Boosting Crop Growth Rates of Hybrid Rice (Pukhraj) through Synergistic Use of Organic Nitrogen Sources in Conjunction with Urea Nitrogen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    The abstract needs to (1) state the principal objectives and scope of the investigation; (2) describe the methods used; (3) summarize the results; and (4) tell the principal conclusions. This abstract hasn’t clearly provided enough information but is wordy. You may be interested in this Abstract example:

Nonexchangeable K+ constitutes a slowly available reserve that may significantly influence K+ fertility of soils. Laboratory and greenhouse experiments were conducted to characterize the K+ supply and nonexchangeable K+–release kinetics in 10 calcareous soils using 0.01 M CaCl2 and 0.01 M oxalic acid extractions. Total K+ uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in the greenhouse was used to measure plant-available K+. The release of K+ was characterized by an initial fast rate followed by a slower rate. The nonlinear relationship in the early stages of the K+ release may be attributed to the edge sites, and release of K+ from interlayer exchange sites may be responsible for the second part of the K+ release. Kinetics of K+ release was described best with power function, which showed the best fit of the four models tested. Parameters of kinetics models in 0.01 M CaCl2 were significantly related to K+ uptake by wheat. Potassium release was also correlated to initial NH4OAc-extratable K+ and to HNO3-extractable K+.

2.     L183, what was the life span of the crop tested?

3.     Do you have yield data? The conclusion may be reckless if you don’t have the data of rice yield. Growth rate doesn’t necessarily reflect the yield.

4.     Please rewrite the statistical analysis section. This one and half lines can be used for any manuscript, but this section must be specific. You may be interested in this example:

To examine longitudinal trends in birthing dates, temperature on birthing dates, and temperature during denning periods, we used linear mixed-effects regression with year included as both a fixed effect (as a continuous variable to capture trends over time) and random effect (as a factor variable to capture unexplained heterogeneity between years) as well as pack identity as a random effect.

To examine potential environmental drivers of the phenological shift, we fitted GAMMs with a Gaussian distribution to relate variation in birth timing to variation in environmental covariates. Environmental covariates were included as smooth terms to consider nonlinear relationships with phenology; these included temperature and rainfall in May (average month of parturition), March (average month of conception) of each year, September of the preceding year (average end of denning period), and averaged over the current year and preceding year. Year was included as a continuous linear term to account for changes over time. Pack and year (as a factor) were included as random effects.

To examine the effect of temperature on reproductive success, we fitted GAMMs with a Poisson distribution. The response variable was the count of pups first sighted after emergence from the den (estimated age 1 to 3 mo) as a synoptic measure of reproductive success, since litter size at birth is unknowable as newborn pups do not leave the den (22). We checked for overdispersion in the data using the performance R package (52); no overdispersion was detected (dispersion ratio for top-ranked model = 0.632, P = 0.997). Smooth terms to examine nonlinear relationships with environmental covariates included mean and maximum daily temperature and monthly rainfall during the denning period, on the birthing day, and during the conception period (calculated as the 2-wk period centered on 72 days before birth; refs. 3 and 53). Year (continuous) and pack size were included as linear terms. Pack size was included as an explanatory variable because it is associated with increased hunting success and adult and pup survival in wild dogs (22, 26). Dominance status of the breeding female is also likely to affect reproductive success, but it was not included as a covariate since subordinate females were excluded from analysis. For yearling survival, we examined the effects of temperature and rainfall covariates during the 6 months postdenning, while additionally controlling for pup litter size during denning and pack size. For both initial pup count and yearling survival analyses, pack and year (as a factor) were included as random effects.

For each of the above GAMM analyses exploring environmental drivers of the phenological shift and of reproductive success, we used AIC model selection corrected for small sample size to select among a series of candidate environmental covariates (54). Models with ΔAICc scores of 2 or less were considered as having equal support (55). For all models, we first checked for collinearity among predictors; predictors with a pairwise Pearson correlation |ρ| greater than 0.7 were not included in the same model formula (56). Mixed-effects linear regression analyses were performed using the lme4 package (57); GAMMs were performed using the gamm4 package (58). All analyses were conducted in R version 4.1.0 (59).

5.     The conclusion section needs to be rewritten and include these three key components: (1) restate the problem; (2) summarize your overall arguments and findings; and (3) discuss the implications. Particularly, it needs to be well lined up with the objectives. An example of excellent research paper conclusion you may be interested in:

While the role of cattle in climate change is by now common knowledge, countries like the Netherlands continually fail to confront this issue with the urgency it deserves. The evidence is clear: To create a truly futureproof agricultural sector, Dutch farmers must be incentivized to transition from livestock farming to sustainable vegetable farming. As well as dramatically lowering emissions, plant-based agriculture, if approached in the right way, can produce more food with less land, providing opportunities for nature regeneration areas that will themselves contribute to climate targets. Although this approach would have economic ramifications, from a long-term perspective, it would represent a significant step towards a more sustainable and resilient national economy. Transitioning to sustainable vegetable farming will make the Netherlands greener and healthier, setting an example for other European governments. Farmers, policymakers, and consumers must focus on the future, not just on their own short-term interests, and work to implement this transition now.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract needs to (1) state the principal objectives and scope of the investigation; (2) describe the methods used; (3) summarize the results; and (4) tell the principal conclusions. This abstract hasn’t clearly provided enough information but is wordy.

Reply:I have diligently incorporated your valuable comments to enhance the abstract.

2. L183, what was the life span of the crop tested?

Reply:The life span of our crop was 95 to 105 days from transplanting to physiological maturity, thanks.

3. Do you have yield data? The conclusion may be reckless if you don’t have the data of rice yield. Growth rate doesn’t necessarily reflect the yield.

Reply: Certainly, the grain yield data is referenced in [24], while the information on total rice biomass can be found in [30].

4. Please rewrite the statistical analysis section. This one and half lines can be used for any manuscript, but this section must be specific.

Reply: The analysis section has been meticulously revised in alignment with your feedback, and I appreciate your valuable input.

5. The conclusion section needs to be rewritten and include these three key components: (1) restate the problem; (2) summarize your overall arguments and findings; and (3) discuss the implications. Particularly, it needs to be well lined up with the objectives.

Reply: The conclusion section has been thoroughly revised in accordance with your feedback. I appreciate your insights, and the refined conclusion now encapsulates the key findings and their implications more effectively. If there are any additional aspects you would like addressed or if you have further suggestions, please feel free to provide additional guidance.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the manucript "Boosting Crop Growth Rates of Hybrid Rice (Pukhraj) through Synergistic Use of Organic Nitrogen Sources in Conjunction with Urea Nitrogen" is important in the current context of improving plant nutrition through synergistic effects. Also, the use of nitrogen by plants is important in the increasing of this element use efficiency.

Some changes can be made to the manuscript in order to increase its readability.

The introduction can be reduced in length, by making a condensed form of the part related to nitrogen. The rest of the text can be moved to Discussion section were it will fit better.

Material and Methods is well organized. Table 1 one - the last column with 120 kg can be removed. In this form it is just a repetition for all variants. And is confusing for a reader to have the percent form each source (total = 100%) and at the end 120. Remove this column.

The Anova Table (table 3) can be moved to results section and its interpretation expanded.

The results section presents a lot of findings and values in both tables and figures. This section is an appropriate length.

The Discussion section have also an appropriate length.

The conclusion section is too long. It should be reduced in length, with smaller sentences that contain the main findings of the authors, with sustaining values.

 

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2

Dear authors, the manuscript "Boosting Crop Growth Rates of Hybrid Rice (Pukhraj) through Synergistic Use of Organic Nitrogen Sources in Conjunction with Urea Nitrogen" is important in the current context of improving plant nutrition through synergistic effects. Also, the use of nitrogen by plants is important in the increasing of this element use efficiency.

Thank you very much for the encouraging comments.

Some changes can be made to the manuscript in order to increase its readability.

The introduction can be reduced in length, by making a condensed form of the part related to nitrogen. The rest of the text can be moved to Discussion section were it will fit better.

Reply: The introduction reduced significantly, thanks.

Material and Methods is well organized. Table 1 one - the last column with 120 kg can be removed. In this form it is just a repetition for all variants. And is confusing for a reader to have the percent form each source (total = 100%) and at the end 120. Remove this column.

Reply: The mentioned column remove from the table, thanks.

The Anova Table (table 3) can be moved to results section and its interpretation expanded.

Reply: Generally the ANOVA table belong to materials and methods, and placed at proper place just before results section, please. Explanation is also added, thanks.

The results section presents a lot of findings and values in both tables and figures. This section is an appropriate length.

Reply: Thanks for this comment

The Discussion section have also an appropriate length.

Reply: Thanks for your comment, however, extended according to the comment of reviewer 1.

The conclusion section is too long. It should be reduced in length, with smaller sentences that contain the main findings of the authors, with sustaining values.

Reply: Conclusion section revised and reduced significantly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Boosting Crop Growth Rates of Hybrid Rice (Pukhraj) through Synergistic Use of Organic Nitrogen Sources in Conjunction with Urea Nitrogen” investigated the impact of organic sources (OS), encompassing animal manures (AM) and crop residues (CR), on crop growth rates (CGR) in a rice-wheat rotation.” There are some comments:

The abstract is very long and should be modified.

 

Introduction:

Introduction is not well strutted, without a good structure, Authors repeated statements during the text. For example, paragraph 2 described the nitrogen role, paragraph 3 described the nitrogen deficiency, paragraph 4 described the nitrogen role for crop productivity. All of these paragraphs have written without any order. Paragraph 7 described the crop growth rates and ....

Line 41: ... a study by [4] ... write the author's name instead of numbers, please correct in whole the text.

Also, the hypothesis is not present, while it need to be highlighted in one or two sentences at the end of the introduction.

 

Material and methods:

These sections are well written.

 

Results:

In the material and method section, authors mentioned that this study conducted with 26 treatments (table 1), but in the result section it's not clear. The figures and tables in the result section are not well strutted. The results are not clear.

In figures and tables, use letters (a, b, ab, ...) to show the significant differences between the treatments.

 

Discussion:

As a whole, results and dissection are presented in bad way. The discussion is not well done; it is also very short, discussion needs to more extent with comparing to other works. What are the strength or weakness of your results? What is your interpretation for them? Make your interpretation strong with other works.

 

Conclusion:

This section is well written.

 

References:

The article contains many self-citations, references 1, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 34, 42, 43, 45. It is not appropriate for a scientific paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Replies to Reviewer 3rd

Your kind comments have been duly considered, and the necessary revisions have been implemented.

 

Abstract:

The abstract has been significantly revised and modified, addressing the length and ensuring clarity. Your valuable feedback greatly contributed to this improvement.

 

Introduction:

The introduction has undergone comprehensive restructuring to enhance its organization. Paragraphs are now logically ordered, and repetitive statements have been eliminated. The citation format has been corrected throughout the text as per your suggestion. Additionally, the hypothesis has been incorporated into the introduction, providing concise clarity.

 

Material and Methods:

Thank you for your positive feedback on the Material and Methods section. Revisions were made according to your comments and those of other reviewers.

Results:

Concerning the number of treatments in the material and method section, clarity has been introduced in the results section. The significance of data are given in details in the ANOVA Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Crop Growth Rate of Hybrid Rice "Pukhraj" in Response to Organic and Inorganic N-Fertilizers at Different Growth Stages. Where *, **, *** indicates that data is significant at 5%, 1% and 0.1% level of probability, respectively. The word ns stand for the non-significant data.

 

Discussion:

The discussion section has undergone substantial revision, expanding the content and providing a more detailed comparison with other works. Strengths and weaknesses of the results have been discussed, offering a more robust interpretation in relation to existing literature.

 

Conclusion:

Thank you for your positive feedback on the Conclusion section. It has been revised and improved accordingly.

 

References:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Our research holds a distinctive position within the rice-wheat cropping system, and similar studies have not been previously reported. To enhance the quality of our paper, we have incorporated relevant publications from this study that align with and complement the uniqueness of our research.

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to the enhancement of the manuscript. We hope these revisions align with your expectations, and we look forward to your further guidance.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions. The manuscript is improved and present well the research.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your comments