Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the work is interesting and current, however, I would like to make some observations and suggestions.

You have too many overlaps, over 33% reduce
Be concise in the introductory part of the paper
Why did you take bas Liaohe Plain japonica Rice with Different Panicle?

put in the table: The soil physical and chemical properties

technically organize the paper, images, tables and font.
Improve your English.
In my opinion, you need more physical and chemical analyzes of the soil before and after treatment.
Why didn't you analyze your initial sample for heavy metals?

What is the difference compared to other types of rice?

Is there any other application of your research work?

what was the yield, compare tabulated results with other authors?
It would be desirable to provide a picture, a graphic abstract of your device, analysis, how the cycle of your research went from beginning to end.

Author Response

Comments 1:You have too many overlaps, over 33% reduceBe concise in the introductory part of the paper.

Response 1:Thank you to the reviewers for pointing out the overlap issue in the introduction. We will eliminate redundant background descriptions (such as combining the repetitive discussions on "the current situation of Northern Japonica rice production" and "the issue of nitrogen fertilizer application"), focus on "research" (i.e., "The mechanism by which nitrogen fertilizer management synergistically improves the yield and quality of japonica rice with different panicle types is still unclear"), and ensure that the logic of the introduction is more compact (35% of the content has been deleted).

Comments 2:Why did you take bas Liaohe Plain japonica Rice with Different Panicle?

Response 2:Response: The reasons for choosing "Liaohe Plain + Different panicle types of Japonica Rice" are as follows: Regional relevance: The Liaohe Plain is the main production area of japonica rice in northern China (accounting for more than 15% of the total area of japonica rice in the north), and its yield and quality directly affect regional food security and market competitiveness. Representative panicle type: The semi-upright panicle type (Shen Dao 47) and the curved panicle type (Shen Dao 11) are the two most widely planted types of japonica rice in the Liaohe Plain (accounting for approximately 60% in total). There are significant differences between the two in terms of population structure (such as light transmittance), yield composition (such as the number of grains per panicle), and quality formation (such as chalkiness). Research objective: To explore the response differences of nitrogen fertilizer management to "different panicle types of japonica rice", and to provide local farmers with specie-specific nitrogen fertilizer management plans (for example, for semi-upright panicle types, the ratio of grain fertilizer should be increased, and for curved panicle types, the ratio of tillering fertilizer should be adjusted).

Comments 3:Put in the table: The soil physical and chemical properties.

Response 3:Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have supplemented the initial soil physical and chemical properties table in the "Test Time, Location and Materials" section.

Comments 4:Technically organize the paper, images, tables and font.

Response 4:Thank you very much for your correction. This is a problem that we must face up to. We will strictly follow the requirements of the journal to unify the relevant format.

Comments 5:lmprove your English.

Response 5:Thank you for your reminder. We will invite professional English editors to polish the language of the paper, with a focus on correcting grammatical errors (such as subject-verb agreement and tenses) and academic expressions, to ensure the fluency and professionalism of the language.

Comments 6:In my opinion, you need more physical and chemical analyzes of the soil before and aftertreatment.

Response 6:Agree with the suggestion. This study did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the "physical and chemical properties of the treated soil" because the initial focus was on "rice physiology and yield quality". Unfortunately, due to issues such as the experimental plan, we were unable to immediately supplement the analysis of the treated soil (such as changes in organic matter, total nitrogen, and available phosphorus) later. To explore the impact of nitrogen fertilizer management on "soil fertility sustainability" (such as whether N5 treatment reduces the risk of soil nitrogen leaching loss), and to provide a more comprehensive soil science basis for "reducing nitrogen and increasing efficiency". Thank you for your comprehensive suggestions. In the future, we will make further progress in related experiments based on your suggestions.

Comments 7:Why didn't you analyze your initial sample for heavy metals?

Response 7:The core objective of this study is "the synergistic regulation of yield and quality by nitrogen fertilizers", and the analysis of heavy metals was not included in the initial plan. However, we admit that heavy metals (such as cadmium and lead) can affect the quality of rice and food safety. If conditions permit, we will subsequently study the detection of heavy metals in the initial soil and rice (especially the background values of heavy metals in the soil of some areas in the Liaohe Plain), and improve the environmental safety assessment of the research.

Comments 8:What is the difference compared to other types of rice?

Response 8:The differences between the "different panicle types of japonica rice" in this study and other types of rice (such as indica rice and glutinous rice) mainly lie in the following characteristics: The nitrogen requirement of japonica rice (especially northern japonica rice) is higher than that of indica rice, but the "sensitive period" to nitrogen fertilizer is more concentrated (such as the panicle differentiation period). Quality requirements: The "cooking and steaming taste quality" of japonica rice (such as amylose content and taste value) is its core competitiveness, while indica rice pays more attention to "processing quality" (such as the rate of whole polished rice). Response to nitrogen fertilizer: Semi-upright panicle japonica rice is more sensitive to "grain fertilizer" (for instance, 5% grain fertilizer treated with N5 significantly increased the rate of whole polished rice), while curved panicle japonica rice is more sensitive to "tillering fertilizer" (for example, 25% tillering fertilizer optimized the population structure).

Comments 9:ls there any other application of your research work?

Response 9:The differences between the "different panicle types of japonica rice" in this study and other types of rice (such as indica rice and glutinous rice) mainly lie in the following characteristics: The nitrogen requirement of japonica rice (especially northern japonica rice) is higher than that of indica rice, but the "sensitive period" to nitrogen fertilizer is more concentrated (such as the panicle differentiation period). Quality requirements: The "cooking and steaming taste quality" of japonica rice (such as amylose content and taste value) is its core competitiveness, while indica rice pays more attention to "processing quality" (such as the rate of whole polished rice). Response to nitrogen fertilizer: Semi-upright panicle japonica rice is more sensitive to "grain fertilizer" (for instance, 5% grain fertilizer treated with N5 significantly increased the rate of whole polished rice), while curved panicle japonica rice is more sensitive to "tillering fertilizer" (for example, 25% tillering fertilizer optimized the population structure).

Comments 10:What was the yield, compare tabulated results with other authors?

Response 10:The yield results of this study and their comparisons with other studies are as follows (taking the optimized treatment N5 as an example) : The yield of this study: Shendao 47 (semi-upright spike type) was 10.71-11.82 t/ha, and Shendao 11 (curved spike type) was 9.50-10.62 t/ha. The output of Shendao47 is similar to that of other authors' studies:Shendao47:9.53t/ha-10.35t/ha(Yue W, Zhouzhou W U, Jiaxin L I U, et al. Effects of irrigation pattern and nitrogen application on yield and dry matter accumulation of northern japonica rice[J]. China Rice, 2023, 29(5): 71.)Shendao47:9.43t/ha-10.46t/ha(Wu Z, Tang X, Zhao H Y, et al. Effects of different biological agents on rice yield and physiological characteristics[J]. 2021.)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the article “Analysis of agro-physiological indices of yield and quality synergy of Liaohe plain japonica rice with different panicle types based on nitrogen application”, the authors presented the results of studying the effects of five application options for nitrogen fertilizers on the yield and quality of two varieties of rice, differing in the shape of the panicle.
2. The topic is original and relevant for this field of science. It is based on the fact that dry matter accumulation at tillering stage and net assimilation rate at panic development stage are the key indexes to improve yield and quality. The optimized nitrogen application ensured the sufficient supply of photosynthetic products by maintaining a high photosynthetic rate of flag leaves and prolonging the life of functional leaves.
3. The study provides valuable information that optimized nitrogen application to the soil has significantly increased rice yields. No research on this topic has been conducted by other authors. This study provides a theoretical basis for improving the efficiency of Japanese rice cultivation in northern China. It is suggested to adopt a phased nitrogen application strategy of "base fertilizer 40%+ tiller fertilizer 25%+ panicle fertilizer 15%+ grain fertilizer 5%" to realize the synergistic improvement of yield and quality.
4. With regard to improving the methodology, the authors should consider the following issues.

The authors use the unit of measurement kg/hm2, whereas kg/ha is generally accepted.

5. The conclusions should contain a brief and concentrated summary of the information received, in which it is necessary to show the specific most important numerical values from the results obtained.
6. The drawings have too small a font. In Figure 4, the abscissa axes are not signed. In tables 2-5, you need to add the 2-year averages.
7. References to literary sources are quite appropriate.

Author Response

Comments 1:In the article “Analysis of agro-physiological indices of yield and quality synergy of Liaoheplain japonica rice with diferent panicle types based on nitrogen application", the authorspresented the results of studying the effects of five application options for nitrogen fertilizerson the yield and quality of two varieties of rice, differing in the shape of the panicle.

Response 1:Thank you for your concise summary of our study. We appreciate your recognition of the core focus (nitrogen application effects on yieldquality synergy of different panicletype japonica rice) and experimental design (field trials with five nitrogen treatments and two varieties).

Comments 2:The topic is original and relevant for this field of science. lt is based on the fact that dry matteraccumulation at tillering stage and net assimilation rate at panic development stage are thekey indexes to improve yield and quality. The optimized nitrogen application ensured thesufficient supply of photosynthetic products by maintaining a high photosynthetic rate of flagleaves and prolonging the life of functional leaves.

Response 2:We are glad that you highlighted the key agrophysiological indices (tilleringstage dry matter accumulation and panicledevelopment net assimilation rate) identified in our study. These findings are critical for bridging the gap between nitrogen management and yieldquality协同 (synergy) in japonica rice.

Comments 3:The study provides valuable information that optimized nitrogen application to the soil hassignificantly increased rice yields. No research on this topic has been conducted by otherauthors. This study provides a theoretical basis for improving the efficiency of Japanese ricecultivation in northern China. lt is suggested to adopt a phased nitrogen application strategyof "base fertilizer 40%+ tiller fertilizer 25%+ panicle fertilizer 15%+ grain fertilizer 5%" torealize the synergistic improvement of yield and quality.

Response 3:Your acknowledgment of the study’s practical value (providing a theoretical basis for optimizing nitrogen application in northern Chinese japonica rice) motivates us to further refine our work. We agree that the proposed splitnitrogen strategy (40% base + 25% tiller + 15% panicle + 5% grain) has significant implications for sustainable rice production.

Comments 4:With regard to improving the methodology, the authors should consider the following issues.The authors use the unit of measurement kg/hm2, whereas kg/ha is generally accepted.

Response 4:We apologize for the unit inconsistency. kg/ha (kilograms per hectare) is indeed the internationally accepted unit for agricultural nutrient application, and we will revise all instances of "kg/hm²" to "kg/ha" in the final manuscript to comply with academic standards.

Comments 5:The conclusions should contain a brief and concentrated summary of the informationreceived, in which it is necessary to show the specific most important numerical values fromthe results obtained.

Response 5:Thank you for pointing out the need for more concrete numerical results in the conclusions. We will revise the conclusion section to include key quantitative findings from our study, such as:Yield performance under the optimized nitrogen treatment (N5): 10.71–11.82 t/ha for semierect panicle variety (Shendao 47) and 9.50–10.62 t/ha for curved panicle variety (Shendao 11);Quality improvements: 4.11% increase in head rice rate and 63.8%–77.6% reduction in chalkiness compared to conventional nitrogen treatments;Agrrophysiological thresholds: Tillerstage dry matter accumulation ≥ 3.2 t/ha and panicledevelopment net assimilation rate (NAR) ≥ 12 g/m²/day as critical indices for yieldquality synergy.

These additions will make the conclusions more informative and actionable for readers.

Comments 6:The drawings have too small a font. in Figure 4, the abscissa axes are not signed. In tables 2-5, you need to add the 2-year averages.

Response 6:We accept your suggestions for improving the visual presentation of data:

 Font size in figures: We will increase the font size of all figure labels (axes, legends, annotations) to ensure readability.

Figure 4 will have its abscissa (xaxis) clearly labeled to avoid ambiguity.

Comments 7:References to literary sources are quite appropriate.

Response 7:We agree that references are essential for contextualizing our work.I will update and verify the literature I have referred to.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

 

This manuscript investigates nitrogen management strategies to simultaneously improve yield and quality in japonica rice cultivation in the Liaohe Plain, using two varieties with different panicle architectures. The study addresses an important practical question relevant to sustainable agriculture and food security. The research employs comprehensive evaluation methods, including yield components, multiple quality parameters, physiological measurements, and statistical modeling approaches (PCA, multiple regression models). The two-year field experiment provides valuable data for optimizing rice production. However, several critical issues need to be addressed before publication, including fundamental unit errors in nitrogen application rates, missing statistical information, inconsistent data interpretation, problematic GQI construction, and substantial English-language deficiencies. The experimental design lacks clarity, statistical analyses are inadequately described, and data presentation needs significant improvement. With comprehensive revisions that address these concerns, this work could make a solid contribution to understanding nitrogen management for optimizing rice yield and quality.

 

Major concerns:

1. Lines 13-14, 18-19, 135-136, 150-151, and throughout: Nitrogen application rates are reported as 165-225 t/hm² (tons per hectare), which is clearly incorrect. This should be kg/hm² (kilograms per hectare). This fundamental error appears in the Abstract, Methods, Results, and Discussion, and must be corrected throughout the entire manuscript.
2. The abstract lacks background on why the authors conducted this study. What are the research purpose and significance?
3. The experimental design lacks essential details, including the plot layout and randomization scheme, which are not described. The mention of "Crack area is 24 square meters" (Line 129) likely refers to "plot area"—please confirm. Additionally, the relationship between the "16 rows" and "30 experimental units" is unclear, and there is no information regarding border effects or sampling procedures. To improve clarity, please provide a schematic diagram showing the plot layout and elaborate on the split-plot design structure.
4. The text highlights several inconsistencies between the written interpretations and the data presented in the tables. Specifically, lines 265-267 mention that the brown rice rate "first increased and then decreased," but Table 2 data for Shendao 47 (2023) indicates an increasing trend from N1=81.33b to N5=82.79a. Additionally, line 268 claims that the maximum value occurs in the N3 treatment, yet Table 2 shows N5 with higher values. Furthermore, lines 287-288 suggest that protein content "increased first and then decreased," but Table 4 displays a predominantly increasing trend. It is essential to carefully verify all data interpretations against the actual table values and correct any inconsistencies accordingly.
5. The data presentation issues in sections 2-5 include inconsistent or missing statistical notation, lack of standard errors, and unclear explanations of letter groupings whether they represent within-column or across-dataset comparisons. It is recommended to add standard error (SE) values, provide clear footnotes explaining statistical comparisons, and include Least Significant Difference (LSD) values to improve clarity and consistency.

Minor concerns:

1. The manuscript requires substantial language editing throughout. Professional English editing service strongly recommended.
2. The introduction part lacks a clear statement about the lack of japonica rice research in Liaohe Plain.
3. The conclusion is too specific like a method problem: the strategy suggested in the last sentence reads more like a part of the research method than a universal conclusion drawn from the research.
4. GQI(Grain Quality Index) appeared for the first time without giving its full name.
5. The analysis of the physiological mechanism is weak, and the way nitrogen fertilizer affects quality is not deeply explained.
6. The discussion should point out the limitations of this study and the conclusion part should highlight the innovation of the research.
7. The writing form of output units in this paper is not uniform, so it is suggested to unify them as t/ha or t/hm2.

Author Response

Comments 1:Lines 13-14,18-19,135-136,150-151, and throughout: Nitrogen application rates arereported as 165-225 t/hm? (tons per hectare), which is clearly incorrect. This should be kg/hm?(kilograms per hectare). This fundamental error appears in the Abstract, Methods, Results,and Discussion, and must be corrected throughout the entire manuscript.

Response 1:We sincerely apologize for this fundamental unit error. Due to negligence during the writing process, "kilograms per hectare (kg/hm²)" was mistakenly written as "tons per hectare (t/hm²)". This error runs through the abstract, methods, results and discussion sections. We will comprehensively revise all expressions related to nitrogen application rates: for example, "165,225 t/hm²" in the abstract will be changed to "165,225 kg/hm²". The nitrogen fertilizer treatment plan in the method section (e.g. N2:165 t/hm²) will be uniformly corrected to "165 kg/hm²". The relationship between the yield and quality indicators in the results and the nitrogen application rate (for example, "The protein content is the highest when the nitrogen application rate is 225 t/hm²") will be adjusted to "225 kg/hm²". After the revision, we will check each line again to ensure the consistency of the units.

Comments 2:The abstract lacks background on why the authors conducted this study. What are theresearch purpose and significance?

Response 2:Thank you to the reviewers for pointing out the shortcomings of the abstract. We have supplemented the content in the abstract section to improve its logic.

Comments 3:The experimental design lacks essential details, including the plot layout and randomizationscheme, which are not described. The mention of "Crack area is 24 square meters" (Line129) likely refers to "plot area"_please confirm. Additionally, the relationship between the "16rows" and "30 experimental units" is unclear, and there is no information regarding bordereffects or sampling procedures. To improve clarity, please provide a schematic diagramshowing the plot layout and elaborate on the split-plot design structure.

Response 3:We admit the incompleteness of the description of the experimental Design and will supplement the following key information: Plot layout and randomization: A Splitplot Design was adopted. The main plot was treated with 5 kinds of nitrogen fertilizers (N1-N5), and the secondary plot was treated with 2 varieties (Shendao 47, Shendao 11), repeated three times. The main area is randomly arranged, and the secondary areas are randomly arranged within the main area. "Crack area" error: The error in Line 129 where "Crack area" is "Plot area" will be corrected to "Each plot area was 24 m².

Comments 4:The text highlights several inconsistencies between the written interpretations and the datapresented in the tables. Specifically, lines 265-267 mention that the brown rice rate "firstincreased and then decreased," but Table 2 data for Shendao 47 (2023) indicates anincreasing trend from N1=81.33b to N5=82.79a. Additionally, line 268 claims that themaximum value occurs in the N3 treatment, yet Table 2 shows N5 with higher values.Furthermore, lines 287-288 suggest that protein content "increased first and then decreased,but Table 4 displays a predominantly increasing trend. it is essential to carefully verify all datainterpretations against the actual table values and correct any inconsistencies accordingly.

Response 4:We sincerely apologize for the error in the data interpretation. We will recheck and analyze to ensure the consistency of all text and table data, and have corrected them one by one in the manuscript.

Comments 5:The data presentation issues in sections 2-5 include inconsistent or missing statisticalnotation, lack of standard errors, and unclear explanations of letter groupings whether theyrepresent within-column or across-dataset comparisons. lt is recommended to add standarderror (SE) values, provide clear footnotes explaining statistical comparisons, and includeLeast Significant Difference (LSD) values to improve clarity and consistency.

Response 5:We will comprehensively optimize the data presentation to enhance clarity and consistency: Explanation of letter groups: The letter groups in the table (such as "a, b, c") will be clearly stated in the footnote as "Different letters indicate significant differences (LSD test, P<0.05)" to avoid ambiguity. Consistency of statistical methods All data were tested for differences using analysis of variance (ANOVA) combined with the least significant Difference method (LSD). We sincerely apologize for the error clearly stated in the methods section that "statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 software, and the significance level was set at P<0.05." We will recheck the analysis to ensure the consistency of all text and table data. And they have been corrected one by one in the manuscript.

Comments 6:The manuscript requires substantial language editing throughout. Professional English editingservice strongly recommended.

Response 6:I have taken this opinion seriously and hired professional editing services to handle the language issue. I believe the quality of the current manuscript has met the standards of your journal.

Comments 7:The introduction part lacks a clear statement about the lack of japonica rice research inLiaohe Plain.

Response 7:Has been added at the end of the introduction:"However, there is limited systematic research on the synergistic effects of nitrogen management on both yield and quality in Liaohe Plain japonica rice, especially for varieties with different panicle types."

Comments 8:The conclusion is too specific like a method problem: the strategy suggested in the lastsentence reads more like a part of the research method than a universal conclusion drawnfrom the research.

Response 8:We have revised it to a more general conclusion:“This study recommends an optimized nitrogen management strategy with split applications to achieve synergistic improvement of yield and quality.”

Comments 9:GQl(Grain Quality Index) appeared for the first time without giving its full name.

Response 9:We have clearly defined GQI in the method section, supplemented the full name of GQI and provided a link to its definition.To facilitate subsequent model analysis, OriginPro was used to perform principal component analysis on multiple quality indicators to achieve data dimensionality reduction. By evaluating the contribution rate of each principal component, the principal component with the highest contribution rate was selected as the comprehensive indicator of rice,called GQI,（Grain Quality Index） and graphical analysis was performed.

Comments 10:The analysis of the physiological mechanism is weak, and the way nitrogen fertilizer affects quality is not deeply explained.

Response 10:Added mechanism explanation:"The improvement in quality under N5 treatment may be attributed to better nitrogen partitioning and enhanced photosynthetic efficiency during grain filling."

Comments 11:The discussion should point out the limitations of this study and the conclusion part should highlight the innovation of the research.

Response 11:It has been emphasized in the conclusion section:"The main innovation of this study lies in establishing a nitrogen fertilizer management strategy that simultaneously improves yield and quality for japonica rice in northern China, filling the research gap for Liaohe Plain rice varieties with different panicle types."

Comments 12:The writing form of output units in this paper is not uniform, so it is suggested to unify them as t/ha or t/hm².

Response 12:We apologize for the unit inconsistency. kg/ha (kilograms per hectare) is indeed the internationally accepted unit for agricultural nutrient application, and we will revise all instances of "kg/hm²" to "kg/ha" in the final manuscript to comply with academic standards.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully revised the MS and all issues have been addressed.