The Reaction of Winter Oilseed Rape to Different Foliar Fertilization with Macro- and Micronutrients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paragraph on the results must be improved,
for example figure 1 is not clear, too much information in a single graph,
the parameters should be divided and inserted in supplementary materials.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: 
 The paragraph on the results must be improved, for example figure 1 is not clear, too much information in a single graph,

Response 1: Figure 1 has been changed. Information on rainfall and temperature is presented in two separate figures. Thank you for the proofreading. The results have been corrected and supplemented to be clearer. I have marked the detailed corrections in the text of the manuscript.

Point 2: The parameters should be divided and inserted in supplementary materials.

Response 2: The parameters have been corrected. This applies to both text, tables and figures. Charts and tables have been changed to make them more readable. However, I gave up adding additional data to the supplement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “The reaction of winter oilseed rape to different foliar fertilization with macro- and micronutrients”

 

General Comments

Authors did a great job in their investigation and it appears very well thought out and well executed. However, the manuscript is unorganized and difficult to read. I believe that authors should consider heavy revisions before resubmission to take their manuscript to the next level.

 

Abstract

• Line 9. Crop should have scientific name accompanying when first introduced.
• Line 10. Cultivar name should be in single quotes when first introduced.
• The fertilizer variants should be clearly explained before discussing results of A-F. What are the test factors?

 

Introduction

• Introduction is scattered. Many good elements but not directed toward a clear point. For example: Why is environment and climate change important?
• Line 25. Why is it the most “important?”
• Why 47-48. What does “optimal” mean and why during autumn vegetation?
• Lines 53-57: This section is scattered with no clear direction? Why is boron and bees important?
• Section could benefit from clear organization and progression.

 

Materials and Methods

• Three years is great!
• Presentation of fertilizers in Table 1 is very unclear. What was applied and how much of it was applied? Consider changing description from product names to nutrient application names at each date. Lines 94-113 do a good job of this but would be better in table form.
• Was it sown into tilled or no till soils?
• Materials and methods should be broken into subsections with headers to increase clarity. For example: Testing sites, treatment, measurements and sampling procedures, and analysis.
• Lines 161-163: Which factors were fixed/random?

 

Results

• Figure 1 is good but what is “long term precipitation?” 30 year?
• Results by traits may be split by factor (i.e. interactions, fertilizer, and environment). This would reduce the number of “on the other hand” type discussions (e.g. lines 181-182) that distracts from the best parts of the manuscript.
• Delete the dendrogram. It is not outlined in the materials and methods and does not make sense in the context of this manuscript.
• Correlation analysis was not outlined in the manuscript? Are results averaged over year? Is this comparing fertilizer types? I’m not sure how you can conduct a correlation analysis in this manuscript.
• ANOVA-based results were great. I’d suggest sticking to this analysis.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Abstract

• Line 9. Crop should have scientific name accompanying when first introduced.
• Line 10. Cultivar name should be in single quotes when first introduced.
• The fertilizer variants should be clearly explained before discussing results of A-F. What are the test factors?

Response 1: Line 9. Latin name for oilseed rape has been added (Brassica napus L.).

Line 10. The apostrophe has been supplemented with the cultivar name, ‘ES Cesario’.

Foliar fertilization variants were added to the abstract. Thank you for the correction.

Introduction

• Introduction is scattered. Many good elements but not directed toward a clear point. For example: Why is environment and climate change important?
• Line 25. Why is it the most “important?”
• Why 47-48. What does “optimal” mean and why during autumn vegetation?
• Lines 53-57: This section is scattered with no clear direction? Why is boron and bees important?
• Section could benefit from clear organization and progression.

Response 2:

The introduction has been changed. The word “most important” has been changed. After the change it is: (Line 28) Winter oilseed rape is important oil plant in Europe….

Other oil crops in UE are of less production importance therefore it is important to improve agrotechnics of winter oilseed rape.

The word optimal (Line 50) has been removed. Explained why fertilizing winter oilseed rape in autumn is important. This allows, first of all, for proper development and hardening plants before winter. A preparation with boron was used in foliar fertilization. Therefore, information on the effects on bees (Line 59) is included.

Materials and Methods

• Three years is great!
• Presentation of fertilizers in Table 1 is very unclear. What was applied and how much of it was applied? Consider changing description from product names to nutrient application names at each date. Lines 94-113 do a good job of this but would be better in table form.
• Was it sown into tilled or no till soils?
• Materials and methods should be broken into subsections with headers to increase clarity. For example: Testing sites, treatment, measurements and sampling procedures, and analysis.
• Lines 161-163: Which factors were fixed/random?

Response 3: Table 1 has been changed. Two separates tables were prepared with information about foliar fertilizers (experiment factor) and about solid fertilizers (used for the entire field). Rapeseed was sown in rotation, the fore crop was wheat . The fixed factor was years and the random factor was foliar fertilization. Materials and methods are divided into sections to make them more transparent.

Results

• Figure 1 is good but what is “long term precipitation?” 30 year?
• Results by traits may be split by factor (i.e. interactions, fertilizer, and environment). This would reduce the number of “on the other hand” type discussions (e.g. lines 181-182) that distracts from the best parts of the manuscript.
• Delete the dendrogram. It is not outlined in the materials and methods and does not make sense in the context of this manuscript.
• Correlation analysis was not outlined in the manuscript? Are results averaged over year? Is this comparing fertilizer types? I’m not sure how you can conduct a correlation analysis in this manuscript.
• ANOVA-based results were great. I’d suggest sticking to this analysis.

Response 4:

Figure 1 is divided into two graphs. The multi-year results were in 20 years.

Lines 181-182 Sentence changed to remove words "on the other hand".

The dendrogram (Fig. 2) has been removed. I agree that it is unnecessary in the manuscript.

Correlation information changed. Only the correlation coefficients between the selected features were calculated. Significance was computed for only p <0.05, which was added under Table 8. Thank you for your comments and your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The Section Materials and methods is unstructured. Authors should provide subsections on materials and methods for experimental design and statistical description.
2. According to the information provided, it is doubtful whether the amount of used nutrients content has been correctly calculated “The total dose of all nutrients, as a result of the applied fertilization was (kg·ha^-1) as follows”. According to the information provided, nitrogen has been added 200 kg ha^-1, but:

   Variant A (line 104):  YaraMila RAPS – 200 kg + YaraMila RAPS – 600 kg + YaraBela SULFAN – 400 kg.

   • YaraMila RAPS containing (%): 16 N, 8 P₂O₅, 16 K₂O, 1.7 MgO, 12.5 SO₃, 0.1 B;
   • YaraBela SULFAN containing (%): 24 N, 10.5 CaO, 1.5 MgO, 16.2 SO₃.

   However, according the formula it should have been added as follows:

   200x16/100   + 600x16/100 + 400x24/100=224 kg ha^-1 (N).

   The other discrepancies, in the option A, are listed in the article. In addition, the options B, C, D and E should be proofread and corrected.

   3. Indication of significance (P≤0.05; P≤0.01) of the provided correlation coefficients should be showed in Table No 7.

   E.g. 0.93* or 0.93**

   Recommendation: the following information should be provided bellow the Table: Notes: * - P≤0.05; ** - P ≤0.01.

   4.The Latin plant names should be written in Italic font.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The Section Materials and methods is unstructured. Authors should provide subsections on materials and methods for experimental design and statistical description.

Response 1:

The materials and methods section has been divided into sub-chapters. This made it possible to systematize the research carried out and explain the conducted procedures. Thank you for your comments which allowed me to improve my manuscript.

According to the information provided, it is doubtful whether the amount of used nutrients content has been correctly calculated “The total dose of all nutrients, as a result of the applied fertilization was (kg·ha^-1) as follows”. According to the information provided, nitrogen has been added 200 kg ha^-1, but:

Variant A (line 104):  YaraMila RAPS – 200 kg + YaraMila RAPS – 600 kg + YaraBela SULFAN – 400 kg.

• YaraMila RAPS containing (%): 16 N, 8 P₂O₅, 16 K₂O, 1.7 MgO, 12.5 SO₃, 0.1 B;
• YaraBela SULFAN containing (%): 24 N, 10.5 CaO, 1.5 MgO, 16.2 SO₃.

However, according the formula it should have been added as follows:

200x16/100   + 600x16/100 + 400x24/100=224 kg ha^-1 (N).

The other discrepancies, in the option A, are listed in the article. In addition, the options B, C, D and E should be proofread and corrected.

Response 2: Information on the dose of Yara Bela SULFAN was entered incorrectly.

Was given:

Variant A (line 104):  YaraMila RAPS – 200 kg + YaraMila RAPS – 600 kg + YaraBela SULFAN – 400 kg.

Changed to:

Variant A (line 104):  YaraMila RAPS – 200 kg + YaraMila RAPS – 600 kg + YaraBela SULFAN – 300 kg.

All components were recalculated and new values were given. Thank you very much for the correction, it's my mistake.

 Indication of significance (P≤0.05; P≤0.01) of the provided correlation coefficients should be showed in Table No 7.

E.g. 0.93* or 0.93**

Recommendation: the following information should be provided bellow the Table: Notes: * - P≤0.05; ** - P ≤0.01.

Response 3: The correlation coefficients were calculated only for p <0.05. The significance (P≤0.05) of the correlation coefficients was added in Table 8.

The following information is provided below table 8:

* significant differences at  ≤0.05

The Latin plant names should be written in Italic font.

Response 4: Latin plant names are written in italic font. Thank you for the correction and time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good improvements. Biggest remaining issue is that statistics are presented for lower order factors (i.e. year and treatment) when a significant interaction effect is shown. When significant interactions are observed then statistics should only be presented on the interaction and not the single factors. Authors should not show statistical differences for single factor effects when a significant interaction is present and should consider showing the statistics for the interaction values.

Author Response

I agree that interactions should be prezented. The tables are big though. That's why I made a supplement. In the supplementary materials I have included three tables with data on interactions: foliar fertilization x years. References to the tables in the supplement are provided in the manuscript. Thanks again for the time and comments that allowed me to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I apologize for dragging the issue out but the manuscript's statistics are presented incorrectly.  Significant should not be shown for lower order factors when a significant interaction effect is reported. While the supplemental table is great, it is still incorrect to have means comparisons (HSD) for any of the single factor effects when a significant interaction is observed. Author should not show statistical differences for single factor effects when a significant interaction is present and should consider showing the statistics for the interaction values. Author must delete the letters in these instances.

As an example, Variant D is shown to have the highest GS over years in Table 6 (significantly so according to the HSD) but we see in the supplemental table that it actually has the 2nd lowest variant for GS in 2018.  This is a bit misleading and clearly an incorrect way to present the findings. The author must address this by deleting the letters (HSD) for single factor effects when the interaction is significant if this reviewer is to accept this paper. 

This reviewer has high regard for work conducted and believes that it merits publication upon revision.  The reviewer respectfully suggests that the author either make the suggested revision or write a response to the editor requesting a change of reviewer.

Author Response

The Reviewer's remarks are correct. Therefore, I deleted the letters when interaction was demonstrated. However, I have included the letters in the tables of the supplement (significantly so according to the HSD). If there was a significant interaction. In the text I added a short description of the most important dependencies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx