Application of New-Generation Growth Regulators and Topdressing Nitrogen Fertilizers Increases Improver Winter Wheat Yield and Grain Quality in South Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript studies the influence of application of new generation growth regulators and topdressing nitrogen fertilizers on winter wheat yield and bread quality in south of Russia. I think the manuscript has the following problems.

1.     I suggest separating the discussion from the results.

2.     The manuscript does not explain how nitrogen application and plant growth regulators improve winter wheat grain yield and quality. I suggest added the data about dry matter, leaf area, and other.

3.     In the conclusions, the author consider that plant growth regulators reduce pest attacks, but no data are available in results section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed he/she suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are highlighted into the manuscript in YELLOW. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text in YELLOW.

1. In this study, we evaluated and interpreted the effect of experimental treatments separately in most cases, and for this reason, it is more suitable for us to integrate the results and discussion. But if reviewer insists on separating the results and discussions, we will definitely separate them.
2. The text of R&D revised and added suggested information. Leaf area in this study was not calculated, hope in subsequent study we will follow and analyze leaf area and other traits.
3. The mentioned sentence removed from the conclusion. But, that was observed in the field but data were not presented.

 

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     Please try to show the novelty of your study in the abstract, it is very necessary to increase the attractive of this study for the readers. 

2.     First of all, the introduction should be slightly edited. At this moment, it sounds more like a very general review. Meanwhile, in my opinion, the introduction should contain a synthetic description of specific research carried out by other authors on a given research topic. The introduction should also more precisely indicate what is new in the authors' research.

3.     Recheck in all documents the super script like ha^-1. adjust in all draft. Emphasize more on English grammatical and sentence structure. 

4.     Please correct Triticum aestivum L. into Triticum aestivum L. (L36)

5.     Please unify the writing N32, N64 (N32 + N32), N96 (N32 + N32 + N32) in the whole document. For example, in Line 39 using N₆₄ (N₃₂+N₃₂+N₃₂). 

6.      I would suggest expanding the conclusions a bit by providing, for example, percentage data on increases or decreases in results.

7.     The language of the full text needs further polishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed he/she suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are done into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

 

 

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text.

1. We added novelty and the aim of the study in the abstract.

as reviewer suggested.  

2. Introduction revised regarding to the reviewer comments.
3. Mentioned errors checked and edited entire the text.
4. 4. Triticum aestivum corrected in the text.
5. Revised N composition form in all cases.
6. Conclusion revised.
7. English quality checked and revised.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

The main purpose of this experiment is to study the effects of 4 nitrogen fertilizer treatments and 3 plant growth regulators on wheat yield and quality. The experiment is relatively simple and no new ideas are showed. The main comments are as follows:

1. The test only briefly introduces the test results from the aspects of wheat yield, yield components, gluten, nature and grain vitreousness, and does not dynamically monitor the influence between treatments from the growth process of wheat, which is particularly important for nitrogen fertilizer treatment. Because it is helpful for us to analyze the effect of nitrogen fertilizer application on wheat growth in different growth periods of wheat.

2. In the abstract, treatment with lowest wheat grain yield would not be a meaningful conclusion.

3. In the introduction, interaction research progress of nitrogen and plant growth regulators. If there is interaction effect between nitrogen and plant growth regulators.

4. Line 96-109 Site description and management. The basic information about soil nitrogen should be added, which was very important, because soil nitrogen content affects the response of wheat to nitrogen fertilizer treatment.

5. The author should explain the determination methods of wheat yield and its components in Experimental procedures and design, but the determination methods of wheat quality still need further explanation or quote the methods of others. In addition, "N32, N64 (N32+N32), N96 (N32+N32+N32) and control" should be explained in order to facilitate readers to understand the meaning of different nitrogen treatments.

6. Line 141-143, the magnesium sulfate, potassium phosphate, potassium nitrate and urea in Albit are not plant growth regulators and really have increasing effect on yield. This would be a reason why the yield of Albit treatment is higher than Zircon and Silk treatments.

7. Line 127-146, what are the amount and application method of plant growth regulators.

8. From the experimental results (Table 1), the three plant growth regulators have no significant effect on the yield and quality of wheat in each nitrogen treatment. The causes of this result should be discussed deeply. And the result of "wheat yield increases with the increase of total nitrogen application" has been reported in a large number of previous studies. Therefore, this result has no important significance for guiding the application of nitrogen fertilizer in wheat.

9. Please add an ANOVA analysis, the difference between treatments between years.

10. The author should check the manuscript further before submitting the manuscript. Line 39 "N64 (N32+N32+N32)" is not any kind of nitrogen fertilizer treatment in the manuscript. In addition, there are many confusing sentences and semantic repetition in the manuscript, such as lines 33-36 and 37-44, which are difficult to read.

11. The nitrogen amount in treatment of N96 with Albite is really high (more than 447.6 kg/ha) from the material data. Please provide the production significance of this treatment.

12. More new ideas should be summarized in conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed he/she suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are done into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text.

1. In our study we tried to analyze the effect of nitrogen fertilizer application on different traits of wheat those are more important for wheat cultivation in the area, hence our goal was to find solutions to improve studied wheat traits in southern Russia.
2. In the abstract, text related to treatment with the lowest wheat grain yield deleted according to the reviewer suggestion.
3. We assume that PGRs and fertilizers are similar in nature and do not interact significantly. We observed no significant efficacy in the most cases.
4. Nitrogen level of the soil added in the M&M section.
5. N32, N64 (N32+N32), N96 (N32+N32+N32) and control explained in details in the text of M&M section.

- Determination of wheat yield and yield parameters added to M&M. 

6. We are agree with reviewer that the different elements in Albit would increase yield of Albit treatment compared to Zircon and Silk treatments.
7. Application rates and method of plant growth regulators added. PFRs were applied by a knapsack sprayer in the experimental plots.
8. Discussion added to the R&D section.
9. According to the results, since the interactions of the effect of year and experimental treatments were not significant for the measured traits, the data analysis and the mean comparisons carried out not annually or separately.
10. Line 39 revised. Revised sentences according to the suggestion.
11. N based substances of Albeit are potassium nitrate 91.2 g/kg + urea 181.5 g/kg. Which means g per kg of material content or active substance, but not an application dose.
12. Conclusion improved.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

Interesting research results for science and agricultural practice. I appreciate that the experiment was field and three-year research. Manuscript needs improvement. I have included detailed comments in the original text (attachment). Generally: correct the units as required by the journal, improve keywords, put Latin names in italics, change the cited literature as required by the journal, write more information about foliar nitrogen application, complete the missing information in the Methods and Methodology chapter, describe the weather conditions in the years of research, give the results for the protein content in the grain, the Discussion or Results and Discussion chapter is missing from the manuscript, correction tables, whether the differences are significant or insignificant, correct the english language throughout the text, Add more literature and improve your literature list. After making corrections, I recommend the manuscript to be published in the journal Agriculture

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed he/she suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are done into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text.

All of suggestions and comments are already addressed in the text. Material and methods revised. All points suggested on technical errors entire the text also corrected.

Details on trait measurements and procedures also revised and added suggested information. And discussion on the results improved. 

• They are no letters on average data in the table 1. They are average yield of three years. Letters are provided for mean comparison of data in the table.
• Effect of N fertilizer was not statistically significant on plant height.
• Statistical data (Also LSD analysis checked)

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

accepted

Author Response

Thanks for accepting our manuscript 

Reviewer 3 Report

In 2.2. Experimental procedures and design , the unit kg is incomplete for N32 and needs to be supplemented.

The sentence "...with a seeding rate of 4.5 million seeds per ha-1", the unit is in wrong format. There are other similar wrong formats.

The unit for application of PGRs, l ha-1 or l/ha? This should be based on the needs of the journal.

In table 2 and 3, the unit m2 for stem numbers is wrong.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed he/she suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are done into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text.

• Unit kg revised in experimental procedures and design.
• 5 million seeds per ha-1" revised in YELLOW.
• Unit for PGRs revised.
• Unit for stem numbers revised

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

The publication: Application of New Generation Growth Regulators and Topdressing Nitrogen Fertilizers Increases Improver Winter Wheat Yield and Bread Quality in South of Russia contains important information for science and agricultural practice. The manuscript was well corrected, especially the English language. I have included a few remarks in the original text.

 In the first review, I made a few remarks that would improve the manuscript. Please see the manuscript from the first review again. But I leave it to the authors' discretion. After corrected the manuscript, I recommend publication in the journal Agriculture.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed revision of the text and useful suggestions to improve the paper by the reviewer. We have closely followed he/she suggestions and introduced the required changes in the text. Main changes are done into the manuscript. Below, we have included reviewer comments and our responses.

We have revised the manuscript for edits/changes as you suggested. All the comments addressed in the text.

• Suggestion has already been addressed in the text.
• In page 4 reviewer suggested to add the results to the table. We did not understand what reviewer means as results? In that section (M&M) authors wrote experiment procedure and sampling methods. If the reviewer insists to revise here in that part, let us know nd explain please what exactly to do.
• References checked.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Yours sincerely,