Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Given that all my comments have been taken into account by the authors and satisfactory explanation was provided in their answers and additional information was included in the relevant paragraphs of the MS, I am positive in recommending the acceptance of the current revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and decision. They are very useful for my manuscript and my future researches.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript takes and interesting approach on the physiology of the cotton boll-leaf system and its relationship on N fertilization to cotton yield. Specific comments on the manuscript are:

 

1.      Page 1, Line 34:  Insert “growth characteristics” after “indeterminant”; end sentence.  Begin next sentence with “This”.

2.      Page 2, line 50:  Plural “enzymes and “phytohormones”.

3.      Page 2, line 63:  Should “long-time” be “length of time”?

4.      Page 2, line 67:  Insert “material” after “photosynthetic”.

5.      Page 2. line 73:  Change “branch” to “branches”.

6.      Page 2, line 74:  Change “was” to “is”.

7.      Page 2, line 75:  Change “affect” to “affects”.

8.      Page 2, lines 84-86:  What was the soil type?  Was the crop rain fed or irrigated?  Soil texture? Upland or lowland?  This study needs to be placed into the context of the production conditions and soils as well as crop management systems (history?) used in the study area.  This can be an influence or crop responses in this study and studies others might try to undertake.

9.      Page 3, lines 106-107:  Change “leave” to “leaf”.

10.  Page 3, lines 118-120:  Are “tagged” and “flagged” being used interchangeably?  Also a flag leaf has a specific meaning when referencing to grass-type grain crops which does not apply to cotton.  Please clear this up.

11.  Page 4, line 129:  Delete “added”; insert “Then”.

12.  Page 4, line 130:  Insert “were added and”; delete “then”.

13.  Page 4, lines 132-138:  Significant English grammar and sentence structure editing is needed here.  This paragraph is difficult to read and understand.

14.  Page 5, line 176:  Delete “mostly”.

15.  Page 5, line 182:  Insert “were” between “Branches” and “reduced”.

16.  Figures 3 and 4:  Each small graph appears to have a letter (A, B, C, etc.) assigned to it.  However, the letters are below the graph and appear near to the graph below it.  Move these letters into positions that attach them to the proper graph.  Then utilize these letters to link them to the appropriate items in the figure captions.  The figure captions should contain enough detail so that the reader can take the figure out of the manuscript by itself and clearly interpret and understand the data presented.

17.  Page 8, lines 196-207:  Please edit the English grammar and usage to make this paragraph more understandable.

18.  Figures 5 and 6:  See comments for Figures 3 and 4>

19.  Page 12, lines 241-244:  English editing!!!

20.  Page 12, Tables 4 and 5:  Change “coefficient” to “coefficients in both captions.

21.  Page 12, line 273:  change “exactly obtain” to “clearly know”.

22.  Page 12, line 276: Change “mostly” to “generally”.

23.  Page 13, line 318:  Change “yiled” to “yield”.

 

This manuscript is generally well constructed and the data and its presentation is appropriate.  However, significant English usage and grammar editing still remains before this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestion! We have revised all of them according to your suggestion.

This manuscript takes and interesting approach on the physiology of the cotton boll-leaf system and its relationship on N fertilization to cotton yield. Specific comments on the manuscript are:

1.        Page 1, Line 34:  Insert “growth characteristics” after “indeterminant”; end sentence.  Begin next sentence with “This”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

2.        Page 2, line 50:  Plural “enzymes and “phytohormones”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

3.        Page 2, line 63:  Should “long-time” be “length of time”?

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

4.        Page 2, line 67:  Insert “material” after “photosynthetic”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

5.        Page 2. line 73:  Change “branch” to “branches”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

6.        Page 2, line 74:  Change “was” to “is”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

7.        Page 2, line 75:  Change “affect” to “affects”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

8.        Page 2, lines 84-86:  What was the soil type?  Was the crop rain fed or irrigated?  Soil texture? Upland or lowland?  This study needs to be placed into the context of the production conditions and soils as well as crop management systems (history?) used in the study area. This can be an influence or crop responses in this study and studies others might try to undertake.

Answer: The soil type was loam we have added this in the manuscript.  Before sowing, it was irrigated. And then during the growing period, the cotton irrigated once (late June of 2011 and 2012).  We didn’t measured the soil texture, we will pay attention to this index in the future.  This is upland soil. This field was sown with wheat and corn before cotton.  We have added these information in the manuscript.

9.        Page 3, lines 106-107:  Change “leave” to “leaf”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

10.     Page 3, lines 118-120:  Are “tagged” and “flagged” being used interchangeably?  Also a flag leaf has a specific meaning when referencing to grass-type grain crops which does not apply to cotton.  Please clear this up.

Answer: We feel sorry for this mistake. What we want to express is “tagged”. We have revised it.

11.     Page 4, line 129:  Delete “added”; insert “Then”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

12.     Page 4, line 130:  Insert “were added and”; delete “then”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

13.     Page 4, lines 132-138:  Significant English grammar and sentence structure editing is needed here.  This paragraph is difficult to read and understand.

Answer: We have revised this paragraph to make it more understandable.

14.     Page 5, line 176:  Delete “mostly”.

Answer: We have deleted it. Thank you.

15.     Page 5, line 182:  Insert “were” between “Branches” and “reduced”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

16.     Figures 3 and 4:  Each small graph appears to have a letter (A, B, C, etc.) assigned to it.  However, the letters are below the graph and appear near to the graph below it.  Move these letters into positions that attach them to the proper graph.  Then utilize these letters to link them to the appropriate items in the figure captions.  The figure captions should contain enough detail so that the reader can take the figure out of the manuscript by itself and clearly interpret and understand the data presented.

Answer: We have removed the letter to the top left corner of the graph. And we have add the letters in the title to make it more clearly to understand.

17.     Page 8, lines 196-207:  Please edit the English grammar and usage to make this paragraph more understandable.

Answer: We have edited English grammar and usage. We feel sorry for the mistakes.

18.     Figures 5 and 6:  See comments for Figures 3 and 4>

Answer: We have removed the letter to the top left corner of the graph. And we have add the letters in the title to make it more clearly to understand.

19.     Page 12, lines 241-244:  English editing!!!

Answer: We have edited the English. Thank you!

20.     Page 12, Tables 4 and 5:  Change “coefficient” to “coefficients in both captions.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

21.     Page 12, line 273:  change “exactly obtain” to “clearly know”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

22.     Page 12, line 276: Change “mostly” to “generally”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

23.     Page 13, line 318:  Change “yiled” to “yield”.

Answer: We have revised it. Thank you.

This manuscript is generally well constructed and the data and its presentation is appropriate.  However, significant English usage and grammar editing still remains before this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfied most of this reviewers concerns.  However, some concerns remain:

 

1.      Page 2, line 75:  Change “was” to “is” after “branches”.  This was comment #6 in the previous review.

2.      Page 2, line 76:  Change “how it reflected to nitrogen was unknown” to “how it relates to nitrogen is unknown”.

3.      Page 4, line 137: Change “then grinded to homogenate” to “then ground to form a homogenate”. (English grammar and usage).

4.      Page 4, line 139:  Change “at” to “in” after “heated”.

5.      Page 8, lines 202-203:  The English grammar and word usage is confusing in these two lines.  Please re-edit!!!

6.      Page 8, lines 209-210:  This is confusing!  Please re-edit!

7.      Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6:  The authors have made some improvement in the A, B, C, etc. designation of each graph.  However, the letters are hard to quickly acquire when one looks at the Figures.  Perhaps, placing the letters inside the upper right hand corner of the individual graphs would make them easier to visually locate.

 

Additional revision and English editing is needed.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion and your time. We have revised all the questions. Hope this could meet your requirement. All the suggestions are helpful for my future research. Thanks again!

1.          Page 2, line 75:  Change “was” to “is” after “branches”.  This was comment #6 in the previous review.

Answer: We feel sorry for this mistake. We have revised it.

2.          Page 2, line 76:  Change “how it reflected to nitrogen was unknown” to “how it relates to nitrogen is unknown”.

Answer: We have revised it.

3.          Page 4, line 137: Change “then grinded to homogenate” to “then ground to form a homogenate”. (English grammar and usage).

Answer: We have changed it.

4.          Page 4, line 139:  Change “at” to “in” after “heated”.

Answer: We have changed it.

5.          Page 8, lines 202-203:  The English grammar and word usage is confusing in these two lines.  Please re-edit!!!

Answer: We have revised the English grammar and word usage. We have reedited it.

6.          Page 8, lines 209-210:  This is confusing!  Please re-edit!

Answer: We have revised this sentence to avoid the misunderstanding.

7.          Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6:  The authors have made some improvement in the A, B, C, etc. designation of each graph.  However, the letters are hard to quickly acquire when one looks at the Figures.  Perhaps, placing the letters inside the upper right hand corner of the individual graphs would make them easier to visually locate.

Answer: We have add a “()”in the A,B,C. because the upper right hand corner was too small to add the A,B,C. We have added a“()” in each letter. We hope this could meet your requirement.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well structured paper. Introduction includes the main findings supported by recent bibliography. The objectives are clear and the methodology is the appropriate for data analysis and it is well designed as well. Data are well interpreted and are adequately justified. Quality of English writing is very good. Conclusions focus on the main points and are comprehensive.

Minor corrections are recommended with regards  to the labels of figures and the format of tables. Please see attached document.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors conducted a two year study on cotton crop, investigating the effect of nitrogen fertilization on various enzymes’ activities, yield and quality traits of the production.

Although the authors put a lot of effort in accomplishing this study, there are many discrepancies in the manuscript. There are some specific points that support my decision and are presented below:

In particular,

1.       The authors don’t state what is the usual practice followed in the commercial production of cotton, regarding nitrogen dose fertilization. Although, the P and K common rated are given in L91, no information about nitrogen is presented.

2.       According to In L58, it is concluded that the effect of nitrogen application on upper fruiting branched was already known before the experiments conducted and which conformed the above result.

3.       In L59 the meaning is not clear enough. Needs rephrasing.

4.       The statement in L71 is in contrast with L58. Is actually the effect of nitrogen supply on upper fruiting branches already demonstrated or not?

5.       How were the Nitrogen application doses, as presented in L88-89? There is no information given about the usual application rates. Were there any preliminary exps tested?

6.       In sampling tissue (L100-101) no information regarding the number of samples is given. How many branches were tagged and how many plants were used in the study?

7.       The axes in the graphs should have the same scale between the two years of experimentation in all of the parameters determined (e.g. soluble protein).

8.       In order to claim increase or decrease of a parameter determined, as in L204, then TIME should be included in the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which implies that mean comparison would be different in the graphs.

9.       According to L213, there was not a consistent trend regarding the application of nitrogen and the modification of the characteristics evaluated.

10.   Most of the statistically significant differences refer to are presented as differences between the control (0 nitrogen supply, as in L229-230. Wasn’t it expected that there would be differences when comparing to zero nitrogen application?

11.   L240: Same comment as above

12.   L250: In table, the probability values (P) should be also provided apart from the correlation coefficients.

13.   In the manuscript, the effect of excessive nitrogen supply is poorly discussed, as in L312.

14.   According to the conclusion of this study, it is recommended that cotton crop should be supplied with 240 kg ha^-1 nitrogen, in order to be commercially efficient. Is it really an innovative result to be dispersed in the scientific community?

Generally, this work is very descriptive and is not based on solid hypothesis. There is no connection among the already known usual practices and the innovation of the study. Neither is given sufficient connection between the parameters determined and the additional information. Enzyme activities are determined but the reader is not persuaded about the necessity of doing that. Neither the statistics was taken into serious consideration before submitting the work. I suggest redefining of the aim of the study and a clear procedure in providing illustrative responses to that.

Reviewer 3 Report

41        an art rather than a science?? Scientific writing?

42ff     global warming and the increased cost of nitrogen have spurred an interest in the investigation of nitrogen fertilization

missing the fundamental environmental aspects

86        available N (79.83 mg kg-1)  amount included in total nitrogen fertilization or eg. 240 kg Nitrogen +available N?

248       lint ield           spelling error

317      highest yiled   spelling error

 

Overall comment

Experimental design  unsufficient quality N-fertilizer Level??

200 – 250 kg N standard recommendation

             Does the author you really need every single fig (fig 3 – 6)  for discussing and interpreting the research work