Soil Compaction and Maize Root Distribution under Subsoiling Tillage in a Wheat–Maize Double Cropping System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

After having read your manuscript I found it scientifically novel and remarkable for scientists.

I suggest an English revision with a native speaker to avoid misspellings, and the manuscript could benefit from a list of abbreviations at the beginning.

 

Kind regards 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for your comments concerning our manuscript. The comments are very helpful for improving our paper. We have further polished the language and checked the English spelling to express more accurately in the revised manuscript. We also added a list of abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Thank again for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

please find attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for your comments concerning our manuscript. The comments are very helpful for improving our paper. We have thought the comments carefully over and have made correction which we hope meet with your approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response.

Thank again for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The MS “Soil compaction and maize root distribution under subsoiling tillage in a wheat-maize double cropping system” is interesting. However, the MS needs major revisions before possible acceptance in the ‘Agronomy’ journal.

Comments and suggestions about MS

Title

1-      The title is good.

Abstract

1-      The abstract should be a brief and complete picture of your study instead of a paragraph.

2-      What is the reason/motivation/research gap? Please add the answer to this question in the Abstract.

3-      Information that is more specific is required in the abstract instead of general expressions.

4-      Keywords must be re-write and arranged alphabetically to enhance the visibility of your article.

Introduction

1-      The introduction failed to motivate and problematize the objectives of the study.

2-      Please clarify your hypothesis.

3-      The introduction lacks the following information:

a.       What scientific questions have you addressed?

b.      What will benefit the scientific community/society of your study?

c.       What is the significance of your research?

4-      Line 45: Please add 2-3 sentences about the maize at the start of the paragraph.

You may add these sentences: "Maize (Zea mays L.) is a cereal crop that is grown worldwide. Some countries used maize as a staple food (http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1903_23052331) and mainly used for forage, glucose, and other by-products (https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1166995)."

5-      Line 47-49, 52-54: Delete or replace one sentence because both sentences are similar.

Materials and Methods

Overall, the Materials and Methods section is well-written.

1.      Line 164: The ‘(P<0.05)’ should be in small letters and italicized as ‘p’. Please check this throughout the MS.

Results

The results are good.

1-      Line 216: A table should be self-explanatory, so please re-write the title of the table comprehensively and add the full name of RT, ST, NT, STIR, and STOR in the title of Table 3.

Discussion

Discussion is fine.

Conclusions

Conclusions need to write on the basis of the key findings of your study for the easy understanding of readers. Conclusions should not be based on may/can/could.

References

1.      The manuscript cites 32 references, none of which were published in the journal “Agronomy”. So, I suggest that you consider also citing atleast two (2) relevant references published in Agronomy to enhance your Article's visibility and attract readers of ‘Agronomy’.

Hopefully, these suggestions will help you to improve your Article.

 

Good luck.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for the quick handling of our manuscript and we are pleased with the received comments. The comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. We have thought the comments carefully over and have made correction which we hope meet with your approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:

Title

1- The title is good.

Reply: Thank you for your comments. We greatly appreciate your feedback.

Abstract

1- The abstract should be a brief and complete picture of your study instead of a paragraph.

Reply: As suggested, we have rephrased the abstract in the revised manuscript.

2- What is the reason/motivation/research gap? Please add the answer to this question in the Abstract.

Reply: As suggested, we have added the reason/motivation/research gap in the abstract.

3- Information that is more specific is required in the abstract instead of general expressions.

Reply: As suggested, we have rephrased the abstract in our revised manuscript.

4- Keywords must be re-write and arranged alphabetically to enhance the visibility of your article.

Reply: As suggested, we have re-written the keywords and arranged alphabetically.

Introduction

1- The introduction failed to motivate and problematize the objectives of the study.

Reply: As suggested, we have re-written the motivation of objectives of the study.

2- Please clarify your hypothesis.

Reply: We have clarified our hypothesis in the revised manuscript.

3- The introduction lacks the following information:

1. What scientific questions have you addressed?
2. What will benefit the scientific community/society of your study?
3. What is the significance of your research?

Reply: As suggested, we have re-written the introduction in the revised manuscript.

4- Line 45: Please add 2-3 sentences about the maize at the start of the paragraph.

You may add these sentences: "Maize (Zea mays L.) is a cereal crop that is grown worldwide. Some countries used maize as a staple food (http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1903_23052331) and mainly used for forage, glucose, and other by-products (https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2016.1166995)."

Reply: As suggested, we have added the sentences and references in the revised manuscript.

5- Line 47-49, 52-54: Delete or replace one sentence because both sentences are similar.

Reply: As suggested, we have deleted one sentence in the revised manuscript.

Materials and Methods

Overall, the Materials and Methods section is well-written.

1- Line 164: The ‘(P<0.05)’ should be in small letters and italicized as ‘p’. Please check this throughout the MS.

Reply: As suggested, we have changed the ‘(P<0.05)’ to ‘p<0.05’ and checked this throughout the MS.

Results

The results are good.

Reply: Thank you for your comments.

1- Line 216: A table should be self-explanatory, so please re-write the title of the table comprehensively and add the full name of RT, ST, NT, STIR, and STOR in the title of Table 3.

Reply: As suggested, we have added the notes in the revised manuscript.

Discussion

Discussion is fine.

Reply: Thank you for your comments.

Conclusions

Conclusions need to write on the basis of the key findings of your study for the easy understanding of readers. Conclusions should not be based on may/can/could.

Reply: As suggested, we have re-written our conclusions in the revised manuscript.

References

1- The manuscript cites 32 references, none of which were published in the journal “Agronomy”. So, I suggest that you consider also citing at least two (2) relevant references published in Agronomy to enhance your article’s visibility and attract readers of ‘Agronomy’.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested, we have added several relevant references published in Agronomy.

Thank again for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for improvements.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have incorporated most of the suggested changes. However, the caption format of Figures 1-5  must be checked and corrected. Further, the manuscript be spell-checked/corrected for minor grammatical mistakes/typos.