Zonal Tillage as Innovative Element of the Technology of Growing Winter Wheat: A Field Experiment under Low Rainfall Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The investigation is interesting and relevant, but I have noticed some inaccuracies or something was questionable:

1. In rows 75-76 is written "The soil contained 75 105 mg P kg-1 of soil and 308 mg K kg-1 of soil – according to Egner-Riehm, 103 mg Mg kg-1 of soil" It is unclear if it is total or mobile phosphorus, potassium and  magnesium content?

2. In row 128 is written "Winter wheat yield was collected from the surface of the entire plots, 3000 m2." It is unclear how was collected winter wheat yield of the entire plots?

3. I think it would be better if the scale will be the same in all graphs A, B and C (Figure 3.). In this case we can better see how it is varied from year to year.

4. Table 1. It is unclear why is written Year x factor because "I" is factor A or different soil tillage, "II" is factor B or post-harvest treatments, "IxII" their interaction. If you want to submit average of all study period you must to provide three factors analysis. Factor C (or III) - Year.

5. Table 2. If you want to submit average of all study period, you must to provide three factors analysis. Factor C or III - Year.
In the table 1. we can see only 2 factors analysis therefore we can't be sure if to submit average is good.

6. Figure 4. It would be better if the scale were the same on both graphs (A and B). Then we can compare one with other soil layer faster.

7. Figure 4. If you want to submit average in the three research years, you must to provide three factors analysis. Factor C (or III) - Year.
Only in this case if you haven't interaction between every factor (A, B, C or I, II, III), you can provide average.
In this case it might be interaction because the sum of precipitation between the year is very different, especially 2015/2016 season.

8. Other remarks are noted in the manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All comments and suggestions of reviewers have been included in the revised version. All changes are in red font!

Review 1:

1. Rows 75-76: These are mobile (available) forms of macronutrients (P, K, Mg).

2. Row 128: Wheat was harvested separately from each plot using a combine harvester.

3. The same scale was used in all graphs A, B, C.

4. Table 1 is corrected. Evaluation of the year of research as a factor (possibly a third factor) was not the purpose of the study.

5. Table 2 is corrected. Evaluation of the year of research as a factor (possibly a third factor) was not the purpose of the study.

6. The same scale was used in graphs A, B.

7. The authors, who initially developed the research results, did not find a different impact of wheat growing technology (the first factor) on soil moisture in subsequent years of research, despite the different amount of rainfall in those years. Therefore, the average values can be represented in Figure 4. This is explained in the Data analysis chapter.

8. The remarks noted in the manuscript have been included in the revised version

 

The attached version contains corrections according to the comments and suggestions of both reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

This is an interesting manuscript on the effects of strip-tillage on wheat growth and yield under low rainfall conditions. The results are reasonable and interesting. Moreover, the article is readable and generally easy to follow. The experimental design and the methods of data analysis should be more clearly described. I have spotted some points that must be improved for the overall improvement of the manuscript.

 

L3. ‘…A field experiment under low rainfall conditions’.

L13. ‘The aim of this two-factor field experiment…etc’.

L15 ‘…in a region…etc’.

L22. ‘The measurement of the treatment effects included changes…etc’.

L27. Delete ‘a’.

L32. Delete ‘winter cereal’.

L46 ‘or even a few months’.

L47. ‘…few machineries with construction allowing for…etc’.

L52. Delete ‘The’.

L71. ‘The field experiment…etc’.

L74. ‘…on a soil…etc’.

L87. ‘…was established’ and ‘…commercial agricultural machinery…etc’.

L88. ‘…in a split-plot design with four…etc’. Define the main plots and the sub-plots.

Figure 2. What do the Roman numbers represent?

L112. ‘…were performed with…etc’.

L122. ‘Four places along each plot with measurement units…etc’.

L130. Did you follow the split-plot design? Clarify.

L146. Write ‘plants’ instead of ‘no’.

L149. Write ‘plants’ instead of ‘no’.

L151. Write ‘plants’ instead of ‘no’.

L153. Write ‘plants’ instead of ‘no’.

Figure 4. The readability of this figure is poor. Delete the frames, improve the lines, and use the same scale in the y-axis. Also, indicate soil depth on each graph. What do the Roman numbers represent?

L200. ‘…was the highest’.

L203-206. This sentence is too long and difficult to follow. Reword and split.

L230. Delete ‘By’ and use past tense ‘indicated’.

L232. Use past tense ‘indicated’.

L236. ‘…single rainfall events…etc’.

L242. Use past tense ‘showed’.

L246. Use past tense ‘indicated’.

L252. ‘…this was…etc’.

L253. ‘…the weaker…etc’.

L254. Delete ‘in general’ and move ‘in ST technology’ at the end.

L258. Delete ‘a’.

Author Response

All comments and suggestions of reviewers have been included in the revised version. All changes are in red font!

Review 2:

L3. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L13. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L15. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L22. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L27. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L32. The keyword ‘winter cereal’ was replaced with ‘wheat’.

L46. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L47. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L52. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L71. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L74. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L87. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L88. Split-plot design described in the manuscript: Right after the previous harvest the sub-blocks were determined; three areas for winter wheat growing following the respective technologies of the first factor. Then in each sub-block post-harvest treatments were performed compliant with the second experiment factor.

Figure 2. Roman numbers have been changed to abbreviations of month names.

L112. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L122. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L130. Corrections have been made to the Data analysis chapter. What is the first factor and what is the second factor is indicated.

L146. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L149. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L151. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L153. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

Figure 4 is corrected. Frames removed, lines corrected, soil depth marked, same scale in the y-axis used. Roman numbers have been changed to abbreviations of month names.

L200. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L203-206. The indicated sentence has been changed.

L230. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L232. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L236. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L242. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L246. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L252. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L253. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L254. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

L258. The suggested language correction was made in the text.

 

The attached version contains corrections according to the comments and suggestions of both reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version of the manuscript is much better, but it remained unclear if there was an interaction between the years or not?

It must be clearly to write at the section 2. Materials and Methods 2.5. Data analysis. Otherwise, Figure 4. is incorrect.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The sum of rainfall in the winter wheat growing seasons varied, but none was wet. In no season did the sum of rainfall during the soil moisture measurement period, from emergence to wheat ripeness, be greater than about 250 mm.

The interaction between the factors, also the third factor, was statistically insignificant. This is now recorded in chapter 2.5. Data Analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx