Response of Summer Maize Growth and Water Use to Different Irrigation Regimes
, Shoutian Ma 1,†, Yang Gao 1, Zugui Liu 1, Anzhen Qin 1, Ben Zhao 1, Dongfeng Ning 1, Aiwang Duan 1, Xuchen Liu 1,2, Haiqing Chen 1 and Zhandong Liu 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments to Authors:
The manuscript studies the effect of varying irrigation applications on the growth parameters of maize in the lysimeter experiment in China. The authors observed data in nine different treatments and compared them with the control treatment with non-deficit irrigation. The positive of the study is the amount of shown data and their graphical presentation.
Although the manuscript topically fits well within the scope of the journal, it needs further modifications.
Introduction is not sufficient, and second paragraph feels repetitive with the discussion section. No problem if the same works are cited in both parts, however, at this stage the introduction is already to focused on the studied parameters and crop in China. Are the issues described applicable for other crops also out of China?
The manuscript needs modifications regarding English grammar (especially in the result section). Some issues were mentioned directly in the revised version of the manuscript.
Result section has to be significantly reviewed and modified – to increase the clarity of described results.
1) there are too many grammar issues and unclear / incomplete statements – some of the repetitive issues were highlighted with blue directly in the manuscript. Not all issues were highlighted as there are too many.
2) replace 3/2/1 irrigation times with different names such as irrigation application at 3 intervals/ growth stages and single irrigation
3) when reporting new set of data (according to subchapter) I suggest first reporting the results in comparison to control. When the data are further compared between each other every time it should clear which treatment was the comparison done with (if CK or other treatments)
4) the data are generally shown for 2018 and 2019 however, then the maximum / minimum values are reported the authors dont specify which year are they referring to. Regarding some properties, the trends were not the same / or significant in both years.
Conclusions – to what extent are the results obtained from lysimeter study without drainage expected to be comparable with real field conditions?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of the paper needs to be corrected. English also because there are a lot mistakes, unfinished and too long sentences, and phrase repetitions. The discussion could be shortened because it is too long.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors tried to improve the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers and answer all the question. I confirm that the quality of the manuscript had improved. However, I still insist of English proofreading of the results section especially since there are still very basic mistakes such as missing verb "to be". Such mistakes of course decrease the quality and clarity of the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
