sustainability of crop production. This manuscript investigated the effect organic manure and inorganic application on soil properties, nitrogen use efficiency and noodle rice yield and growth. The design and statistical analysis are appropriate. Significant work went into this study including laborious root studies. The content is relevant to the readership of the journal. The results of investigation provide additional data to improve sustainable rice production. The data generated is publishable. However, the manuscript needs significant improvement in term of addressing what is new in this study was not reported in the past. There are several studies that report a combination of organic and inorganic fertilizer as a sustainable solution to feed the growing population. Rather than having routine hypothesis, authors need to interpret data to find novelty in results.
Response: Thank you very much for your nice suggestions. From literature we compiled that limited work is done previously to study the physiology of rice cultivar “Zhenguiai” (use for noodles) in general and quality in specific (amylose content (AC), gel consistency (GC), and protein content (PC)) of cultivar under combined application of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer in Ultisols southern China. Therefore, we assumed that rice cultivar may respond differently in terms of growth, yield and particularly in nutritive quality to combine organic and synthetic fertilizer. The main difference in this cultivar (Indicia) and Japonica is the amount of amylose content. Zhenguiai rice cultivar has high (24-30%) amylase content compared to Japonica rice (< 18%) and quality of rice noodles mainly depended on AC. High AC has good noodle quality. Moreover, we deeply studied the root traits and its relationship with biomass accumulation, N uptake and grain yield.
Specific comments
Line 19 what is the %CF for T4
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have added the % CF 70 for T4 in the revised version.
Line: 21 gain yield or grain yield?
Response: Once again sorry for this typo mistake .We have fixed it in the revised version.
Line: 23 SOC, TN and AK are used the first time needs abbreviation.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added the all abbreviation in the revised version as you suggested.
Line: 32 change nutrients use efficiency to nutrient use efficiency
Response: The suggestion was followed and revision was made in the revised version.
Line 79- 84: The first sentence is a more routine hypothesis. Instead, the specific objective should be refined to form an improved to find novelty in results. To develop, that the previous introduction paragraph need to be address what combination ration was tried before and why this new combination ration of organic and inorganic fertilizer ratio was tried? and how it is different or similar or better than previous combination needs to be presented in results and discussion improved.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have done according to your suggestions in our revised manuscript. From literature, we compiled that previously in many research organic manure was applied on weight basis rather than specific N nutrient concentration (Arif et al, 2014; Zhang et al, 2018). They typically neglected the total N content of the manure. In the present study, we applied N from poultry or cattle manure, and urea by estimated N % depending on the total N content in each type of fertilizer. The different proportion of organic and chemical fertilizer added from cattle or poultry manure, and urea was aimed to determine the best combination for enhancing crop yield and improving soil properties on sustainable basis.
Line: 136- The abbreviation TRL, TRSA, TRV and TARD were first time and needs to be described.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added the all the relevant abbreviation in the revised version as you suggested.
The discussion and conclusion need to be improved to address specific research questions on fertilizer combination ratio rather than just starting the established finding on ‘organic and inorganic is better sustainable option’.
Response: We have accepted your suggestion and improved this section with logical way in the revised manuscripts.
Reference
Arif M, Tasneem M, Bashir F, Yassen G, Iqbal R M. 2014. Effect of integrated use of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on yield and yield components of rice. J Agric Res, 52(2): 197–206.
Zhang M, Yao Y L, Tian Y H, Ceng K, Zhao M, Zhao M, Yin B. 2018. Increasing yield and N use efficiency with organic fertilizer in Chinese intensive rice cropping systems. Field Crops Res, 227: 102–109.
English editing Certificate
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
