Optimized Agronomic Management in North China Plain to Maintain Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Yield While Reducing Water and Fertilizer Inputs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an important scientific contribution. The introduction is clear and relevant to the problem. In the material and methods, I consider it important to provide more information about the treatments, because when the authors discuss the results and present the conclusion, some information does not appear in the article. For example: the use of drip irrigation? The frequency of irrigation? The calculation of the irrigation depth?
Finally, I made some comments in the article to contribute to its improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study tested an optimized cultivation management (HHL) that can improve the plant's ability to resist stress, thereby effectively promoting growth and development. While this topic may not be novel for pure research, it represents good practice for extension research, whose contribution has often been underestimated in China. However, the description of the experiment setup is unacceptably unclear, raising serious doubts about the credibility of the results. I cannot recommend the publication unless the author addresses all of my concerns as follows:

1. As an extension research paper, the author should have introduced more detail about existing methods (such as pre-sowing soil moisture creation, fine tillage, and optimized irrigation and fertilization) in the Introduction section. However, the author only generally introduced “Comprehensive agronomic managements consist of various practices such as tillage, nutrient management, and water management”.
2. The two distinct agronomic managements are not clear. Especially the differences between CK and HHL are not clear. Does the WLSG-2700 deep loosening rotary tiller release more labor than the 1GN-180 rotary tiller? How to make deeper (20-100 cm) soil water content higher than surface (0-20 cm) soil water content? What is the pre-sowing soil moisture regulation for CK? I only find 75% soil water content in the 0-20 cm layer and 90% field capacity in the 20-100 for HHL. It would be better to summarize the same and the difference between CK and HHL in a Table.
3. The author listed the water consumption values of two treatments at different stages. However, they did not mention how to calculate it in the Materials and Methods section. Are you using T= ET – E? Then, how to quantify E by Ei? At L236-L237, the author claimed that the soil water evaporation of the HHL management decreased. Compared with whom? CK? Then how to conclude an opposite at L241 that “the proportion of soil water consumption in the HHL treatment was larger, averaging 26.8%, which was 5.9% higher than the CK treatment“? Also, I am confused about L350-L353. The HHL has more irrigation (120 mm) than CK (60 mm). Why does HHL save more water?
4. Again, the author listed nitrogen fertilizer partial productivity and economic benefits in section 3.4, but no one knows how the author evaluated them. If the author insists on using them, please specify them in the Materials and Methods section.

Other Comments:

L40: Should be “The North China Plain (NCP) constitutes 71% of winter wheat production in China”. You were writing an international paper, not a scientific report to your Chinese grant sponsor.

L56-L59: Empirical evidence? It’s a strong word, but the author intends to be against it. Could revise as “Empirically, suboptimal resource allocation frequently contributes…”.

L108: Should be “agronomic managements”.

L112: Better to be “This treatment incorporated local farmers’ standard agricultural…”.

L169: What are “standardized protocols”? Please specify.

L222-L224: Why only write the results at the flowering stage? Here’s an example to add other stages: “The Pn, chlorophyll content, and LAI of HHL managements increased by XX%, XX%, and XX%, respectively at the WS. The Pn, chlorophyll content, and LAI of HHL managements increased by XX%, XX%, and XX%, respectively at the RGS…”.

L283-L284: Please do not use any subjective words (like stronger resilience) in the Results section. Delete the whole sentence.

L380: So weird to see “wheat-maize double-cropping system” at the end of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author's efforts. Some minor issues still do not address my concerns. Details are as follows:

1. The author’s response is not very clear in Reply #3. Is there a relationship between Ei in Eq. (4) and △S in Eq. (5). Are they the same parameter? If so, please use only one. If not, does △S from TRIME-PICO portable moisture meter?
2. Still a “wheat-maize double-cropping system” in the Conclusion. The author did not change it in the text.

Additional Comments (do not need to respond):

Unlike research papers, extension papers do not require the setup of control variables. However, the author should include a section that introduces promotional results or potential impacts. Extension papers also deserve to be published in high-impact factor journals. Currently, it appears the author lacks the necessary data or questionnaires to achieve this goal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf