Influence of Different Rates and Frequencies of Zn Application to Maize–Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivity and Zn Use Efficiency
, Khusvadan C. Patel 1, Vinubhai P. Ramani 2, Arvind K. Shukla 3,*, Sanjib Kumar Behera 3,* and Ravi A. Patel 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present research investigates the effects of different rates and frequencies of Zn application to improve the productivity of the maize-wheat cropping system in Gujarat, India. From my viewpoint, the work is interesting to be published in Sustainability. Zinc plays a significant role in human health and causes a decrease in crop production and the nutritional characteristics of crops. Therefore, optimizing Zn fertilizer application is crucial for increasing the grain yield and quality of maize and wheat crops. However, the actual form has some questions that the authors should address, especially in the methodology and discussions:
Questions:
1. The materials and methods section needs to describe better.
- The methodology does not specify exactly all the variables that will be measured and how it will be done. For example, nothing is mentioned about grain yield, straw and total yield.
- Clarify the field experiments description and the agronomic management. For example: were phytosanitary controls carried out? Was it irrigated? Was it a rainfed crop? Indicate the crop cycle, planting dates, harvest date, etc.
- Describe the climatic conditions of the study area. For example, Precipitation temperature. Is there seasonal variation?
- Emphasize the level of Zn that the soil had at the beginning of the experiment; apparently, it had no deficiencies.
- Indicate the amounts of fertilizers used, detailing the richness of each element that the fertilizer has. Was only NPK applied in all plots?
- Improve the statistical analysis in general; which variables will be correlated?
2. In the result and discussion section:
- My main concern is the discussion of the results. The discussions should be expanded given the importance of the work's implications to optimize Zn fertilizer application. Moreover, the authors should highlight the significance of their findings based on what has already been done and explain the new insights regarding the studied problem considering the new results. It could be more descriptive when making comparisons with other research.
- Improve the quality of figure 1
- Figure 2 and Figure 3 have information already presented in Table 2; these figures could be eliminated.
- Figures 4 and 5 contain information presented in Tables 3 and 4. Consider not duplicating results. In addition, correct the titles of figures 4 and 5; they are content and uptake of Zn in both maize and wheat.
- Improve the presentation of figure 6; the evolution is not well visualized.
- In figure 8, include letters of significant differences and indicate that it is in the wheat crop, not just maize.
Small issues:
- What does kharif mean?
- Properly place citation numbers. Review journal citation forms.
- Spell check is required throughout the paper. Some observations are indicated below:
Abstract
line 10: forquality
line 15: ofthree
line 15: inthe
Introduction
Line 48: world. Approximately, replace dot by comma
Line 80: 33 and 34. references
Líne 82: 36 and 37. references
Line 96: improvethe
Materials and methods
Line 144: intexture
Line 154: Remove is
Líne 158: check the word rice, I think it's maize
Line 162: wereused
Result and discussion
Lines 170 and 171: wererecorded
Línea 233: contentin
Línea 236: intreatment
Línea 251: ingrain
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
sustainability-1902894-peer-review-v1
Optimization of zinc application: strategies to improve productivity
of maize-wheat cropping system and zinc use efficiency.
Contribution seen in the paper is very less. Section 2, 3, 4 are elementary.
There are many technical flaws in this paper. Not looking good for an indexed journal.
Also in introduction there is no motivation and research gaps seen.
***
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I found your study both useful and insightful in concerning the optimization of Zn as a fertilizer for maize and wheat, probably the most important food plants in the world.
I also found your experimental design well founded and well exploited and the results important. Usually, Zn as a fertilizer is largely diregarded in many countries, including the main producers like Russian Federation and Ukraine (which are very important for feeding many countries). The fact demonstrated by you, that Zn in a certain amount can significantly enrich the crop yield is actually extremely important for adding to a general solution of famine in the world. Also the Zn fertilisers contribute to the eradication of the Zn deficiency in the human populations around the world.
Congratulations for your work.
However, some issues can be found in regarding soil and climate. You provided some climate description, however it is not standard. Please provide the type of climate there according to a well known and accepted climate classification system (I recommend the Köppen system); also very important is the multiannual average temperature.
This is hugely important for comparative purposes, for scientists who will perform similar studies in other geographical areas.
Also please reformulate the classification of your soil. According to ”Keys to Soil Taxonomy”, 2014 edition of USDA, the suborder of Ochrepts is an obsolete, which is not used anymore, therefore you must find where else in the order of Inceptisols your pedon is classified:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
I would also recommend you to find the classification of your soil in the FAO classification system, which is much more used around the world. It is however, a Cambisol in my opinion but you must be more precise. Please contact, if needed, the local soil scientists in your institutions (Anand Agricultural University and ICAR).
https://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf
These mentionings are, again, important for comparative purposes because the parameters of the crops fertilized with Zn on other types of soil may be different.
I am certain that these small but essential addings from the introduction of the article will contribute to the value of your article, a work which deserves respect.
Kindest regards,
reviewer
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Ms n.: 1902894 Sustainability
Optimization of Zinc Application: Strategies to Improve Productivity of Maize-Wheat Cropping System and Zinc Use Efficiency Kumar et al
The study is within the aim and scope of Sustainability journal, but the submitted version cannot be accepted. It could be reconsidered after an extensive revision.
The results are presented in the manuscript with an excessive redundancy. Tables and Figures show the same data. Authors should decide the best way (Tables or Figures) to present the experimental results. Moreover, the text requires an extensive revision because there are many typos.
None information about the used varieties is included in Materials and methods section. Are they commercial varieties? Why they were selected? Are them the most cultivated in the region?
It should be improved the discussion of the effect of Zn application in comparison with data relative to the control. The repetition in the text of data shown in the Tables has a very low significance. I suggest including in the text the percentage of increase or decrease of test parameters respect to the control.
Paragraph 3.3 The presented results were predictable. What is the novelty?
Lines 38-39 and 42-43 can be combined because they related to the same concept.
Lines 237-239 the discussion of these results should be improved
Table 1. Rate of Zn application to maize crop only I think it was the same for wheat. The title should be revised.
Fig. 4, 5, 7 and 8. The title should be revised. Data relative to maize and wheat are shown but the caption refers only to maize. The error bar should be added.
Fig. 6. There is a complete overlap of several data. Is this Figure really useful?
The references section should be revised. There are two paper with number 1. The reference 81 do not exists
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Expanding the discussions, especially to the Zn and crop yield relationship, is suggested.
Author Response
Date: November 01, 2022
To
The Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Subject: Submission of revised manuscript (Sustainability- 1902894) in favour of publication in Sustainability- regarding
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am herewith submitting the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Optimization of zinc application: strategies to improve productivity of maize-wheat cropping system and zinc use efficiency” (Sustainability-1902894) for your kind consideration for publication in Sustainability. The manuscript has been revised as per the suggestions of the esteemed editor and reviewers. The revisions have been made by following track change method for easy identification of the changes undertaken. The point wise reply is furnished below. The English language of the manuscript has been checked by a person having proficiency in the subject.
|
Comments of Editor |
Response of the authors |
|
Your manuscript has now been reviewed by experts in the field. Please find your manuscript with the referee reports at this link: |
I have revised the manuscript as per comments and suggestions of esteemed editor and reviewers and uploaded the revised version of the manuscript for your kind consideration. |
|
(I) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. |
I have checked all the references and only relevant references have been provided in the manuscript. |
|
(II) Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. |
The revisions have been carried out in track change mode and uploaded the same version for easy viewing by the editors and reviewers. |
|
(III) Please provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’ comments. |
A response note containing point by point responses to the comments of editor and reviewers has been submitted along with revised version of the manuscript for kind consideration. |
|
(IV) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review reports, please include an explanation in your appeal. |
Yes, it has been complied. |
|
V) The revised version will be sent to the editors and reviewers. |
Yes, it is alright. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 1 |
|
|
Expanding the discussions, especially to the Zn and crop yield relationship, is suggested. |
According to the suggestions of the learned reviewer, the discussion part of the manuscript especially pertaining to Zn and crop yield relationship has been supplemented with the available information with us. I sincerely hope that it will serve the purpose. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 2 |
|
|
After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. The authors' responses to the referee's comments are incomplete, confusing, and incomprehensible. The authors should read manuscript published in related JCR ranked journals to see how the authors have presented their work. Should in case the authors may want to submit the manuscript to other venues for publication, I would advise them to carefully take into consideration the point raised to them especially regarding the technical content of the manuscript, the organization of the introduction and the survey. For example, the last paragraph outlining the sections of the manuscript should be in the last paragraph of the introduction. |
I have carefully revised the previous version of the manuscript as per the comments of the esteemed reviewer. I have also submitted the response note containing point by point repose of the learned reviewers, along with the revised manuscript.
I have also carefully gone through the different sections of the manuscript and presented the desired information systematically. I sincerely believe that the revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one. Many thanks to the learned reviewers for the suggestions and comments. |
|
Author claims in paper-title, “Optimization of zinc application…”. This is inappropriate. It can’t be tolerated. In this paper, I could not find any optimization. For the sake of author’s knowledge, I can reveal that an optimization model includes objective functions and constraints. Mathematical modelling is required to be made and fully explained. |
I do sincerely agree with the observation of the esteemed reviewer. I have modified the title of the manuscript to “Influence of Different Rates and Ferquencies of Zn Appplication to Maize-Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivuity and Zn Use Efficiency”
|
|
There are too many technical issues with the paper. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. |
|
Future studies are not promising. |
I have included future study requirement (as given below) in the conclusion part of the manuscript. “There is a need for standardization of rates and frequencies of application of Zn and other required micronutrients for different crops and cropping systems of India and other countries to obtain higher crop productivity, better crop quality and higher nutrient use efficiency.” |
|
It is suggested that the editor remove this manuscript from the evaluation process. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. The present revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one, which may kindly be considered for publication. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 3 |
|
|
Dear Authors, I believe now all is ok. Congratulations, Reviewer |
Thank you very much for your kind observation. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 4 |
|
|
There are still many typos in the text (for example: see lines 176, 293, 391, 401) |
I have corrected the typos in the text, as suggested by the esteemed reviewers. I have also carefully checked the whole manuscript and removed the existing typos. |
|
The caption of Fig.1 should be revised. Geographic area of field experiments could be a more appropriate caption. Moreover, the subhead “location map….” on the top of the Figure is a useless repetition. It should be deleted. |
As per the suggestion of the learned reviewer, figure as well as caption of the Figure 1 has been modified. |
|
Fig. 2 should be modified. The overlap of graphic lines and legends should be avoided. |
Figure 2 has been modified by removing overlapping of legend and graphic lines. |
|
Line 220-230 The Zn determination was carried out according to the reference 43. I suggest to move this reference at the top of the paragraph for example close to reference 42. |
I have gone through the suggested part and incorporated the needed changes. Reference 43 speaks about Zn estimation in both soil and plant extracts. Whereas, reference 42 speaks about Zn extraction method in soil only. After information about plant Zn extraction, reference 43 has been placed to explain both. |
|
Lines 293, 295 I do not understand the meaning of @. |
I have corrected the sentences as suggested by the reviewer. |
|
Lines 314-320 The statement “…significantly higher…” is repeated more times but it remains vague. The addition of the significance value in the text will improve the discussion of experimental data. |
A per the suggestions of the reviewer, I have modified the sentences to make them comprehensible. |
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Dileep Kumar
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
sustainability-1902894-peer-review-v2
Title: Optimization of zinc application: strategies to improve productivity of maize-wheat cropping system and zinc use efficiency.
After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. The authors' responses to the referee's comments are incomplete, confusing, and incomprehensible. The authors should read manuscript published in related JCR ranked journals to see how the authors have presented their work. Should in case the authors may want to submit the manuscript to other venues for publication, I would advise them to carefully take into consideration the point raised to them especially regarding the technical content of the manuscript, the organisation of the introduction and the survey. For example, the last paragraph outlining the sections of the manuscript should be in the last paragraph of the introduction. Author claims in paper-title, “Optimization of zinc application…”. This is inappropriate. It can’t be tolerated. In this paper, I could not find any optimization. For the sake of author’s knowledge, I can reveal that an optimization model includes objective functions and constraints. Mathematical modelling is required to be made and fully explained. There are too many technical issues with the paper. Future studies are not promising. It is suggested that the editor remove this manuscript from the evaluation process.
***
Author Response
Date: November 01, 2022
To
The Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Subject: Submission of revised manuscript (Sustainability- 1902894) in favour of publication in Sustainability- regarding
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am herewith submitting the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Optimization of zinc application: strategies to improve productivity of maize-wheat cropping system and zinc use efficiency” (Sustainability-1902894) for your kind consideration for publication in Sustainability. The manuscript has been revised as per the suggestions of the esteemed editor and reviewers. The revisions have been made by following track change method for easy identification of the changes undertaken. The point wise reply is furnished below. The English language of the manuscript has been checked by a person having proficiency in the subject.
|
Comments of Editor |
Response of the authors |
|
Your manuscript has now been reviewed by experts in the field. Please find your manuscript with the referee reports at this link: |
I have revised the manuscript as per comments and suggestions of esteemed editor and reviewers and uploaded the revised version of the manuscript for your kind consideration. |
|
(I) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. |
I have checked all the references and only relevant references have been provided in the manuscript. |
|
(II) Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. |
The revisions have been carried out in track change mode and uploaded the same version for easy viewing by the editors and reviewers. |
|
(III) Please provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’ comments. |
A response note containing point by point responses to the comments of editor and reviewers has been submitted along with revised version of the manuscript for kind consideration. |
|
(IV) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review reports, please include an explanation in your appeal. |
Yes, it has been complied. |
|
V) The revised version will be sent to the editors and reviewers. |
Yes, it is alright. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 1 |
|
|
Expanding the discussions, especially to the Zn and crop yield relationship, is suggested. |
According to the suggestions of the learned reviewer, the discussion part of the manuscript especially pertaining to Zn and crop yield relationship has been supplemented with the available information with us. I sincerely hope that it will serve the purpose. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 2 |
|
|
After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. The authors' responses to the referee's comments are incomplete, confusing, and incomprehensible. The authors should read manuscript published in related JCR ranked journals to see how the authors have presented their work. Should in case the authors may want to submit the manuscript to other venues for publication, I would advise them to carefully take into consideration the point raised to them especially regarding the technical content of the manuscript, the organization of the introduction and the survey. For example, the last paragraph outlining the sections of the manuscript should be in the last paragraph of the introduction. |
I have carefully revised the previous version of the manuscript as per the comments of the esteemed reviewer. I have also submitted the response note containing point by point repose of the learned reviewers, along with the revised manuscript.
I have also carefully gone through the different sections of the manuscript and presented the desired information systematically. I sincerely believe that the revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one. Many thanks to the learned reviewers for the suggestions and comments. |
|
Author claims in paper-title, “Optimization of zinc application…”. This is inappropriate. It can’t be tolerated. In this paper, I could not find any optimization. For the sake of author’s knowledge, I can reveal that an optimization model includes objective functions and constraints. Mathematical modelling is required to be made and fully explained. |
I do sincerely agree with the observation of the esteemed reviewer. I have modified the title of the manuscript to “Influence of Different Rates and Ferquencies of Zn Appplication to Maize-Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivuity and Zn Use Efficiency”
|
|
There are too many technical issues with the paper. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. |
|
Future studies are not promising. |
I have included future study requirement (as given below) in the conclusion part of the manuscript. “There is a need for standardization of rates and frequencies of application of Zn and other required micronutrients for different crops and cropping systems of India and other countries to obtain higher crop productivity, better crop quality and higher nutrient use efficiency.” |
|
It is suggested that the editor remove this manuscript from the evaluation process. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. The present revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one, which may kindly be considered for publication. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 3 |
|
|
Dear Authors, I believe now all is ok. Congratulations, Reviewer |
Thank you very much for your kind observation. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 4 |
|
|
There are still many typos in the text (for example: see lines 176, 293, 391, 401) |
I have corrected the typos in the text, as suggested by the esteemed reviewers. I have also carefully checked the whole manuscript and removed the existing typos. |
|
The caption of Fig.1 should be revised. Geographic area of field experiments could be a more appropriate caption. Moreover, the subhead “location map….” on the top of the Figure is a useless repetition. It should be deleted. |
As per the suggestion of the learned reviewer, figure as well as caption of the Figure 1 has been modified. |
|
Fig. 2 should be modified. The overlap of graphic lines and legends should be avoided. |
Figure 2 has been modified by removing overlapping of legend and graphic lines. |
|
Line 220-230 The Zn determination was carried out according to the reference 43. I suggest to move this reference at the top of the paragraph for example close to reference 42. |
I have gone through the suggested part and incorporated the needed changes. Reference 43 speaks about Zn estimation in both soil and plant extracts. Whereas, reference 42 speaks about Zn extraction method in soil only. After information about plant Zn extraction, reference 43 has been placed to explain both. |
|
Lines 293, 295 I do not understand the meaning of @. |
I have corrected the sentences as suggested by the reviewer. |
|
Lines 314-320 The statement “…significantly higher…” is repeated more times but it remains vague. The addition of the significance value in the text will improve the discussion of experimental data. |
A per the suggestions of the reviewer, I have modified the sentences to make them comprehensible. |
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Dileep Kumar
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I believe now all is ok.
Congratulations,
Reviewer
Author Response
Date: November 01, 2022
To
The Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Subject: Submission of revised manuscript (Sustainability- 1902894) in favour of publication in Sustainability- regarding
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am herewith submitting the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Optimization of zinc application: strategies to improve productivity of maize-wheat cropping system and zinc use efficiency” (Sustainability-1902894) for your kind consideration for publication in Sustainability. The manuscript has been revised as per the suggestions of the esteemed editor and reviewers. The revisions have been made by following track change method for easy identification of the changes undertaken. The point wise reply is furnished below. The English language of the manuscript has been checked by a person having proficiency in the subject.
|
Comments of Editor |
Response of the authors |
|
Your manuscript has now been reviewed by experts in the field. Please find your manuscript with the referee reports at this link: |
I have revised the manuscript as per comments and suggestions of esteemed editor and reviewers and uploaded the revised version of the manuscript for your kind consideration. |
|
(I) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. |
I have checked all the references and only relevant references have been provided in the manuscript. |
|
(II) Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. |
The revisions have been carried out in track change mode and uploaded the same version for easy viewing by the editors and reviewers. |
|
(III) Please provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’ comments. |
A response note containing point by point responses to the comments of editor and reviewers has been submitted along with revised version of the manuscript for kind consideration. |
|
(IV) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review reports, please include an explanation in your appeal. |
Yes, it has been complied. |
|
V) The revised version will be sent to the editors and reviewers. |
Yes, it is alright. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 1 |
|
|
Expanding the discussions, especially to the Zn and crop yield relationship, is suggested. |
According to the suggestions of the learned reviewer, the discussion part of the manuscript especially pertaining to Zn and crop yield relationship has been supplemented with the available information with us. I sincerely hope that it will serve the purpose. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 2 |
|
|
After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. The authors' responses to the referee's comments are incomplete, confusing, and incomprehensible. The authors should read manuscript published in related JCR ranked journals to see how the authors have presented their work. Should in case the authors may want to submit the manuscript to other venues for publication, I would advise them to carefully take into consideration the point raised to them especially regarding the technical content of the manuscript, the organization of the introduction and the survey. For example, the last paragraph outlining the sections of the manuscript should be in the last paragraph of the introduction. |
I have carefully revised the previous version of the manuscript as per the comments of the esteemed reviewer. I have also submitted the response note containing point by point repose of the learned reviewers, along with the revised manuscript.
I have also carefully gone through the different sections of the manuscript and presented the desired information systematically. I sincerely believe that the revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one. Many thanks to the learned reviewers for the suggestions and comments. |
|
Author claims in paper-title, “Optimization of zinc application…”. This is inappropriate. It can’t be tolerated. In this paper, I could not find any optimization. For the sake of author’s knowledge, I can reveal that an optimization model includes objective functions and constraints. Mathematical modelling is required to be made and fully explained. |
I do sincerely agree with the observation of the esteemed reviewer. I have modified the title of the manuscript to “Influence of Different Rates and Ferquencies of Zn Appplication to Maize-Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivuity and Zn Use Efficiency”
|
|
There are too many technical issues with the paper. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. |
|
Future studies are not promising. |
I have included future study requirement (as given below) in the conclusion part of the manuscript. “There is a need for standardization of rates and frequencies of application of Zn and other required micronutrients for different crops and cropping systems of India and other countries to obtain higher crop productivity, better crop quality and higher nutrient use efficiency.” |
|
It is suggested that the editor remove this manuscript from the evaluation process. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. The present revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one, which may kindly be considered for publication. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 3 |
|
|
Dear Authors, I believe now all is ok. Congratulations, Reviewer |
Thank you very much for your kind observation. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 4 |
|
|
There are still many typos in the text (for example: see lines 176, 293, 391, 401) |
I have corrected the typos in the text, as suggested by the esteemed reviewers. I have also carefully checked the whole manuscript and removed the existing typos. |
|
The caption of Fig.1 should be revised. Geographic area of field experiments could be a more appropriate caption. Moreover, the subhead “location map….” on the top of the Figure is a useless repetition. It should be deleted. |
As per the suggestion of the learned reviewer, figure as well as caption of the Figure 1 has been modified. |
|
Fig. 2 should be modified. The overlap of graphic lines and legends should be avoided. |
Figure 2 has been modified by removing overlapping of legend and graphic lines. |
|
Line 220-230 The Zn determination was carried out according to the reference 43. I suggest to move this reference at the top of the paragraph for example close to reference 42. |
I have gone through the suggested part and incorporated the needed changes. Reference 43 speaks about Zn estimation in both soil and plant extracts. Whereas, reference 42 speaks about Zn extraction method in soil only. After information about plant Zn extraction, reference 43 has been placed to explain both. |
|
Lines 293, 295 I do not understand the meaning of @. |
I have corrected the sentences as suggested by the reviewer. |
|
Lines 314-320 The statement “…significantly higher…” is repeated more times but it remains vague. The addition of the significance value in the text will improve the discussion of experimental data. |
A per the suggestions of the reviewer, I have modified the sentences to make them comprehensible. |
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Dileep Kumar
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
There are still many typos in the text (for example: see lines 176, 293, 391, 401)
The caption of Fig.1 should be revised. Geographic area of field experiments could be a more appropriate caption. Moreover, the subhead “location map….” on the top of the Figure is a useless repetition. It should be deleted.
Fig. 2 should be modified. The overlap of graphic lines and legends should be avoided.
Line 220-230 The Zn determination was carried out according to the reference 43. I suggest to move this reference at the top of the paragraph for example close to reference 42.
Lines 293, 295 I do not understand the meaning of @.
Lines 314-320 The statement “…significantly higher…” is repeated more times but it remains vague. The addition of the significance value in the text will improve the discussion of experimental data.
Author Response
Date: November 01, 2022
To
The Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability
Subject: Submission of revised manuscript (Sustainability- 1902894) in favour of publication in Sustainability- regarding
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am herewith submitting the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Optimization of zinc application: strategies to improve productivity of maize-wheat cropping system and zinc use efficiency” (Sustainability-1902894) for your kind consideration for publication in Sustainability. The manuscript has been revised as per the suggestions of the esteemed editor and reviewers. The revisions have been made by following track change method for easy identification of the changes undertaken. The point wise reply is furnished below. The English language of the manuscript has been checked by a person having proficiency in the subject.
|
Comments of Editor |
Response of the authors |
|
Your manuscript has now been reviewed by experts in the field. Please find your manuscript with the referee reports at this link: |
I have revised the manuscript as per comments and suggestions of esteemed editor and reviewers and uploaded the revised version of the manuscript for your kind consideration. |
|
(I) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. |
I have checked all the references and only relevant references have been provided in the manuscript. |
|
(II) Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. |
The revisions have been carried out in track change mode and uploaded the same version for easy viewing by the editors and reviewers. |
|
(III) Please provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’ comments. |
A response note containing point by point responses to the comments of editor and reviewers has been submitted along with revised version of the manuscript for kind consideration. |
|
(IV) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review reports, please include an explanation in your appeal. |
Yes, it has been complied. |
|
V) The revised version will be sent to the editors and reviewers. |
Yes, it is alright. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 1 |
|
|
Expanding the discussions, especially to the Zn and crop yield relationship, is suggested. |
According to the suggestions of the learned reviewer, the discussion part of the manuscript especially pertaining to Zn and crop yield relationship has been supplemented with the available information with us. I sincerely hope that it will serve the purpose. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 2 |
|
|
After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. The authors' responses to the referee's comments are incomplete, confusing, and incomprehensible. The authors should read manuscript published in related JCR ranked journals to see how the authors have presented their work. Should in case the authors may want to submit the manuscript to other venues for publication, I would advise them to carefully take into consideration the point raised to them especially regarding the technical content of the manuscript, the organization of the introduction and the survey. For example, the last paragraph outlining the sections of the manuscript should be in the last paragraph of the introduction. |
I have carefully revised the previous version of the manuscript as per the comments of the esteemed reviewer. I have also submitted the response note containing point by point repose of the learned reviewers, along with the revised manuscript.
I have also carefully gone through the different sections of the manuscript and presented the desired information systematically. I sincerely believe that the revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one. Many thanks to the learned reviewers for the suggestions and comments. |
|
Author claims in paper-title, “Optimization of zinc application…”. This is inappropriate. It can’t be tolerated. In this paper, I could not find any optimization. For the sake of author’s knowledge, I can reveal that an optimization model includes objective functions and constraints. Mathematical modelling is required to be made and fully explained. |
I do sincerely agree with the observation of the esteemed reviewer. I have modified the title of the manuscript to “Influence of Different Rates and Ferquencies of Zn Appplication to Maize-Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivuity and Zn Use Efficiency”
|
|
There are too many technical issues with the paper. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. |
|
Future studies are not promising. |
I have included future study requirement (as given below) in the conclusion part of the manuscript. “There is a need for standardization of rates and frequencies of application of Zn and other required micronutrients for different crops and cropping systems of India and other countries to obtain higher crop productivity, better crop quality and higher nutrient use efficiency.” |
|
It is suggested that the editor remove this manuscript from the evaluation process. |
I sincerely hope that I have resolved the technical issues in the manuscript by revising the manuscript as per suggestions and comments of the learned editor and reviewers. The present revised version of the manuscript is much-improved one, which may kindly be considered for publication. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 3 |
|
|
Dear Authors, I believe now all is ok. Congratulations, Reviewer |
Thank you very much for your kind observation. |
|
Comments of Reviewer 4 |
|
|
There are still many typos in the text (for example: see lines 176, 293, 391, 401) |
I have corrected the typos in the text, as suggested by the esteemed reviewers. I have also carefully checked the whole manuscript and removed the existing typos. |
|
The caption of Fig.1 should be revised. Geographic area of field experiments could be a more appropriate caption. Moreover, the subhead “location map….” on the top of the Figure is a useless repetition. It should be deleted. |
As per the suggestion of the learned reviewer, figure as well as caption of the Figure 1 has been modified. |
|
Fig. 2 should be modified. The overlap of graphic lines and legends should be avoided. |
Figure 2 has been modified by removing overlapping of legend and graphic lines. |
|
Line 220-230 The Zn determination was carried out according to the reference 43. I suggest to move this reference at the top of the paragraph for example close to reference 42. |
I have gone through the suggested part and incorporated the needed changes. Reference 43 speaks about Zn estimation in both soil and plant extracts. Whereas, reference 42 speaks about Zn extraction method in soil only. After information about plant Zn extraction, reference 43 has been placed to explain both. |
|
Lines 293, 295 I do not understand the meaning of @. |
I have corrected the sentences as suggested by the reviewer. |
|
Lines 314-320 The statement “…significantly higher…” is repeated more times but it remains vague. The addition of the significance value in the text will improve the discussion of experimental data. |
A per the suggestions of the reviewer, I have modified the sentences to make them comprehensible. |
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Dileep Kumar
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
