Effect of Stubble Height on Cadmium Removal Potential of Removed Straw

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General comments

I have read the manuscript “Effect of Stubble Height on Cadmium Removal Potential of Removed straw”. Authors investigate straw biomass, straw Cd concentration, accumulated Cd contents, under different rice cultivars, stubble heights and Cd contaminated soil. This research is doing well and this research is obviously potential to address the problems of those farmers who are suffering from high Cd risks in rice grain. In this sense the manuscript is valuable. However, I found some lacking information especially in the abstract, introduction and discussion section. I found the lack of potential mechanisms and the latest reference to support their findings. I request to author for Major revision of this manuscript.

1. Need to explain why to reduce Cd concentration, problem statement
2. L 12, revise as “cadmium (Cd) concentration”
3. Experiments in Hunan Province, please state the actual site where the experiment was conducted.
4. The treatments are not very clear in the abstract, did the experiment have different Cd levels as well?
5. Add future considerations at the end of abstract L25.
6. Revise L 32-33, can be revise as “China aims to achieve a safe utilization rate of over 95% for polluted arable land by 2030”
7. L34, revise lengthy
8. L38, feasible direction change to feasible option to address
9. L42, grounded in this theory, is not suitable, revise
10. L42-43, What is primary candidate?
11. L44-45, Generally, indica rice and hybrid rice accumulate more Cd in their aboveground parts compared to japonica rice, mention the reason and mechanism behind?
12. late-season rice typically contains higher Cd concentrations than early-season rice in all parts of the plant, why ? give reason
13. Missing research gaps, add research gaps
14. Hypothesis missing, and research objectives are not well aligned, revise
15. L77: Remove accumulated effective temperature
16. Data analysis, mention one way or two way ANNOVA applied?
17. Add suitable references in the measured indicators L103-121
18. Delete L123-126, un-necessary
19. Figure captions need to be revised thoroughly in each fig.
20. Fig 2 is not clear, especially X-axis, and caption is not upto the mark, revise
21. Need to draw relationships, such as PCA, mental analysis or Pearson correlation analysis between the observed indicators
22. Remove numbering in the conclusion
23. Discussion is short, superficial and lack mechanism, need to link obtained results with mechanisms
24. In the first line of conclusion, mention the aim of the study
25. Conclusion is not upto the mark, revise completely
26. Lack of suggestion for farmers perspectives in the end of conclusion and also add future perspectives

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript titled "The height of straw remaining in the field affects the potential for cadmium removal" (sustainability-3751739). These comments are very valuable and helpful for us to modify and improve the paper, and also have important guiding significance for our research. We have carefully studied your comments and made revisions, hoping that you can recognize them. For details, please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors studied the conditions  in which the Cd removal was optimum considering the subble heights the removed and also the rice varieties.  The study was performed in three localities: Yiyang, Zhuzhou, and Hengyang, Hunan Province  located in south-central China. Four rice varieties of rice were used in the tests: Huanghuazhan HHZ and Nongxiang NX42,  are conventional varieties, while TY398 and XWX12 are hybrid varieties.

The tested rice varieties included Huanghuazhan (HHZ), Nongxiang 42 (NX42), Taiyou 398 (TY398), and Xiangwanxian 12 (XWX12), widely cultivated in Hunan Province.

Among these, HHZ and NX42 are conventional varieties, while Taiyou 398 (TY398) and Xiangwanxian 12 XWX12 are hybrid varieties.

The study will help the farmers to limit the soil contamination with As and Cd due to rice cultivation and aslo to rice contamination.

By quantifying the impact of stubble height on the efficiency of Cd decontamination from rice soil through straw removal, this research provides a theoretical basis for the decontamination of rice soil. The results of the research are important for the scientific community and for rice farmers.

 

Observations:

The Abstract should be reformulated in order to show better the fingings of the research. The influence of rice varieties on soil Cd removal by this straw removal was not shown in Abstract.

Page 3, lines 102-107

In Subcapter “2.3. Measurement of Indicators” I recommend to provide details on Cd determination including the type of apparatus , and haw was realized the quality control of analytical data (standards, controls, recovery for the reference material etc. )

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript titled "The height of straw remaining in the field affects the potential for cadmium removal" (sustainability-3751739). These comments are very valuable and helpful for us to modify and improve the paper, and also have important guiding significance for our research. We have carefully studied your comments and made revisions, hoping that you can recognize them. For details, please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Submission ID: sustainability-3751739

Title of the manuscript: "Effect of Stubble Height on Cadmium Removal Potential of Removed straw".

This work aimed to evaluate the effects of varying rice stubble heights on soil Cd removal potential and residual Cd levels. By quantifying the impact of stubble height on straw removal efficiency. The authors did a lot of work, the manuscript is well-written and worth publishing. However, several points should be addressed by the authors as follows:

Specific comments

Point 1: L26, This section's content should be changed since the words used to create the title should not be utilized as the keyword and rearrange alphabetically.

Point 2: L59,62-63, Please follow the journal notation when citing references.

Point 3: L75, I suggest you paste a map indicating the location of the study.

Point 4: L75, Please describe the research location a little more. Is it known what type of soil is present there?

Point 5: L92-93, Please give a reference to the soil sampling methodology used?

Point 6: L123-125, Delete???

Point 7: Please define HHZ, NX42, TY398, and XWX12 in the tables and figures captions.

Point 8: The cd amounts in grain should be separated from cd amounts in the straw in the figure because the results are not clear.

Point 9: Colors should be chosen that are somewhat different to show contrast between returned straw and removed straw in the figures.

Point 10: I appreciate the well-written discussion, however I suggest citing tables and figures to keep the readers in contact with the results.

Point 11: The conclusion section did not seem to meet the recommendations, the authors only repeat their results. The authors should try to give a clear recommendation from the practical side aspects.  Please try to include these points (Novelty of this study - Importance to sustainable agriculture - Future prospects).

Point 12: In the conclusion section, the recommendations for future research are missing.

Point 13: I suggest using a PCA (principal component analysis), it will be a concise way to show your main findings regarding this study.

Respectfully, reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript titled "The height of straw remaining in the field affects the potential for cadmium removal" (sustainability-3751739). These comments are very valuable and helpful for us to modify and improve the paper, and also have important guiding significance for our research. We have carefully studied your comments and made revisions, hoping that you can recognize them. For details, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors effectively addressed my comments and suggestion in the manuscript. I have no more suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the second time I have evaluated this manuscript. The authors addressed all my comments, and the manuscript has been noticeably improved. Many thanks for their contribution.