Efficiency of Precision Fertilization System in Grain-Grass Crop Rotation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript has been improved since its original form. Here i have some recommendations which should be addressed. 

The data presentation is poor, How the authjors checked the data normality and homogeneity of variance? The figures can be grouped together. No need to give separately.

They should add statistical letters in graphs and improve their quality. The background lines can be removed.

The results obtained should be properly interpreted with previous studies in the field. This is lacking in the revised version. How this work differes from many others in the field? The obtained results can be allocated to variations in the experimental duration and or variations in the applied fertrilizer, types and amounts. 

For your refernce please follow these publications

Long-term fertilization enhanced carbon mineralization and maize biomass through physical protection of organic carbon in fractions under continuous maize cropping

Evaluating organic materials coating on urea as potential nitrification inhibitors for enhanced nitrogen recovery and growth of maize (Zea mays)

The whole manuscript should be visited by a native speaker.

Author Response

Let us sincerely thank the respected reviewer for an objective analysis and evaluation of the manuscript, as well as for the comments.

While editing the article, we

- supplemented the methodological section with information about the methodology for soil sampling and its examination, as well as about the methodology for studying the structure (factors) of crop productivity;

- improved presentation of data by supplementing figures and tables with appropriate notes and letter designations of reliable effects;

- removed background lines in figures;

- supplemented the discussion of the results with interpretations in comparison with the previously obtained experimental data, as a result of which the list of cited literature was increased to 50 units.

Regarding the verification of the normality of the distribution and the homogeneity of the variance, it is necessary to clarify that the factual base of records in the experiment included 3 replications in the experimental design and 5 replications when assessing the structure of the crop. Therefore, for each variant there were n = 15 and, in addition, 3 results of continuous weight accounting of the harvest. The residuals of the model were used to estimate the normality of the distribution and the homogeneity of the variance. It was carried out visually according to the range diagram and formally according to the Pearson criterion. At the same time, we proceeded from the notion that analysis of variance is to some extent resistant to violation of the conditions of normality and homogeneity of group variances, and this stability increases with an increase in the number of observations (Zar, 1999).

Grouping numbers by experience variants can somewhat distort individual results, so it is more correct not to apply it.

The main difference of this work from similar ones is the study of the differentiated use of not only mineral, but also organic fertilizers. At the same time, for the first time, the altitude (topographic) principle served as the basis for the spatial differentiation of their doses.

The results obtained during the experiment are directly related to the applied fertilizer systems and dynamic landscape and ecological conditions.

If there is substantive approval of the article by the reviewers, we will use the professional services of MDPI for its high-quality English editing.

With respect and best wishes, A. Ivanov, Zh. Ivanova!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

No  further comments, well revision.

Author Response

Let us sincerely thank the respected reviewer for an objective analysis and evaluation of the manuscript, as well as for the comments.

While editing the article, we

- supplemented the methodological section with information about the methodology for soil sampling and its examination, as well as about the methodology for studying the structure (factors) of crop productivity;

- improved presentation of data by supplementing figures and tables with appropriate notes and letter designations of reliable effects;

- supplemented the discussion of the results with interpretations in comparison with the previously obtained experimental data, as a result of which the list of cited literature was increased to 50 units.

With respect and best wishes, A. Ivanov, Zh. Ivanova!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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 abstract is clear and specific, even a comparison between application results is existed.

Introduction: general needs more explanation. the objective needs some interpretation.

replace the subtitle "2.3. Methodology of the study " with "2.3. experiment had a two-factor design"

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reports an intersting idea with immense data set. The manuscript is in line with the journal scope. However, the biggest issue is its outline is very difficult to follow, which should be simplified for readers. The language must be improved, there are some odd expressions and poor wiord selections, (abstract line 1-2 as an example). 

The methods need to be detailed, the sampling, preparation, quantification and then its processing related methods are not described. Lines 146-152, are out of place. These should be in introduction. 

The data presentation is poor, How the authjors checked the data normality and homogeneity of variance? 

They should add standard errors in graphs and improve their quality. 

The results obtained should be properly interpreted with previous studies in the field. This is lacking in the current version. 

The conclusion is long sentence story, not covering the actual findings. I suggest highlighting the research outcome and its implication for crop production. Delete general statements. 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The abstract is long (maximum 200 words), should be revised considering the results. Major parameters findings/value need to be added
2. Key word: agricultural landscape; soil; precise fertilization; grain grass crop
3. It is too long (reduce maximum citations 30). Need 2-3 citation about grass crop.
4. The problem statement is not properly written. There should be a sequence according to 5 points-

Previous study,

Gaps in literature,

Challenges and overcome,

Significant (contribution for friendly environment/food security) and

Novelty.

5. Discussion: need revise and reduce according to points

Best treatment findings

Why increase and Mechanism

Similar findings with result in details

6. The conclusion part is too long, should rewrite according to these 3 points-

Findings,

limitations, and

recommendation

7. All the references mentioned in the text must be included in the references and vice-versa. Unused references must be deleted. All references should be in the same style.
8. Some English grammatical errors occurred. Please check the English expression and style carefully.

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The Introduction part is full of profound theories, but it does not seem to be closely related to this study, so what is the significance and value of this study?
2. What is mmed mean in Table 1？Median? Maybe you should show average value in the text.
3. Why use different extractants to measure soil pH？in Table1 andLine163.
4. There is an error in the header of Table 2, please correct it.
5. Figure 1 can be combined into a single figure, double ordinate axis.
6. The dashes in the full text may need to be replaced with parentheses to avoid ambiguity and make readers mistaken for a negative sign. Such as Line 256-257, Line 163-164, Line 120, etc.
7. After reading your Materials and methods section, I was thinking, what does your research have to do with precision fertilization?
8. Every abbreviation in the figures and tables requires a detailed explanation.
9. Did you know that none of the results in your full text have ANOVA. This is not acceptable.
10. Without ANOVA, all increases and decreases are unreliable results. You said in M&M part that the significance analysis was carried out using STAT analysis software by Fisher’s criterion (Line 257-261), where is the result? LSD 0.5 in Tables? It's not enough.
11. Discussions are also scattered and of low quality because the authors' research objectives are not clear and the scientific questions are not sufficiently refined.
12. Conclusion is too long. I don't know what the author is trying to tell the reader.