Screening Canola Genotypes for Resistance to Ammonium Toxicity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Even when the manuscript is well structured and contribute to add knowledge on the canola genotypes response to ammonium and nitrate fertilizers, it seems to be more a descriptive work of the results, so the discussion must be strengthened.

The references are not within the last five years and must be refreshed.

Line 83, change the sentence to avoid that “experiments” appears twice.

Line 196, the sentence is not finished or must be rewrite.

Line 320, appear Chen et al., instead of a reference number.

Lines 380 and 381, replace references idem as in line 320.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of manuscript:  

 Screening canola genotypes for resistance to ammonium toxicity

 Is presented that, the evaluation how 13 soil ammonium impacts on canola yield, and characterised differences among canola genotypes with 14 regard to resistance to ammonium toxicity using two 35-day glasshouse experiments using soil sup-15 plemented with the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide. In the first experiment, eight ammonium 16 chloride treatments and five calcium nitrate treatments were tested for their impact on the canola 17 genotype Crusher TT, where high application (60 mg N/kg soil) significantly decreased dry weight 18 of canola shoots and roots, and acidified the soil from pHCaCl2 5.9 to 5.6. In the second experiment, 19 30 canola genotypes were screened at selected concentrations of NH4+-N, using nitrate as control. 20 There was wide variation among genotypes in sensitivity to high NH4+-N application.

 These results reveal the potential for selecting canola 27 genotypes that are resistant to high NH4+-N concentrations in soil.

The publication presented for review is very interesting. It was correctly written in terms of content, methodology and editorial content. However, the work needs to be improved.

1. The main question addressed by the research:  please add a hypothesis of the research in the introduction.

2.The topic are original or relevant in the field. The address a specific gap in the field.
3. The publication, in comparison with other works, brings elements of novelty, in the field of canola genotypes for resistance to ammonium toxicity.

4. The methodology in the presented work does not raise any objections.

5. The conclusions are correct.  

6. Literature is unacceptable. Almost all items are from before 2015. Please remove items from the 80's and 90's and add new ones from the last 10 years.

7. Tables and drawings are drawn up correctly.

I suggest that this manuscript needs minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper focused on Screening canola genotypes for resistance to ammonium toxicity. The topic is meaningful and fits the scope of Agronomy. I have the following comments for this paper. Major revision with re-review is suggested.

(1)   Abstract: The abstract is too long, and please simply the expression and focus on the most important findings.

(2)   There needs to be a better introduction into the problematics. And I suggest you to add hypotheses in introduction.

(3)   What are the novelties of this paper?

(4)   60°C in line 141 should be written as 60 °C in the manuscript, please check the full text.

(5)   The quality of tables and figures needs to be further improved.

(6)   The discussion section missed the important point, please reorganize.

(7)   Overall, this work is well-fitted in the scope of journal and results are promising, however, technical writing needs further proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

General note: 

The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance. 

The introduction is presented correctly and in accordance with the subject. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.

The study’s methodology was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.

The discussions are appropriate in the context of the results and were conducted compared to other studies in the field.

The scientific literature to which the reporting was madeis recent and representative of the field.

There are some changes I am suggesting in the detailed comments below:

1. Please change the keywords, title words cannot be used as keywords.
2. There are unnecessary spaces in the text in many places. Please check throughout the manuscript.
3. Please explain why NH4Cl was used in the experiment. CL is harmful to plants. In the study, the toxic effects of NH4_N were tested. Meanwhile, another toxic ion (Cl-) was also introduced into the soil. How did the authors account for the presence of increasing amounts of chlorine in the soil in the interpretation of the results obtained?
4. Line 122-123 - Please explain “March (early autumn)”
5. Why the extracts were frozen. Why did the authors not measure the NH4 content immediately after extraction?
6. The results section is a bit simplistic. 
7. Line 320 – please check the format (reference)
8. The conclusion needs to be revised; please write the main results and two to three lines about the application of this study at the end of the Conclusion.
9. Table 1 - Please improve the format of this table
10. Tables 3 and 4 - Please improve the format of these tables.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

 Accept in present form.