Optimal Water-Fertilizer Combinations for Efficient Nitrogen Fixation by Sugarcane at Different Stages of Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think this paper is very interesting, for the value and purposes of journal Water.
However, I would like to suggest some changes and additions.
Throughout the manuscript, it is generally necessary to update and/or increase the references, especially in the discussion of the results.
Check all units of measure (including subscripts/superscripts), equation formats etc..
Line 43. There are different formats of the bibliography, however I would like to suggest adding this:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114577
Line 57. I would like to suggest you insert this:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249366
It is necessary to increase the conclusions.
Check reference 34 and 49, I believe they are the same.
Author Response
Point 1: Throughout the manuscript, it is generally necessary to update and/or increase the references, especially in the discussion of the results.
Response 1: We updated some related references in the introduction and discussion according to the content of the manuscript. Thank you for your suggestions
Point 2: Check all units of measure (including subscripts/superscripts),equation formats etc..
Response 2: We checked and revised all units of measure (including subscript/superscript)s and equation format. Thank you for your suggestions
Point 3: Line 43. There are different formats of the bibliography, however I would like to suggest adding this: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114577
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments and suggestions that helps to improve the current version of the manuscript. Amended the format of the bibliography in accordance with the requirements of the journal, and this document has been referenced, thanks for the recommendation
Point 4: Line 57. I would like to suggest you insert this: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249366
Response 4: This document has been referenced, thanks for the recommendation
Point 5: It is necessary to increase the conclusions.
Response 5: We have partially revised the conclusion, please refer to the manuscript, thank you
Point 6: Check reference 34 and 49, I believe they are the same.
Response 6: The two documents are the same, we have corrected our mistakes, thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting study. I enjoyed reading the manuscript. Nevertheless, it needs some further improvements. In general, there are still some occasional grammar errors throughout the manuscript, especially the article "the," "a," and "an" is missing in many places; please make a spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might help the authors further enhance the manuscript's quality.
- Specific Comments
A list of acronyms is needed
- Introduction
- The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
- What is the novelty of this work?
- Methods
- The methodology limitation should be mentioned.
- All variables should be explained.
- Results
- This section is well written.
- Please improve the text size for all figures.
- Discussion
- The discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any limitations of the study or results that conflict with other published work.
Author Response
Point 1: Introduction
The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
Response 1: The objective of this study was to determining optimal water and fertilization regimen for sugarcane is of practical importance to sugar supply and meet the global responsibility for reducing GHG emissions, using an 15N isotopic dilution technique.
Point 2: Introduction
What is the novelty of this work?
Response 2:
- Optimal water-fertilization combinations for sugarcane biomass and sugarcane δ15N content at different growth stages were identified.
- Significant insights were obtained on photosynthesis, soil respiration, leaf area index, transpiration, soil temperature, and soil electrical conductivity under different irrigation and fertilization combinations.
- This can help in optimization and management of sugarcane crops in Guangxi, and in other regions with similar environments.
Point 3: Methods
The methodology limitation should be mentioned.
All variables should be explained.
Response 3: The methodology limitations and variable measurement methods were supplemented in the manuscript
Point 4: Results
This section is well written.
Please improve the text size for all figures.
Response 4: We improved the text size for all figures.
Point 5: Discussion
The discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any limitations of the study or results that conflict with other published work.
Response 5: We thank the reviewers for the very keen comments and suggestions to improve the current version of the paper. We have now improved our discussion section to match with our conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments have been addressed and all the relevant modifications have been made to the manuscript which make it publishable in its present form.
Author Response
We have now addressed important comments and suggestions, restructured, and reshaped the presentation of the manuscript for clarity and now more comprehensible. We are looking forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication in water.
