Roles of Nitrogen Deep Placement on Grain Yield, Nitrogen Use Efficiency, and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities in Mechanical Pot-Seedling Transplanting Rice
and Shenggang Pan 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the paper is interesting and represents new data on the suitability of localized application of N in rice crops. Both mechanical pot-seedling transplanting and deep nitrogen application are widely studied techniques. The novelty of this study lies on its synchronous application.
However, inconsistencies remain between the approach and the objective of the work: If the role of the deep application of N, it cannot be contrasted with absolute control N0 (in which N is not applied). The comparison should be made exclusively with the relative control (BF). One possible solution to this inconsistency would be to separate the "Treatment" factor into two factors: "N Application" factor, with two action levels YES (MAF+BF) or NOT (N0) and another factor "Application Form" with two other levels “surface” (BF) or “on depth” (MAF). In this way the role of the deep application of N would be separated and would facilitate the discussion of the results.
Extensive editing of English language and style are required.
Major Comments:
140-142. Rewrite the paragraph. Number the mathematical expressions for later reference. Explain the abbreviations of the formulas in the way "where: ". Avoid referring to “other nitrogen applied plots” when facing N0 plots
168-174. Rewrite the paragraph, avoid duplication of information and repeated paragraphs. It would be advisable to seek advice from a statistics expert to describe statistical treatment based on design and, above all, to present the data in the tables according to their statistical significance.
188-192; 108-212. (Tables 1 & 2). You can make it easier to understand Tables by removing the letters “ES” from behind the year. The absence of statistically significant variance between the years for (Productive panicle); (Harvested Yield); (TNA); (NPFP); (NHI) and (NAE) does not allow differentiate for the two years of those variables. You should present the average data for the two years on those variables. Similarly, the absence of statistical variability between cultivars for (Productive panicle); (Spikelet per panicle); (NGPE) and (NRE) does not allow to establish differences for those variables between the two varieties. It should establish the differences for treatments with the average data of the two varieties.
Figures 1 to 6. The number of figures seems excessive for the information they present. The space could be reduced if the data is presented in a table and one or two figures are reserved to present the most interesting variables. No statistical information is presented on the existence of differences between years and varieties to justify the presentation of separate graphs. It should not forget that the purpose of your work is to check the role of the deep location of the N and not the behavior of the varieties. If strictly necessary, the Figures could be read if the letter of each chart is replaced for the corresponding year.
Tables 3 to 6. The inclusion of these may be superfluous information in the article. Existing relationships are not adequately described, and data is not used in the discussion. Statistical information is not presented to separate interactions by years and varieties, so the presentation of 4 interaction tables is unjustified.
Line 66b – 74b. Conclusions drawn from work are supported exclusively in harvesting and efficiency in the use of N. No conclusions are drawn on the enzymatic activity, so its presence in the Title may call to confusion.
Minor Comments:
Line 94. Present the varieties' abbreviatures the first time you mention them.: Yuxiangyouzhan (YXYZ) and Wufengyou615 (WFY615)
Line 100. If there is an absolute T (N0), each treatment cannot receive 150 K. N.ha-1
Line 113. Clarify what a 30 g+2 g subsample means?
................
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Point 1:140-142. Rewrite the paragraph. Number the mathematical expressions for later reference. Explain the abbreviations of the formulas in the way "where: ". Avoid referring to “other nitrogen applied plots” when facing N0 plots
Response 1: I have rewritten the paragraph, and had numbered the the mathematical expressions. The author avoid referring to “other nitrogen applied plots” when facing N0 plots in the rewritten paragraph line 154-160. Thanks.
Point 2: 168-174. Rewrite the paragraph, avoid duplication of information and repeated paragraphs. It would be advisable to seek advice from a statistics expert to describe statistical treatment based on design and, above all, to present the data in the tables according to their statistical significance.
Response 2: I have rewritten the paragraph in line 193-198, and the author avoid duplication of information and repeated paragraphs in the rewritten paragraph. Thanks.
Point 3: 188-192; 108-212. (Tables 1 & 2). You can make it easier to understand Tables by removing the letters “ES” from behind the year. The absence of statistically significant variance between the years for (Productive panicle); (Harvested Yield); (TNA); (NPFP); (NHI) and (NAE) does not allow differentiate for the two years of those variables. You should present the average data for the two years on those variables. Similarly, the absence of statistical variability between cultivars for (Productive panicle); (Spikelet per panicle); (NGPE) and (NRE) does not allow to establish differences for those variables between the two varieties. It should establish the differences for treatments with the average data of the two varieties.
Response 3: The purpose of the work is to check the role of the deep location of the N, thus, The author has redone the table, and have established the differences for treatments with the average data of the two varieties and two-year, and the author had rewritten the part of results. Thanks.
Point 4: Figures 1 to 6. The number of figures seems excessive for the information they present. The space could be reduced if the data is presented in a table and one or two figures are reserved to present the most interesting variables. No statistical information is presented on the existence of differences between years and varieties to justify the presentation of separate graphs. It should not forget that the purpose of your work is to check the role of the deep location of the N and not the behavior of the varieties. If strictly necessary, the Figures could be read if the letter of each chart is replaced for the corresponding year.
Response 4: I have redone figure 2-6 as figure2-3, the data was average the two varieties and two-year, it not only reduced the space, but also made it clear what the purpose is to check the role of the deep location of the N, and the author rewritten the part of results. Thanks.
Point 5: Tables 3 to 6. The inclusion of these may be superfluous information in the article. Existing relationships are not adequately described, and data is not used in the discussion. Statistical information is not presented to separate interactions by years and varieties, so the presentation of 4 interaction tables is unjustified.
Response 5: I have deleted the table 3-6, and redone the table 3, the data for both rice cultivars in two years. Thanks.
Point 6: Line 66b – 74b. Conclusions drawn from work are supported exclusively in harvesting and efficiency in the use of N. No conclusions are drawn on the enzymatic activity, so its presence in the Title may call to confusion.
Response 6: I have rewritten conclusions in line 369-374, and drawn on the enzymatic activity in conclusions. Thanks.
Point 7: Line 94. Present the varieties' abbreviatures the first time you mention them.: Yuxiangyouzhan (YXYZ) and Wufengyou615 (WFY615).
Response 7: I have presented varieties' abbreviatures the first time in line 103. Thanks.
Point 8: Line 100. If there is an absolute T (N0), each treatment cannot receive 150 K. N.ha-1
Response 8: I have changed “the application rate was 150 kg N ha−1 for each treatment”, to “the application rate was 150 kg N ha−1 for fertilizer application treatment” in line 110-111. Thanks.
Point 9: Clarify what a 30 g+2 g subsample means?
Response 9: I have rewritten the determination of total number of spikelets in line 126-128, it is easy for the reader to understand.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research is well written but the novelty and results are predictable. It is commonly known that precise, deep N fertilization is more effective than broadcast fertilization, and transplanting of seedlings produced in pots is the common agrotechnical method allowing to maintain fast growth and development. In my opinion, the research just confirmed well-known dependences that can be applied for almost all crops in all conditions. Anyway, the research was planned properly and properly described. I can recommend to accept it for publication in Agronomy after minor revision (see attached file) as the confirmation of well-known relations, although I do not suspect the high scientific impact of this paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Point 1: Do not use abbreviations if they do not appear in the following part of the chapter (Please, apply to subsequent chapters) in line 25.
Response 1: I have deleted abbreviations if they do not appear in the following part of the chapter in the whole manuscript. Thanks.
Point 2: add rice cultivation in line 31.
Response 2: I have added rice cultivation in line 36. Thanks.
Point 3: keywords should not repeat words from the title
Response 3: I have changed other keywords in line 37, which were not repeat words from the title. Thanks.
Point 4: chang soils to soil in line 91.
Response 4: I have changed soils to soil in line 99. Thanks.
Point 5: line 100, in what form? NH4? NO3?
Response 5: I have explained in line 109, which is pure N. Thanks.
Point 6: The references to the tables and figures should not be used in the discussion
Response 6: I have deteled all references to the tables and figures in the discussion. Thanks.
Point 7: High antioxidant enzymes activity reflects high ROS production in leaves of PTS + deep placement fertilized plants. These enzymes are involved in ROS scavenging. Please explain why N-fertilized plants need such effective antioxidant machinery (I suspect that they must cope with excessive ROS production)
Response 7:Yes, the N-fertilized plants need such effective antioxidant machinery is to cope with excessive ROS production, I have explained in line 363-365. Thanks.
Point 8: The conclusions should be rewritten. Here we have the results, not conclusions, moreover, the text is repeated in the abstract.
Response 8: I have rewritten conclusions in line 369-374.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the paper is interesting and represents new data on the suitability of localized application of N in rice crops. Both mechanical pot-seedling transplanting and deep nitrogen application are widely studied techniques. The novelty of this study lies on its synchronous application.
Moderate English changes required.
Major Comments:
Lines 184- 188. (Table 1):
- The two years of the experiment line 185 do not match with those described in line 88.
- If the effect of years was random, it cannot be treated as a factor. You must delete the lines: Year(Y); YXN; YXC and YXNXC from Table 1.
- Because there are no differences between N treatments “Nitrogen (N)” line for Grain filling, you should remove the significance letters “a” from the mean values.
- You should modify foot Table (line 186) with an expression like this:
Average values followed by different letter represent LSD significant differences at p< 0.05).
**: (p<0.01); *: (p<0.05); ns: not significant variance
Lines 203 – 207. Table 2.
- Because there are no differences between N treatments “Nitrogen (N)” for NHI, you should remove the significance letters “a” from the mean values.
- If the effect of years is considered random, it cannot be treated as a factor. You must delete the lines: Year(Y); YXN; YXC and YXNXC from Table 2.
- You should include on foot Table (line 205) an expression like this:
Average values followed by different letter represent LSD significant differences at p< 0.05).
**: (p<0.01); *: (p<0.05); ns: not significant variance
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Point 1: The two years of the experiment line 185 do not match with those described in line 88.
Response 1: I have changed the two years in line 518-519.
Point 2: If the effect of years was random, it cannot be treated as a factor. You must delete the lines: Year(Y); YXN; YXC and YXNXC from Table 1.
Response 2: I have deleted the line: Year(Y); YXN; YXC and YXNXC from Table 1.
Point 3: Because there are no differences between N treatments “Nitrogen (N)” line for Grain filling, you should remove the significance letters “a” from the mean values.
Response 3: I have removed the the significance letters “a” from the mean values in Table 1.
Point 4: You should modify foot Table (line 186) with an expression like this: Average values followed by different letter represent LSD significant differences at p< 0.05). **: (p<0.01); *: (p<0.05); ns: not significant variance
Response 4: I have modify foot Table with an expression like this: Average values followed by different letter represent LSD significant differences at p< 0.05. **: (p<0.01); *: (p<0.05); ns: not significant variance in line 520-521.
Point 5: Because there are no differences between N treatments “Nitrogen (N)” for NHI, you should remove the significance letters “a” from the mean values.
Response 5: I have removed the the significance letters “a” from the mean values in Table 2.
Ponit 6: If the effect of years is considered random, it cannot be treated as a factor. You must delete the lines: Year(Y); YXN; YXC and YXNXC from Table 2.
Response 6: I have deleted the line: Year(Y); YXN; YXC and YXNXC from Table 2.
Point 7: You should include on foot Table (line 205) an expression like this: average values followed by different letter represent LSD significant differences at p< 0.05). **: (p<0.01); *: (p<0.05); ns: not significant variance
Response 7: I have modify foot Table with an expression like this: Average values followed by different letter represent LSD significant differences at p< 0.05. **: (p<0.01); *: (p<0.05); ns: not significant variance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting and represents new data on the suitability of localized application of N in rice crops. However, its application may be over-localist and there are some formal aspects that correct and clarify the effects of the results. should separate the effects of the application or not (N0) from those that are due to the application methods. (BF or MAF). Lines of discussion and conclusions should be numbered to facilitate the review work.
24-25 Avoid using decimals when expressing harvest increase percentages
- Avoid starting a paragraph with a connective preposition (remove “And”)
55 confusing paragraph, remove (deep.....reduced)
74., Include farm localization in the previous paragraph.
- Separate the unit from its number and avoid using decimals in expressions. If necessary, change the unit.
86-87. Delete “written as”
88-89. Simplify: “Water and phytochemicals were...” or specify which chemicals
104-106. Rewrite, simplify, and clarify the paragraph.
119-121. You should explain the meanings of the acronyms the first time you quote them (50) and avoid them in the summary
124-126. Before separating the average values, you have made a multifactor ANOVA (as shown in the tables). Explicitly say you did this.
- Correct the expression. “MAF treatment had the highest grain yield compared to BF”
131; 134. Avoid using excessive decimal places, or at least, use the same number of decimals on all data
139 (Table 1). Avoid using excessive decimal places, or at least, use the same number of decimals on all data and percentages.
156 change “and” for “x”
- It's not the method of applying N, it's the N fertilizer application?
- It should separate the effects of whether to apply N from those that refer to the method of application BF and MAF
4. Discussion; You must present the numbered lines in the discussion.
5 Conclusion; You must present the numbered lines in the conclusion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewers' Comments
Dear the editor,
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments, we have revised the manuscript carefully. The revisions were addressed point by point below.
Reviewer 1
Point 1: 24-25. Avoid using decimals when expressing harvest increase percentages.
Answer: The authors had deleted the decimals after the harvest increase percentages shown as Line 29. Thanks.
Point 2: 46. Avoid starting a paragraph with a connective preposition (remove “And”).
Answer:: The authors had deleted the connective preposition “and” shown as Line 54, Thanks.
Point 3: 55. confusing paragraph, remove (deep.....reduced).
Answer:: The authors had removed this sentence (deep.....reduced). Thanks.
Point 4: 74. Include farm localization in the previous paragraph.
Answer:: The authors made the farm localization clearly shown as Line 92-94. Thanks.
Point 5: 76. Separate the unit from its number and avoid using decimals in expressions. If necessary, change the unit.
Answer:: The authors had changed the units to avoid decimals in expressions shown as Line 94-97. Thanks.
Point 6: 86-87. Delete “written as”
Answer:: The authors had deleted “written as” shown as Line 108-110. Thanks.
Point 7: 88-89. Simplify: “Water and phytochemicals were...” or specify which chemicals
Answer:: The authors had re-written this sentence shown as Line 110-112. Thanks.
Point 8: 104-106. Rewrite, simplify, and clarify the paragraph.
Answer:: The authors had rewritten this sentence shown as Line 140-143. Thanks.
Point 9: 119-121. You should explain the meanings of the acronyms the first time you quote them (50) and avoid them in the summary.
Answer:: The authors had explained the meanings of the acronyms the first time shown as Line 157-160. Thanks.
Point 10: 124-126. Before separating the average values, you have made a multifactor ANOVA (as shown in the tables). Explicitly say you did this.
Answer: The authors had rewritten this sentence shown as Line 186-189. Thanks.
Point 11: 130. Correct the expression. “MAF treatment had the highest grain yield compared to BF”
Answer: The authors had re-written this sentence shown as Line195-198. Thanks.
Point 12: 131, 134. Avoid using excessive decimal places, or at least, use the same number of decimals on all data.
Answer: The authors had used the same number of decimals on all data shown as Line 199-201. Thanks.
Point 13: 139. (Table 1). Avoid using excessive decimal places, or at least, use the same number of decimals on all data and percentages.
Answer: The authors used the same number of decimals on all data in Table 1. Thanks.
Point 14: 156. change “and” for “x”
Answer: The authors had changed “and” for “x” shown as Line 224-225. Thanks.
Point 15: 164. It's not the method of applying N, it's the N fertilizer application?
Answer: The authors had changed to N fertilizer application in the whole manuscript such as line 199-200, 215-216, 235, and 241. Thanks.
Point 16: 174. It should separate the effects of whether to apply N from those that refer to the method of application BF and MAF
Answer: The authors compared N application treatment (BF and MAF) to N0 shown as Line196-198, Line 210-213, Line 215-216, Line 229-223. Thanks.
Point 17: 4. Discussion; You must present the numbered lines in the discussion.
Answer: The authors are sorry that the line number is not displayed due to the format error, the authors had presented the numbered lines in the discussion. Thanks
Point 18: 5 Conclusion; You must present the numbered lines in the conclusion.
Answer: The authors are sorry that the line number is not displayed due to the format error, The authors had presented the numbered lines in the conclusion. Thanks
Reviewer 2 Report
This study investigated the effect of nitrogen deep placement coupled with mechanized transplanting rice machine (NDP-MTR) on grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency and antioxidant enzyme in comparison with the conventional fertilizer application method (manual broadcast). The experiment was properly designed, and the data collection was properly performed. The NDP-MTR approach improved the grain yield and enhanced the nitrogen use efficiency. These results could be practically important for the farmers to practice the cost-saving management. However, the MS should be drastically revised before review part due the following reasons.
Major comments
- Objective of this MS
The authors need to explain the objective and the background more explicitly in introduction part of MS. Due to the insufficient explanation, it is difficult to tell what the new academic findings are.
First, it is unclear whether the authors focus on the effect of NDP-MTR or NDP itself. As was described in L63, “the aim of this study was to assess whether NDP-MTR could increase grain yield…”, however, all the seedlings in different fertilizer treatment were transplanted only by MTR method (L85-86). It means that the aim of this study is to assess the effect not of NDP-MTR, but of NDP itself, doesn’t it ? If so, the introduction part of MTR seems to be not so important.
Second, the authors performed this study because of little information on NDP-MTR. However, contrary to the author’s explanation, the concept of NDP is not new one and the effect of NDP on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency has already been investigated in many studies. The authors also pointed out that there are several studies on NDP-MTR in discussion and in introduction. Thus, it is very difficult to tell what the new findings are. The authors need to explicitly describe what has been done for NDP and has not been done and why this study is required. The reason of “little information” is not approapriate.
Third, review part of NDP (L44-L57) are not enough, especially on the issue of anti-oxidant enzyme. The authors allocated only one sentence to the part of the anti-oxidant material. The authors should explain this part more carefully.
- Material and Method
The explanation in M&M is not appropriate.
First, as for the part 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6, the authors describe only “determined according to xxx et al.”. The detail information should be described
Second, the description of statistics analysis is not enough. The authors need to describe the model method for ANOVA. In addition, the correlation analysis was not described here.
3 Style of discussion
First, please clarify the new finding of this study and put it into first paragraph of discussion. For example, the authors insisted as follows “we found that MAF significantly enhanced the gran yield…”, but this findings could be reported by other studies.
Second, the way of citation should be improved. Some of the citation part are common senses and blurs the key message of this study. For example, “dry mater weight is the basis for yield formation” , “LAI was another important indicator”, “rice plants could acquire a lot of N nutrients to ensure production of above-ground biomass and N absorption with a stronger root system under the deep placement of N fertilizer” etc. Please remove them to simplify the discussion.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers' Comments
Dear the editor,
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According to your comments, we have revised the manuscript carefully. The revisions were addressed point by point below.
Point 1: First, it is unclear whether the authors focus on the effect of NDP-MTR or NDP itself. As was described in L63, “the aim of this study was to assess whether NDP-MTR could increase grain yield…”, however, all the seedlings in different fertilizer treatment were transplanted only by MTR method (L85-86). It means that the aim of this study is to assess the effect not of NDP-MTR, but of NDP itself, doesn’t it ? If so, the introduction part of MTR seems to be not so important.
Answer: The authors want to address the effect of NDP-MTR because of new technique. The authors have added concerning introduction about NDP-MTR shown as Line 73-77.
Second, the authors performed this study because of little information on NDP-MTR. However, contrary to the author’s explanation, the concept of NDP is not new one and the effect of NDP on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency has already been investigated in many studies. The authors also pointed out that there are several studies on NDP-MTR in discussion and in introduction. Thus, it is very difficult to tell what the new findings are. The authors need to explicitly describe what has been done for NDP and has not been done and why this study is required. The reason of “little information” is not approapriate.
Answer: The authors have added some concerning introduction about the effect of NDP shown as Line 63-70. Thanks.
Third, review part of NDP (L44-L57) are not enough, especially on the issue of anti-oxidant enzyme. The authors allocated only one sentence to the part of the anti-oxidant material. The authors should explain this part more carefully.
Answer: The authors have added some concerning articles about the effect of NDP on the issue of anti-oxidant enzyme shown as Line 58-63. Thanks。
Point 2: Materials and Method
First, as for the part 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6, the authors describe only “determined according to xxx et al.”. The detail information should be described.
Answer: The authors have described these methods in detail shown as Line 119-124, Line 131-136, and Line 157-183. Thanks.
Second, the description of statistics analysis is not enough. The authors need to describe the model method for ANOVA. In addition, the correlation analysis was not described here.
Answer: The authors have described the model method for ANOVA shown as Line 186-189. Thanks.
Point 3: Style of discussion
First, please clarify the new finding of this study and put it into first paragraph of discussion. For example, the authors insisted as follows “we found that MAF significantly enhanced the gran yield…”, but this findings could be reported by other studies.
Answer: The authors have clarify the new finding of this study and put it into first sentence of every paragraph shown as Line 287-290, Line 313-314, and Line 331-335. Thanks.
Second, the way of citation should be improved. Some of the citation part are common senses and blurs the key message of this study. For example, “dry mater weight is the basis for yield formation” , “LAI was another important indicator”, “rice plants could acquire a lot of N nutrients to ensure production of above-ground biomass and N absorption with a stronger root system under the deep placement of N fertilizer” etc. Please remove them to simplify the discussion.
Answer: The authors have removed some citation to simplify the discussion. Thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The MS was improved, but the improvement is not sufficient and it still has the major flows, especially in the style of manuscript description. There could be no problem in data collection and experimental design. Therefore, I strongly recommend the authors to revise the MS drastically. I described the major comments below
- Now, I understand that as MTR in this MS, the pot-seedling transplanting was adopted. I believe that pot-seedling transplanting is also not new technique, as well as NDP. As far as I know, this technique has already been adopted at least in Japan, as Minoru pot seedling transplanting machine since 1970’s. But, I agree with the authors’ opinion that the combination of NDP and MTR could be relatively new concept. If so, the author need to properly state that each component of NDP and MTR was developed previously, but the combination is new and then to explain the merits of each component and your hypothesis (what can be expected by combining the NDP and MTR, that is, why you focused on NDP-MTR). For example, “pot-seedling transplanting can transplant the seedlings without root injury. It will expect to reduce the transplanting shock and maintain the root activity, leading to enhanced nutrient uptake and consequently to the vigorous initial growth. However, under the flooding condition, the majority of applied N fertilizer was generally lost due to denitrification and leaching. Thus, the seedlings transplanted by MTR can not get access to the N resource, limiting their performance irrerespective of enhanced root activity. To overcome this problem, much application of chemical fertilizer is one of the approaches, but it will cause the problems of xxx and yyy. Altenative is the combination of NDP with MTR. NDP fertilizer application method can maintain the nutrient and enhance nutrient use efficiency. Therefore the combination of NDP and MTR can be expected to boost up the nutrient uptake and seedling growth, achieving high yield performance without increasing cost of fertilizer and environmental pollution. However, little information is available how the combination is advantageous….” The above noted statements are just one of the examples, but the authors need to clearly state this kind of logic flow to explain why this study is required.
In addition, the authors still insist that the objective is to investigate the effect of NDP-MTR. That is to say, the authors try to focus on what kind of benefits can be obtained when NDP and MTR was combinedly applied. It means that the authors focus on the interaction effect of NDP and MTR. However, the experimental design that the author adopted in this study just investigated the effect of NDP, because all the treatments of NDP were managed by MTR method. If the treatment of MTR had been adopted, the objective could have been as the authors intended. But from the result of this study, the author only can say that NDP is more effective than BF under MTR condition, but they can not insist the combination of NDP-MTR is good or not. Extremely speaking, its because there is a possibility that NDP-nonMTR method may be better than NDP-MTR, but the author can not show the evidences from this experimental design.
Third, MTR seems to be not appropriate word. If the author focus on the pot seedling transplanting, its better to use PST or something like that.
Due to the above-noetd reasons, the authors should revise the MS drastically to fit the objective to the experimental design.
- Statistical part is still insufficient. First, the authors did not mention the statistic model even in revised MS. For example, “in the ANOVA model, the single effect of NDP, Variety, Year and the interaction effect are fixed, while the replicaition effect nested in year was random” or something like that.
In addition, the authors did not reply the comment part related to correlation analysis. The correlation analysis is to compare the variation among each parameter. Key point is that the variation in each parameter is caused by cultivar, year, NDP treatment and error. Without N number, it is very difficult to tell which type of variation the authors focus on. The authors should clarify which type variation are focused on.
- Discussion part should be more sophisticated. For example, the authors just say that NDP increase the grain yield. But it could be not new finding. Other studies also reported the same results. One of the solution might be that the authors should insist as follows “yield increase by combination of NDP -MTR is xxx to yyy. The increase is far larger than previous studies on NDP (xxx to yyy), suggesting that NDP method could be more effective under MTR condition than nonMTR condition.” Throughout all the part of discussion, this kind of modification are inevitable.
