The Comparison Analysis of Uniform-and Variable-Rate Fertilizations on Winter Wheat Yield Parameters Using Site-Specific Seeding
, Egidijus Šarauskis 1, Kristina Lekavičienė 1,*, Vilma Naujokienė 1, Kęstutis Romaneckas 2, Indrė Bručienė 1, Sidona Buragienė 1 and Dainius Steponavičius 1
Olusola Titilope Kayode
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is well written with good contribution in the agriculture domain. However, paper needs below revisions before final acceptance.
1. The abstract needs to be improved by adding the numerical outcomes of this research. Also, highlight the current challenges and core contributions in the abstract.
2. Improve the introduction section by adding the list of contributions followed by the paper structure.
3. Add section 2 as the related works to highlight the motivations for the proposed model.
4. Improve conclusion by adding 2-3 future directions.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank for reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments, suggestions, and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. All comments were taken into account and the manuscript was revised. All corrections are highlighted in the text. Responses to the comments are provided below:
- The abstract needs to be improved by adding the numerical outcomes of this research. Also, highlight the current challenges and core contributions in the abstract.
The reviewer's comment was taken into account and the abstract was corrected by highlighting the current challenges and improved by adding with the numerical outcomes of this study.
- Improve the introduction section by adding the list of contributions followed by the paper structure.
The reviewer's comment was accepted. The Introduction section has been revised and supplemented with the works of researchers that correspond to the structure of this paper.
- Add section 2 as the related works to highlight the motivations for the proposed model.
According to the reviewer's comment, the section "Materials and Methods" was revised, adding methodological aspects from the works of other authors, which motivated the use of such a methodology.
- Improve conclusion by adding 2-3 future directions.
Following a reviewer's comment, the conclusions were improved by adding future directions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Good methodology and good writing style. However, the result section was not clearly stated. Each of the experimental results should have been discussed per paragraph in the discussion session to give better clarity. A picture of the controlled section as against the variant harvested crops should have been shown as figures in the result section of the article.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank for reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate your comments, suggestions, and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript. All comments were taken into account and the manuscript was revised. All corrections are highlighted in the text. Responses to the comments are provided below:
Good methodology and good writing style. However, the result section was not clearly stated. Each of the experimental results should have been discussed per paragraph in the discussion session to give better clarity. A picture of the controlled section as against the variant harvested crops should have been shown as figures in the result section of the article.
The reviewer's comments were taken into account and the manuscript was revised. In response to the second comment, we have added figure 5.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments addressed
