Balanced Fertilization of Winter Wheat with Potassium and Magnesium—An Effective Way to Manage Fertilizer Nitrogen Sustainably
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses an important and timely topic in sustainable agriculture—optimizing nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) through balanced fertilization with potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg). The study is well-structured and grounded in a robust multi-year field experiment. The integration of various NUE indices and the emphasis on magnesium and sulfur's synergistic role provide both scientific value and practical recommendations for farmers. The topic aligns well with current global efforts toward sustainable intensification and minimizing nitrogen losses.
However, the manuscript could benefit from some revisions to improve clarity, structure, and overall scientific rigor.
1- The experimental design is logical and adequately described. However, include a clear table or diagram summarizing all fertilization variants (e.g., nutrient composition, source, application method).
2- The 'discussion' section is quite comprehensive; however, the authors should consider more about logic of the current work. · The discussion is generally comprehensive, but it would benefit from a clearer logical flow and stronger linkage to the study’s objectives. Provide more detailed explanations of the mechanisms by which Mg and S enhance NUE and yield. Strengthen comparisons with findings from recent and relevant studies in similar agro-climatic zones.
3- The tables and figures: Please improve the quality of tables and figures. The quality of all figures is not acceptable for an international journal. Please include standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE) values in all figures and tables presenting quantitative data. This is essential to reflect the variability and statistical reliability of the results, especially given the multi-year nature of the study.
4- I recommended to improve the conclusion section. Reiterate the key agronomic recommendations and their relevance to farmers, especially under variable climate conditions.
5- References need to be checked, because once you use the abbreviation of the name of the journal and once you write the full name of the journal, so please refer to the journal guidelines.
Author Response
Review report 1 – response
I post the answers in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic in sustainable agriculture—optimizing nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) through balanced fertilization with potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg). The study is well-structured and grounded in a robust multi-year field experiment. The integration of various NUE indices and the emphasis on magnesium and sulfur's synergistic role provide both scientific value and practical recommendations for farmers. The topic aligns well with current global efforts toward sustainable intensification and minimizing nitrogen losses.
However, the manuscript could benefit from some revisions to improve clarity, structure, and overall scientific rigor.
1- The experimental design is logical and adequately described. However, include a clear table or diagram summarizing all fertilization variants (e.g., nutrient composition, source, application method).
The experiment used known, standard fertilizer sources of nutrients. The chemical composition is given in the fertilizer description (text). This description is supplemented with the source (producer) and methods of application.
2- The 'discussion' section is quite comprehensive; however, the authors should consider more about logic of the current work. · The discussion is generally comprehensive, but it would benefit from a clearer logical flow and stronger linkage to the study’s objectives. Provide more detailed explanations of the mechanisms by which Mg and S enhance NUE and yield. Strengthen comparisons with findings from recent and relevant studies in similar agro-climatic zones.
Both objectives of the research were fully addressed in the discussion. The research results were supplemented with a chapter on "Soil nutrient balance". The results of this chapter were used to explain (Discussion), firstly, the response of winter wheat to the application of P and Mg+S (Kieserite), and secondly, to assess the usefulness of the N management/efficiency indicators to evaluate N management. The available literature on the subject of the research was fully exploited, but it should be emphasized that it is small.
3- The tables and figures: Please improve the quality of tables and figures. The quality of all figures is not acceptable for an international journal. Please include standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE) values in all figures and tables presenting quantitative data. This is essential to reflect the variability and statistical reliability of the results, especially given the multi-year nature of the study.
The tables contain all the elements that are necessary to ensure good readability.
In order to understand the essence of the presented issue, in each table, apart from the description of mathematical statistics (ANOVA), the basic characteristics of descriptive statistics are included.
Moreover, to recognize the state of stability of features for individual variants, tables of coefficients of variation (CV) for interactions were developed (Tables S1, S2 and S3).
The figures were supplemented with standard error value, although in these type of the experiment they refer only to the assessment of variability of replications (plots), which is included as a standard procedure in the ANOVA analysis anyway.
4- I recommended to improve the conclusion section. Reiterate the key agronomic recommendations and their relevance to farmers, especially under variable climate conditions.
This type of research project is essentially practical in nature. The strictly scientific element concerns management indicators and nitrogen efficiency. Both objectives relate to these two research areas.
The conclusions have been strengthened by a practical aspect.
5- References need to be checked, because once you use the abbreviation of the name of the journal and once you write the full name of the journal, so please refer to the journal guidelines.
References have been corrected in accordance with the journal's requirements.
https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments are attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
All comments are provided in the attached file.
Author Response
Review report 2 – response
I post the answers in red.
This manuscript presents findings from a three-year field study that evaluates the effects of different
potassium and magnesium fertilization regimes on nitrogen use efficiency and grain yield in winter
wheat. While the dataset is extensive and the field trial appears well-executed, the manuscript falls
short in offering a scientifically rigorous and mechanistically grounded interpretation of the results.
The authors argue that balanced fertilization involving potassium, magnesium, and sulfur enhances
nitrogen uptake and utilization, but their presentation of evidence is inconsistent, often speculative,
and lacking in depth. The paper relies heavily on derived indices and empirical trends without
adequately situating the findings within the established framework of soil chemistry, plant
physiology, or sustainable nutrient management.
After reading this part of the review, I basically felt that in the reviewer's opinion, this is worthless material. On what substantive basis did the reviewer draw such a conclusion? Basic (measured), key data are included in Table 5 and 7.
I would like to point out that this is not an article in the scope of:
1) the physiology of mineral nutrition of wheat;
2) in the original version, it was not an article in the scope of soil geochemistry or agrochemistry.
This article, in its theoretical essence, concerns the assessment of several indicators of nitrogen management (Table 7 in the original version) together with basic data on the accumulation and distribution of nitrogen between grain and the so-called straw, i.e. the vegetative parts of wheat during harvest. These are real, actual data - measurable. Table 8 includes classical indicators of nitrogen efficiency. All calculations were performed using appropriate algorithms.
I have a question: what was the speculation about?
One of the most fundamental weaknesses of the study is the interpretation of soil nutrient dynamics.
The experimental site is classified as a medium-potassium soil, yet the authors apply a uniform
potassium dose of 80 kilograms Kâ‚‚O per hectare across all fertilized treatments without justifying this
decision in terms of nutrient depletion, crop removal rates, or soil potassium buffering capacity. No
post-harvest soil test data are provided, and the absence of even a simple potassium balance analysis
makes it impossible to assess whether the applied potassium was actually necessary or effective.
This accusation seems difficult to justify by the authors. Firstly, the effect of potassium doses was not studied, because this was not the aim of the study. The aim was to indicate the response of winter wheat to the current application of potassium and magnesium. I would like to add that this dose of K is high compared to those used in Europe (FAOSTAT 2024). Secondly, soil fertility at a level of about 150 mg kg-1 is not low for cereals. Thirdly, both of these elements (K, Mg) were studied, because in this part of Europe, soils have low CEC and low, natural fertility in K and M (attached maps). In order to explain this problem, the results of soil fertility in P, K, Mg and mineral N content were included, and an analysis of the soil component balance was also performed.
The research results were supplemented with a chapter on "Soil nutrient balance".
Likewise, while the role of magnesium is highlighted as a central element of the fertilization strategy,
the potential for interactions with other base cations, particularly calcium and potassium, is not
discussed. The soil pH, which drops as low as 5.7 in one growing season, could have substantial
implications for magnesium solubility and plant uptake. Yet these considerations, which are central
to any serious study of nutrient interactions in acidic or sandy soils, are overlooked entirely.
The magnesium content in European soils is shown on map no. 3. In Poland, soils are naturally poor in this element. Systematic fertilization is an important element of effective agricultural technology.
I have presented the role of magnesium in plant production in many articles, including the Handbook pf Plant Nutrition (Eds. A.V. Barker, D.J. Pilbaum, CRC Press) chapter Magnesium (pp. 199-260).
As for soil with pH 5.7, it falls into the slightly acidic class, not acidic. At such a pH, a decrease in the availability of phosphorus can be expected, but not magnesium.
The manuscript also suffers from a lack of critical interpretation of the nitrogen efficiency indices it
promotes. The authors introduce and calculate numerous NUE-related metrics, including partial
factor productivity, nitrogen unit productivity, nitrogen unit accumulation, and physiological
efficiency. However, the biological meaning of these indices is not explored in sufficient depth. For
example, the finding that the absolute control plots (which received no nitrogen) have some of the
highest nitrogen unit productivity values is not interrogated. This outcome is a predictable
consequence of very low nitrogen uptake combined with minimal yield, and does not indicate
anything meaningful about nitrogen use efficiency. Presenting these results without clear caveats
reflects a superficial understanding of the metrics being used. Moreover, while the manuscript argues that nitrogen unit accumulation is a particularly useful index, this claim is not substantiated by
comparisons to more widely recognized NUE indicators, nor is it convincingly linked to
physiological processes that would justify its broader adoption.
It is hard to agree with such a degrading assessment of the article when you pay attention to the so-called hard evidence, i.e. a dozen or so measurable features.
In addition, two groups of indicators assessing nitrogen productivity were used. The first group (Table 7, original version) concerned indicators that can be described as N management indicators. The second group concerns indicators that can be described as classic.
Let me draw attention to two facts.
Firstly, as results from the analysis of the harvest index and nitrogen harvest index, the distribution of dry matter and N were highly stable, i.e. conservative.
And this is the key physiological aspect of these studies!!! Regardless of whether nitrogen was used or not, and whether Mg+S was used or not, the distribution of both components was highly stable over the years!!!
Secondly, why do the indicators, Unit Nitrogen Accumulation, show an advantage over the others?
Firstly, nitrogen control is not needed for this!! The farmer uses one dose of nitrogen, not a ball. The practical usefulness of the so-called classic NUE indicators is small, even nonexistent.
In the current, revised version of the article, a more thorough justification has been provided.
The physiological explanations offered to support the observed yield and nitrogen uptake patterns
are largely speculative and lack supporting evidence. The manuscript makes repeated references to
the role of potassium in nitrate transport and magnesium in chlorophyll synthesis, but these points
are not substantiated with any physiological measurements such as leaf tissue ion concentrations,
photosynthetic rates, chlorophyll content, or enzyme activity. The discussion fails to integrate even
basic plant physiological data that would be expected in a study claiming to examine nutrient-driven
changes in nitrogen use. Similarly, the possibility of negative interactions, such as chloride toxicity
from potassium chloride (MOP) affecting sulfur uptake, or magnesium suppression due to excess
potassium, is not considered. These are not minor details. They are central to interpreting the results
of a study focused on multi-nutrient fertilization strategies, particularly under field conditions where
nutrient interactions are highly context-dependent.
The article did not concern the physiology of winter wheat nutrition. This is not a monograph. The basic functions of potassium and magnesium, which are known by now, were signaled, but only in the introduction.
Issues concerning the physiology of mineral nutrition and the flow of components between wheat organs in the period before and after flowering will be the content of a separate article.The statistical analyses, while extensive, often appear disconnected from biological meaning.
Regression models explaining over 99 percent of grain yield variability through grain density and
thousand grain weight, for example, are reported without critical reflection on their plausibility or
generalizability. Principal component analysis is used heavily throughout the manuscript, but the
interpretation is superficial. Variable loadings and clustering patterns are described, yet no
meaningful insights are extracted to advance understanding of nutrient interactions or yield
formation. Statistical rigor cannot substitute for biological understanding, and in this case, the data
appear to be over-analyzed without leading to new or useful conclusions.
As for yield as a function of grain density (GD) and Thousand grain weight, it is difficult to argue. The R2 value should not be 99.9%, but 100%. It is more important to assess the influence of GD components, such as the number of ears per m2 (NE) and the number of grains per ear (GE). The supplement includes appropriate graphs and explains the state of relationships between these traits.
Due to the introduction of the chapter "Soil nutrient balance", the fragments concerning PCA have been removed.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the manuscript is its failure to address sustainability in a
meaningful way. Despite frequent references to sustainable nitrogen management, the study does
not include any economic assessment of input costs, does not evaluate environmental losses of
nitrogen or potassium, and does not consider long-term soil fertility implications.
The question about the essence of using K and Mg as a factor increasing nitrogen productivity arises again. The answer is included in Table 5. In the most intensive variant, a yield increase of 1.1 t ha-1 was obtained in relation to NP. This increase was obtained without increasing the nitrogen dose. This variant turned out to be the most unstable, but only in this variant could the producer obtain grain meeting milling standards.
Of course, all costs can be calculated and published in a scientific paper. There is only one problem and it is called the grain exchange.
The highest-yielding treatment, which combines Korn-Kali, Kieserite, and Epsom salt, also exhibits the highest interannual variability in yield. This raises important questions about the resilience and reliability of such a high-input system under variable weather conditions. Rather than acknowledging this tradeoff, the authors present the treatment as unequivocally superior. This conclusion is both
premature and potentially misleading, particularly for a journal that emphasizes sustainability.
In summary, the manuscript presents a large and valuable dataset but fails to extract meaningful
scientific insight from it. The interpretation of soil nutrient dynamics is weak, the use of NUE indices
is uncritical, and the physiological rationale behind treatment effects is poorly supported. The
discussion lacks both depth and integration, and the conclusions are not sufficiently grounded in the evidence presented. Without substantial revisions to address these issues, particularly through deeper engagement with soil chemistry, nutrient interactions, and the agronomic and environmental implications of the findings, the manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication in a journal of this scope. The authors are encouraged to revisit their data with a more critical eye, strengthen the mechanistic basis of their interpretations, and provide a clearer link between fertilization strategies and the principles of sustainable agriculture.
A new chapter "Soil nutrient balance" has been introduced. Based on the results of the two previous chapters and this new one, most, but not all, of the reviewer's concerns have been clarified. This is not possible to do in one article, even one as long as this one. After all, this is not a monograph, but a so-called article.
There are two more articles in preparation which I hope will address a number of the questions raised by the reviewer.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article studied the effects of potassium and magnesium application on the growth and development of winter wheat and nitrogen fertilizer management, and obtained many valuable results. I suggest publishing the article after making revisions.
1. Whether to use numbering or abbreviation coding for picking should be expressed directly as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium, otherwise readers will not understand.
2. Do not evaluate the basic data in materials and methods, only provide the basic data, and do not judge its high or low, it is still appropriate.
3. Why did the author choose magnesium other than nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium? Why not choose calcium manganese iron? Please provide the selection criteria.
4. The unit of academic articles must use international standard units, for example, hectares should be measured in hm2
5. The image quality of this article needs to be improved, as each image is not aesthetically pleasing.
Author Response
Review report 3 – response
I post the answers in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article studied the effects of potassium and magnesium application on the growth and development of winter wheat and nitrogen fertilizer management, and obtained many valuable results. I suggest publishing the article after making revisions.
Whether to use numbering or abbreviation coding for picking should be expressed directly as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium, otherwise readers will not understand.
The suggestion is clear and logical. Unfortunately, the problem is that the potash fertilizer, which Korn-Kali contains in its composition magnesium, sodium and sulfur. Kieserite, as well as Epsom Salt, contain in its composition magnesium and sulfur (Table 3).
Do not evaluate the basic data in materials and methods, only provide the basic data, and do not judge its high or low, it is still appropriate.
It has been corrected.
Why did the author choose magnesium other than nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium? Why not choose calcium manganese iron? Please provide the selection criteria.
The selection criterion is logical to the soil conditions of the research. The soils in this part of Europe are naturally poor in potassium and magnesium (maps attached). These soils are acidic by nature. Lime is used to regulate pH, which is therefore a source of calcium.
- The unit of academic articles must use international standard units, for example, hectares should be measured in hm2
I have nothing against using universal standard units. I have reviewed this journal and several others again. They dominate and are therefore accepted units in this article. All the more so because they are familiar, simple and understandable to the reader.
The image quality of this article needs to be improved, as each image is not aesthetically pleasing.
I do not understand this accusation of the reviewer. It is very offensive to the authors. Tables and graphs contain all the elements that are necessary for a reliable and credible presentation of results.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMS has been corrected
Thanks for authors
Author Response
Review report 1 – response2
I post the answers in red.
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his positive response to my comments.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find my detailed response attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Review report 2 – response 2
I post the answers in red.
Reviewer Response to Authors' letter (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3727098)
Thank you for your response and the significant revisions made to the manuscript. The expanded
dataset and inclusion of a new section on soil nutrient balance in the revised version are appreciated.
However, while the manuscript has improved in clarity and structure, many of the fundamental
concerns raised in the initial review remain only partially addressed. I offer the following points of
clarification and feedback on your responses:
- Scope and Scientific Framing: While I appreciate your clarification that the manuscript is not
intended as a physiology or soil chemistry study, the claim that this is a paper solely focused on NUE
indices is inconsistent with the manuscript’s repeated references to nutrient-driven mechanisms, crop physiology, and sustainable nutrient management. If these physiological interpretations are not
central, they should be significantly de-emphasized or clearly labeled as hypotheses. As it stands,
speculative connections between potassium/magnesium application and physiological outcomes
(e.g., nitrate uptake, photosynthetic activity) are repeatedly presented without direct evidence. If a
follow-up physiology-focused manuscript is forthcoming, then this current paper should avoid
overstating these mechanistic conclusions.
I fully accept the reviewer's comments, although in this type of work, it is impossible to separate the evaluation of the production factor from aspects of its operation. The introduction identifies the research problem, the solution to which involves a number of nutrients. The purpose of the introduction is not only to analyze the state of knowledge in a given area but also to highlight the complexity of the issue being analyzed.
- Potassium Application Justification and Soil Dynamics: You state that K rate selection was not a
focus of the study and that 80 kg Kâ‚‚O/ha is a high rate by European standards. However, this does
not address the core issue: without pre- and post-harvest soil K data or a clear K budget, it remains
impossible to assess whether the application was agronomically or environmentally justified. The
newly added "Soil Nutrient Balance" section is helpful but still lacks a formal potassium balance
analysis, which is critical to support the paper’s overarching claim of sustainable K use. If soil tests
show that K was already sufficient or accumulated over time, this would contradict the sustainability
angle.
Subsection 3.4. "Crop nutrient balance" was added to the "Research Results" chapter. A classic analysis of N, P, K, and Mg balances was performed. Furthermore, an indicator called the "crop residue nutrient replacement ratio" was calculated. This indicator determines the degree to which the balance of a given nutrient is covered by the mass of the nutrient contained in wheat crop residues. This issue is discussed in Chapter 4.2. "Balanced fertilization ─ control of soil fertility sustainability."
- Magnesium and Cation Interactions: Your response implies that because Mg deficiency is
common in Poland and the pH was only slightly acidic, no further explanation is needed. However,
studies on cation competition in low-CEC, slightly acidic soils suggest that Mg uptake can be strongly
influenced by excess K and Na. Ignoring these interactions limits the paper’s utility and depth. If no
ion activity ratios or tissue concentrations were measured, then this limitation should be
acknowledged explicitly.
This observation would be highly relevant, but only if the available Mg content was low. As Table 9 shows, the Mg content was high. The uptake of this nutrient by plants was determined solely by water conditions. Excess Mg applied in fertilizer accumulated in the soil, regardless of weather conditions. This issue was discussed.
- Use and Interpretation of NUE Indices: The revised manuscript continues to emphasize derived
indices like NUA and NUP without sufficient critical interpretation. While these indices are
mathematically sound, they are presented as if they carry intrinsic biological significance, even when
values are high due to minimal uptake in low-yielding controls. You assert that classic NUE
indicators are impractical and that NUA is superior, but this view is not sufficiently substantiated or
supported by comparison to established frameworks in agronomic science. The revised manuscript
would benefit from a more balanced discussion of the relative strengths and limitations of each
metric.
As for the biological significance of both of these indicators, I take the position that they summarize the action of physiological factors responsible for the formation of yield and quality (N content in grain). The physical (measurable) components of both of these indicators are grain mass or total biomass yield and nitrogen mass in grain or total biomass.
Both of these operational indices demonstrated a significant relationship with N mass in grain and total biomass of winter wheat. This indicates sensitivity to a set of plant physiological traits. Secondly, they were significantly associated with K and Mg balance in the soil. This indicates significant sensitivity to soil gecochemical changes during the growing season. Therefore, there is no basis to deny the usefulness of both indices for assessing N management in crop production.
The biological significance of both of these components is summarized in Fig. 6. A decrease in NUA and an increase in NUP are classic examples of the so-called "dilution effect." This phenomenon is, after all, biological in nature.
This is a topic for broader scientific discussion. I addressed this issue in the following article:
Grzebisz, W.; Potarzycki, J. A realistic approach to calculating the nitrogen use efficiency index in cereals with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as an example. Agronomy 2025, 15, 161.
- Physiological Interpretation and Statistical Modeling: The regression models and PCA have been
partly revised or removed, but the issue of overanalysis remains. Reporting R² values of 99–100%
without considering biological variability or broader context can mislead readers. Similarly, if PCA
is used, it should reveal new insights into nutrient interactions or help explain treatment
performance, not simply reduce dimensionality. Otherwise, a more concise descriptive statistical
approach would be preferable.
The 99-100% R2 value for the interaction of the number of grains per m² (grain density density, GD) and 1000-grain weight (TGW) cannot be different. It confirms the correct measurement of two basic yield traits. GD is composed of two primary yield components, namely the number of ears per m² (NE) and the number of grains per ear (GE). The second is grain weight, expressed as TGW.
This resulting part of the manuscript has been removed. The effects of experimental factors are essentially explained by the primary wheat traits, namely GE and NE.
Introducing new substantive aspects into the article forces the authors to eliminate some other fragments, including PCA.
- Sustainability Claims: The title and framing of the manuscript assert that the proposed
fertilization regime offers a sustainable strategy. However, without an economic analysis, life cycle
or nutrient balance assessment (especially for K and Mg), or any data on nutrient losses (e.g., leaching, volatilization), this claim is premature. I acknowledge your point about market variability, but this only reinforces the need for quantitative sustainability metrics to support the conclusions.
Two subsections were introduced and discussed, including 3.4. "Crop nutrient balance" and 4.2. "Balanced fertilization ─ control of soil fertility sustainability."
The research results clearly show that three of the six fertilizer variants fully met the two basic conditions for sustainable crop production:
1) stabilization and even an increase in grain yield; it was achieved;
2) a decrease in the mass of inorganic N at harvest; potentially susceptible to leaching; it was achieved;
3) stabilization of soil fertility of K and Mg; it was achieved.
The discussion fully highlighted the implementation of the assumptions of a sustainable economy through the farmer's actions called balanced fertilization.
- Yield Stability and Tradeoffs: The finding that the highest-yielding treatment also exhibited the
greatest interannual variability is an important one. However, the revised version still presents this
treatment as unequivocally superior. A more nuanced discussion of tradeoffs between yield gain and
resilience, input cost, or environmental risk would improve the manuscript's alignment with the
goals of sustainable intensification.
I provided an explanation regarding this comment in my response to point 6.
Of course, one can calculate the costs. The question is: what input prices should be taken into account, whether from 2018 or 2025? Wheat prices on world markets peaked in 2021. They currently represent 50-60% of that value. Is such an analysis reliable?!
The authors have clearly invested significant effort in addressing the reviewer’s comments, and
several aspects of the manuscript have improved as a result. However, major conceptual and
methodological issues remain unresolved. The study presents a potentially valuable dataset, but
stronger integration of soil nutrient dynamics, a more critical use of NUE indices, and a realistic
framing of sustainability are needed for the conclusions to be both scientifically robust and
agronomically meaningful.
I encourage the authors to revise further by focusing the manuscript either as a methodological paper on NUE metrics or by substantively supporting their physiological and sustainability claims with
direct measurements or clearly stated limitations.
The authors have taken steps to improve the substantive value of this manuscript.
The presented results and discussion respond positively, but within the limits of their potential, to the reviewer's comments.
The article clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of farmer actions in terms of production and environmental impact. Furthermore, the authors point out the pros and cons of the most recommended practical solutions.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have addressed all my comments.
Author Response
Review report 3 – response2
I post the answers in red.
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his positive response to my comments.
On behalf of the authors
Witold Grzebisz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your thoughtful and detailed revisions. I appreciate the authors’ effort in addressing the previous concerns and enhancing the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of the manuscript. The newly added sections on soil nutrient balance and sustainability provide a more robust framework to support the central claims. While some limitations remain (e.g., physiological mechanisms are still inferred rather than directly measured), the authors have made appropriate clarifications and transparently acknowledged the scope and constraints of their analysis.
The manuscript presents a valuable dataset and a meaningful contribution to understanding nutrient interactions and nitrogen use efficiency under balanced fertilization regimes in winter wheat. The revised version now offers a well-supported and practical perspective on nutrient management strategies relevant to sustainable agriculture.
