Strip Tillage Improves Productivity of Direct-Seeded Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) in Rice–Oilseed Rape Rotation Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There too many information in the same article. My suggestion is take off the trial about the comparison between blade shape. There is not a connection between title and conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is very interesting. Methodological approach is very well described. And results are clear. There are some suggestions to improve the work:

 Title

Change the title on focusing the impact of strip-tillage and direct sowing on canola productivity. Improvement of seedling establishment and reducing weed density are consequent of practices that improves yield

Materials and methods

1.       Page 5/16 line 172 would you give information of the quantity of straw left on the soil

2.       Indicate chemical treatment of weeds for all treatments

3.       Indicate measurement done on yield components

4.       Indicate oil content of grain

5.       Indicate oil yield as the more important parameter for economic value of canola is oil, and by the way adjust economic calculation basis on oil yield

For Result part

I suggest that you start by presenting impact of studied treatments on grain and oil yield and after that you present other results

Discussion

In discussion part you try to explain how improvements of grain and oil yield have been achieved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strip-till technology is a globally widespread tillage practice. Its use in crop rotation with rice on soils with a moisture content of around 50%, is a new approach. The use of the developed strip-tillage seeder will benefit Chinese farmers. It saves labour compared to manual seedling transplanting or seed compared to UAV seeding technology. Seeding at the same operation as tillage will also reduce soil loading (and compaction) and fuel consumption, which has increased the economic efficiency of rape cultivation in a rice-rape system.

I have no major objections to the text, I only recommend adding data to the material and methods chapter:

Part 2.1: Please complete the information on the row spacing or the distance of the blade groups: in Table 1, the width of the cultivated strips of soil is evaluated when using different types of blades, but the reader cannot judge what proportion of the area tilled soil occupies.

Part 2.3: Row width and sowing depth is not specified again. I consider the comparison of DR seeding practice with other variants quite problematic in 2021. The reason is the use of a UAV for seeding and a significantly higher seeding rate. The different sowing depth in this variant affected the speed of emergence, and higher seeding rate had an effect on the density of the stand, the achieved seed yield, etc.

Part 2.3.4: Please specify the location of the double-ring infiltrometer in ST technology regard to the tilled and non-disturbed soil belts. What part of ring was put in tilled belt (rings diameters 50 cm (outer) and 25 (inner) versus 13.6±1.4 tilled soil belt)?

Part 3.1.1: Diameter of soil clods is influenced by a number of factors (soil type, moisture, angle of rotary blades etc.) including also working speed. Was the working speed the same in the test of all types of blades? Eventual, were different working speeds and their impact on clods formation and diameter compared?

Part 3.2.3 Soil infiltration and evaporation measurements in this experiment confirmed the beneficial effect of strip-till technology on the soil water regime described by other authors (see references in the introduction and discussion).

Fig. 4: I recommend the same scale on y-axis at depth 0-10 and 10-20 cm for greater clarity.

At different blade shapes test, the best results were provided by straight blades in all tests (soil disturbance, number and diameter of clods, plants emergence rate, dry mass, etc.). Therefore my question is: why these straight blades were not used in the experiment comparing different oilseed rape seeding regimes?

Regardless of the type of blades used, the innovative seeding practice with strip-till seeder provided greater yields and benefits than conventional shallow and namely deep rotary tillage. I personally appreciate the practical impact of the presented study and its contribution to agricultural practice. The question remains whether the ST seeder will be universally applicable to all soils after rice harvest. In the presented study, large differences were found in the individual experimental years, when soil moisture at sowing varied by 10%. However, It follows from the article conclusion that the authors themselves are planning further optimization of the ST seeder.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following major revisions are needed:

1. In the abstract, a brief description of the methodology must be there. Moreover, the author needs to include the most significant results with some quantified values. What was the recommendation from this study? It must be added at the end of the abstract.

2. L 59: Include the following recent relevant reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13997

3. Include the novelty statement in the introduction part.

4. The potential research gap for this study needs to be included in detail in the introduction part. 

5. What was the experimental design of the study?

6. Include a sample ANOVA with calculated and tabulated F values.

7. In Table 3, what do you mean by 30d, 60d?

8. Moreover, the result parts are not well written, the authors are suggested to include the significant results only.

9. In the discussion part, the authors are suggested to refer to the data/results recorded in this study.

10. Include a recommendation in the conclusion part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revised the article as per the suggestion. Hence, it may be accepted.