Regulation of Nitrogen Utilization and Lodging Resistance of Rice in Northeast China Through Continuous Straw Return and Nitrogen Fertilizer Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on rice lodging etc.
There are detiailed comments on the manuscript - I could sen my comments as a word file if that would be helpful.
The paper (especially the introduction) has poor English expression. It would appear that at least some of the text may have been produced using AI.
Definition of lodging
There are two types of lodging that need to be considered
- Stem strength failure
- Root anchorage failure
No distinction is made between these two types in the paper, but emphasis appears to be on stem failure.
Other definitions
There appears to be a shift in names in the paper
The panicle and spikelets of the rice inflorescence have additional words including ear and spike some of which are probably redundant.
In terms of lodging, I suspect ‘folding strength and stem strength may be the same.
Details of methods
How was height of centre of gravity measured
How was ‘wall thicknesses determined – outer – inner radius? How were those measures taken?
Experimental design
The actual experimental design is not clear to me – I trust what I indicate below is correct.
The trial in 2021 S treatment were
- S0 no straw
- S1 Straw was returned in 2020
- S2 Straw was returned in 2019 and 2020
- S3 Straw was returned in 2018, 2019 and 2020
- S4 Straw was returned in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
To each of these treatments was added 4 nitrogen treatments.
A randomised block design was used (line 128). Were the Straw treatments randomised within the block? Were the N treatments randomised within an S treatment or were all combinations randomised within a block (as suggested by the use of letters across all treatment combinations)?
If N treatments were randomised within an S treatment the design is a split plot and needs to be analysed accordingly. I trust the S treatments were randomised separately in each block.
The results at times are presented with more than 3 significant figures – the SE gives an indication of how many figures should be shown – I recommend 2 significant figures for the SE and round the mean to the same precision as the SE.
A field plan (probably as supplementary information) would clarify how treatments were arranged.
Plant sampling
How were ten representative plants chosen? Were those plants tagged and followed though the trial? Visually choosing plants is subject to bias – better by far is to use a systematic sample with the same section criterion used in each plot.
Yield should be the total yield of the plot with no sampling.
Mechanism of lodging
The mechanical details of the potential for lodging is interesting. There are three approaches possible (assuming the lodging is due to stem rather than root failure).
- Fraction of plants lodged (and ideally the yield loss due to lodging).
- Potential for lodging via the lodging index
- Folding resistance (or was that the same as breaking resistance shown in Figure 4?)
No data were presented on the observed lodging nor on the folding resistance. So no comparison of the three methods is presented so we have some interesting data but no way of assessing whether they offer a new approach to studying lodging. This is unfortunate.
This is the novel part of the paper but he potential to compare the theoretical potential for lodging with the observations is not developed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some rewording would assist the reading.
I also suspect some ideas have different words when consistent wording would help.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery interesting idea and maybe well worked, but not well exposed. It can bring new recommendations for rice cultivation and can be agronomically important. Problems are in structure, missing M&M and analysis. Possible to be addressed after revision.
- Introduction – missing the introduction of parameters used in the manuscript, and eventually the phenophases worked (expressed in time). Give impersonal statements, not stories. Additionally, HYPOTHESES are missing between the GAPS and AIMS.
- M&M - missing type of cultivation (flooding or dry), all parameters shown starting from the Table 2… Also, how was the experiment conducted in two years showing results of consequences after four years?
For each of more than 30 not explained parameters, you must indicate in which moment of cultivation/phenophase the analysis was done. Explain how it was determined. All such information is missing.
- Results - In graphs, at least in one, you can put flashes to indicate the phenophases.
In figures, NO STATISTICS is used, and that’s not admissible! You showed separately 4 by 4 by 4… but there was a time effect, and nor time, nor N, nor straw effects were considered. Here you can apply two-way ANOVA for each straw level + time…
In some figures appeared S4, but in other not (nor in tables). Why???
In panels with more than one figure, you must indicate A, B, C…
In captions you must define exactly what is shown in table/figure.
What is hm2? Hectar? Abbreviation is ha.
Always indicate where the reader must look.
- Discussion must start with the novelty of the study, not with any story related to your work. Try to respond to questions/hypotheses, not to repeat results. Discussion is not bad, but has repetitions, and I think that must be more objective.
- Conclusions – respond directly to your hypotheses. It was not badly written but must have a good line of guidance, making a synthesis of your discoveries.
There are many observations done in pdf form.
Please, when correct your manuscript, do not use the Revision tools, because it will not be possible to read again, but make corrections marked in other color, case the other reviewers find your work valuable.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe final sentence of the Section 1. Introduction is overly long and complex, which makes the main objective of the study unclear. I suggest rewriting it in a more concise and direct way to clearly state the research aim and its relevance. It may not be necessary to include the name of the rice cultivar (JNU 667) in the objective statement within the Introduction. line 110-115
The Introduction includes several examples from other crops such as wheat, maize, and sweet corn. While these references are informative, I recommend focusing more specifically on rice-related studies, as this would strengthen the relevance and coherence of the background in relation to the research objectives. line 58-61, line 100-101
There are two closely similar descriptions of the climate and location (“temperate monsoon climate” and “hinterland of Songliao Plain”). It is recommended to consolidate these into a single clear and concise sentence to enhance clarity. line 120-122
The organic matter content (18.10 mg/kg) seems unusually low and may be a unit error. Other soil parameters appear reasonable. Please verify the units and values. line 122
The sentence about rainfall is repeated twice. line 124-126
The number of straw return treatments differs between 2021 (S0, S1, S3) and 2022 (S0, S1, S2, S3, S4). It is unclear why S2 was not included in the first year. Please clarify the rationale behind the different treatment designs between the two years. line 129-135
Please clarify why the same nitrogen fertilizer treatments were not applied in both years. This difference affects the consistency of the experimental design. line 131-136
In Section 2.3 Sampling and measurement consider using clearer terminology instead of “observation seedlings.” Terms such as “sample plants” or “selected plants” may be more appropriate.
The entire description of yield component measurement in Section 2.3.6 Yield and yield components is hard to read and follow. It needs to be rewritten more clearly and logically to improve readability.
Although one-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis (Section 2.4), the experimental design clearly involves multiple factors, such as nitrogen fertilizer levels and successive years of straw return. A multifactorial ANOVA (e.g., two-way or three-way) would have been more appropriate to evaluate interaction effects and better understand treatment responses. It is recommended that the authors either provide justification for using one-way ANOVA or consider reanalysing the data using a factorial model. line 200-205
The Section 3. Results: Avoid long sentences containing multiple unrelated results. Each parameter should be presented in a separate sentence or short paragraph with a clear conclusion. The treatment labels (S0, S1, S2, etc.) are clear, but it would be helpful to remind the reader at least once what they specifically represent (e.g., how many years of straw return or which nitrogen level) for easier orientation.
The Section 4. Discussion presents important findings useful for agricultural producers, especially regarding the optimal use of nitrogen fertilizer and multi-year straw return to increase yield and lodging resistance. However, practical recommendations for producers are not clearly emphasized. It would be helpful if the authors provided clearer guidance on the number of years for straw return and nitrogen application rates to facilitate practical implementation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded satisfactorily to most of the points I raised. One point that is still outstanding is the selection of representative plants. The other comes from the lack of crop loss due to lodging.
The paper has two parts - one about the results and potential applications of returning straw, the other more theoretical about lodging. There was no lodging recorded in this trial but it can be important. The lack of lodging meant there was no way of validating the theory described in this paper. As interesting as the theory given on lodging, I do not believe it belongs with the experimental part of this paper. I am therefore recommending the paper be split into two papers. A paper on lodging would include data on bending strength and relate that to theoretical predictions.
I still am not convinced about the selection of representative plants. My experience is that the selection is biased - but the good news is the bias is common to all plots. At this stage there is no perfect solution. Some additional words such as 'plants judged by the field workers as representative' perhaps with a comment that any bias would be consistent across plots so the comparisons between plots remain at least approximately valid.
Equations 2 and 4 would appear to give a fraction rather than a percentage.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors did not change the manuscript sufficiently. The most important thing is that the statistical analyses are wrong, they are talking about effects of N or straw, but their means are compared from a to f... Without any determination of factor effect. That must be, for example, uppercase letter for N effect and lowercase letter for straw effect. That will permit also to understand the interactions. ALL TABLES ARE WRONG. Figures are not possible to read, and they have the third factor (time), but that was not contemplated and analyzed.
Abbreviations for factors and their levels are not friendly. They must have some biological or agronomical identification.
Keywords are repetition of the term used in the title. That’s not correct.
The redaction is terrible. Without following, in many places, some basic rules of redaction. Phrases are not phrases.
Authors must work with attention. From Introduction (missing hypothesis), M&M were somehow improved, but statistical analyses are not OK, and they are basic for publication... So, or make one correct version or I am asking for rejection.
There are some observations done in pdf form.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
