Effects of Row Spacing and Planting Pattern on Photosynthesis, Chlorophyll Fluorescence, and Related Enzyme Activities of Maize Ear Leaf in Maize–Soybean Intercropping
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
gPlease see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' insightful comments concerning our manuscript agronomy-1879152“Effects of Row Spacing and Planting Pattern on Photosynthesis, Chlorophyll Fluorescence, and Related Enzyme Activities of Maize Ear Leaf in Maize-Soybean Intercropping". Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
We have studied comments carefully and have made revisions which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as following:
Reviewer #1: Comments and Suggestions for authors
- Abstract
The abstract is clearly written with a clear stated objective and results. However, the methodology is not explained. Please revise and include.
Response：We have added the methodology in the Abstract accoring to the reviewer’s suggestion.(line15-21)
- 介绍
- 研究背景清晰明了
- 但是，没有说明研究目标
回应：我们根据审稿人的建议，在引言的最后一段增加了研究目标。（79-87线）
- 材料和方法
- 请描述四种治疗方法中的每一种
- 在第124行中，作者指出，每个样地评估了6种植物，如果他们能提供这些植物的细节，那将是有益的。
回应：根据审稿人的建议，我们修改了四种治疗方法的描述。在原来的第124行中，我们指出了细节：..........随机评价6株玉米植株，每个样地生长均匀........（108-112 号线），（134 号线）
- 结果
- 作者应修改第 129-130 行中的句子以反映完全时态。
- 在第146行中，作者指出了以下酶的测定。然而，酶没有被命名。
- 图 3 表示不同的字母显示出显著的差异。但是，误差线可能表明情况并非如此，如果对此进行详细说明，这将是有益的。这同样适用于图 4。
- 表 1 将溢出到下一页。作者是否可以对页面使用横向并调整字体以使其适合？
回应：根据审稿人的建议，1）我们修改了这句话的时态（第140行）2）酶已重命名为：磷酸烯醇丙酮酸羧激酶（PEPC）和Rupp羧化酶/氧基酶（Rubisco）（第166-167行）.3）将图3和图4更改为表格并重新分析数据。（第216-220，274行）4）表1的格式在一页上显示。（309行）)
- 讨论和结论
- 作者尚未完全解释其结果的含义。从结果来看，
似乎有一些关系、趋势和模式，其根本原因和影响应该得到解释。
- 结论应从研究中得出，但不应该是重复
结果。
- 缺少建议。
回应：我们必须根据审稿人的建议修改讨论和结论。（393-430路）
此外，我们尽力改进手稿，并对手稿进行了一些更改。这些变化不会影响文件的内容和框架。在这里，我们没有列出这些变化，但在修订后的文件中标记为红色。
我们衷心感谢编辑/审稿人的热情工作，并希望更正工作得到批准。
再次感谢您的意见和建议。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors:
I find this study does not have a robust data set. Harvest data from 4 plants is not adequate. You never mention plot length. The data needs to be presented in tables not graphs which are hard to read.
Suggestions for improvement:
1. Please review agronomic studies on maize yield and use the same approach for collecting yield data.
2. In the paper first present the ANOVA table . If there is no year by treatment interaction then present data combined over years.
3. Next do not use graphs. All data should be in tables. LSDs should be included for all comparisons you are making.
4. Never, never say something is better than something else if they are not significantly different no matter how much % difference there is. You do not need to use a 5% alpha level. It is not written in the bible. You are entitled to use any alpha level you choose and nobody can argue with you. Just because everyone else uses 5% does not mean you have to use it. For example, a farmer will accept a 25% alpha level if you tell him that variety A outyields variety B 3 out of 4 years !
5. You make no mention of soybean yields. It would seem to me that you need to analyze the entire growing system. Soybean yield and value plus maize yield and value.
6. Since it appears to me that there are no differences in the parameters you measured then all you need to do is conduct a robust trial, more than 1 location for more than 1 year with 4 or more reps and multiple corn hybrids and soybean varieties and collect data from the entire middle rows ( all plants). Ask for help from agronomists that do this kind of work. They can help you.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The research topic presented in the manuscript is interesting and cognitively important. The study has been well planned. The title of the paper, the abstract are adequately prepared. However, it suggests rethinking the keywords to reflect the research topic more strongly. The study material, methods and results are also well and clearly presented. However, I have some comments on the discussion and conclusions. They are generally well prepared, but lack an indication of the importance of the research results obtained or the opportunities they present. I would ask you to complete the discussion and conclusions. Furthermore, has the cost of putting the research results into practice been taken into account? Will increased yields neutralise increased harvesting costs?
From minor comments: in lines 87-88, please remove: "data was procived by the", please pay attention to the subscripts/top subscripts in the manuscript, giving numerical values up to 3 significant places, please describe the graphs more clearly (for example with consecutive letters of the alphabet or a clearer indication of the years of the study) so that there is no doubt which one refers to which year of the study.
Author Response
请看附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
You need to include the ANOVA table first so you can determine if there are any interactions. If no year x treatment interactions then show the data averaged over years. Your tables are difficult to read. I insist you do this before I will accept it for publication.
This revised version is better. You can improve it by adding the ANOVA table.
Author Response
请看附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
