Effects of Tillage System, Sowing Date, and Weather Course on Yield of Double-Crop Soybeans Cultivated in Drained Paddy Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear Authors,

your paper manuscrpt deals the effect of two tillage systems, three sowing dates of soybean on agonomic parameters (AGBM, days to reach flowering, …) based on a three years experiment in drained paddy field. The paper is well structured and the methods and results are explained comprehensively. Based on the used statistical analysis and discussion, the conclusions are comprehensible.

This agronomic paper has also valuable results for the pratical point of view for the climate conditions with monsoom.

Two aspect should be re-thinked:

·       Why do you use the the term “double-crop soybeans” in the paper? It is confusing. I suggest to use only “soybean” in the title and in the whole manuscript. The pre-crop winter barely is mentioned in M&M.

·       The description of cultivation of soybean in the experiment (Line 167 und 168) could be completed with a drawing (figure). It would help to understand the cultivation procedure.

Minor aspects:

Line 194 (CGR and NAR): Mention in bracket (crop growth rate, net assimilation rate)

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Why do you use the term “double-crop soybeans” in the paper? It is confusing. I suggest to use only “soybean” in the title and in the whole manuscript. The pre-crop winter barely is mentioned in M&M.

 

Response 1: This is to clearly discriminate the “double-crop soybeans” from the “mono-crop soybeans”, which are usually sowing earlier than double-crop soybeans in temperate monsoon areas. Therefore, we would like to use the words “double-crop soybeans” in title, while in the text we replaced the double-crop soybeans to soybeans as pointed out by Ref #1, except some cases that the term “double-crop soybeans” should be kept to discriminate from mono-crop soybeans.

 

Point 2: The description of cultivation of soybean in the experiment (Line 167 und 168) could be completed with a drawing (figure). It would help to understand the cultivation procedure.

 

Response 2: The Ref #1 made a great suggestion here. The new Figure 1 has been added to help make a better understand of the cultivation procedure, and has been sequentially changed current Figure numbers.

 

Point 3: Line 194 (CGR and NAR): Mention in bracket (crop growth rate, net assimilation rate)

Response 3: We inserted full descriptions in parenthesis (crop growth rate, and net assimilation rate) for the CGR and NAR.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "Effects of tillage system, sowing date, and weather course on yield of double-crop soybeans cultivated in drained paddy fields"  brings interesting information about the extent to which agronomic practices and weather course affect yield of double-crop soybeans cultivated in drained paddy fields. The article is well structured, easy to understand, with recent bibliography, although a few more bibliographic titles can be added. 

I recommend the authors to describe all the methods by which they made the determinations, including the description of the soil) and the abbreviation in tables and figures to be explained by footnotes.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: I recommend the authors to describe all the methods by which they made the determinations, including the description of the soil and the abbreviation in tables and figures to be explained by footnotes.

 

Response 1: The authors appreciate this comment, and some methods and descriptions have now been added in the relevant texts, and in the footnotes of tables and figures.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

English language and style are fine only minor spell check are required. I marked my hints, suggestions in the manuscript (pdf file).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: English language and style are fine only minor spell check are required. I marked my hints, suggestions in the manuscript (pdf file).

 

Response 1: A spell checks have now been done throughout the manuscript by employing “Spell Check” function of the MS Word. The authors greatly appreciate the suggestions in PDF, and have revised the manuscript according to suggestions. However, only for a suggestion in relation to space between “℃“ and number, the authors would like to comply with a general practice in this Journal; a look at the papers published recently in Agronomy, ℃ that follows number has a space in all cases.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have reviewed with interest your manuscript entitled „Effects of tillage system, sowing date, and weather course on yield of double-crop soybeans cultivated in drained paddy 3 fields” submitted to AGRONOMY.

Authors in their study evaluated the tillage system, sowing date, and weather course on yield of soybeans cultivated in drained paddy fields.

 

In my opinion the current version of your manuscript is suitable for publication in AGRONOMY, but after same revisions. The quality of the presentation could be improved-e.g. In general, manuscript needs small improvement.

The article suffers from a number of small mistakes, ranging from misspellings to incorrectly phrased sentences.

Some adjustments are suggested to qualify the paper:

Issues include:

The Abstract

The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Now it exceed 200 words (260 words).                        I propose to shorten it.

The general comment to the Introduction section: the introduction is written in an appropriate manner. The content of the literature review chapter is related to the research topic. Up-to-date literature references are presented in the manuscript by the author but tis section is too long. In my opinion the Introduction must be shorten. And it have to content the main information.

In the chapter Materials and Methods, the methodology is adequate, but there is a lack of information in some aspects. Some more information should be explained in the text. It could be add the information with chemical content of soil before sowing soybean. Please provide references on the methods used to provide the soil properties.

In the chapter Results, the results are displayed correctly.

The Discussion is informative. Moreover, the Authors attempt to discuss their important results and the rest is a quotation of literature. I suggest a small reorganization of Discussion, and include more up-to-date literature.

In my opinion the Conclusions is insufficiency. It could be contain more obtained by Authors results and same recommendations for farmers and other recipient of study results.

I hope that these comments help you to make an improved the final version of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Point 1: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Now it exceed 200 words (260 words). I propose to shorten it.

 

Response 1: Total number of words in the current Abstract was 214 words (not 260 words), the abstract has now been shortened.

Point 2: the introduction is written in an appropriate manner. The content of the literature review chapter is related to the research topic. Up-to-date literature references are presented in the manuscript by the author but tis section is too long. In my opinion the Introduction must be shorten. And it have to content the main information.

Response 2: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comments, and the introduction has now been somewhat shortened. However, the authors have maintained a main part of the current introduction in order to keep a systematic consistency with Discussion.

Point 3: In the chapter Materials and Methods, the methodology is adequate, but there is a lack of information in some aspects. Some more information should be explained in the text. It could be add the information with chemical content of soil before sowing soybean. Please provide references on the methods used to provide the soil properties.

Response 3: The authors greatly appreciate this suggestion. References in relation to the methods have now been added in both the footnote of Table 1 and the reference list, and described briefly in the text.

Point 4: The Discussion is informative. Moreover, the Authors attempt to discuss their important results and the rest is a quotation of literature. I suggest a small reorganization of Discussion, and include more up-to-date literature. In my opinion the Conclusions is insufficiency. It could be contain more obtained by Authors results and same recommendations for farmers and other recipient of study results.

Response 4: The authors partially agree with the reviewer’s these comments, and added some up-to-date literatures in relevant places of the Discussion and in the reference list as well. However, authors are understanding that a section for the discussion should be discussed enough focusing on key findings, rather than discuss all of the results. In addition, the authors believe that the conclusions should be described concisely the main results and its implications, and the limitations of the study if any.