Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization on the Dynamics of Concentration and Uptake of Selected Microelements in the Biomass of Miscanthus x giganteus
, Andrzej Kotecki 2, Marcin Kozak 2 and Anna Jama-Rodzeńska 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript “Effect of nitrogen fertilization on the dynamics of concentration and uptake of selected microelements with biomass of Miscanthus x giganteus« authors Izabela Gołąb-Bogacz, Waldemar Helios, Andrzej Kotecki, Marcin Kozak, Anna Jama-Rodzeńska, determined the concentration and uptake of microelements unfertilized and fertilized plant Miscanthus x giganteus
Abstract ok.
Key words
Are OK
Introduction
There are too many statements about the most effective way of biomass production for energy purposes, since in the foloowing text in the MS this topic is not mention any more.
Materials and Methods
L 314 The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the … This statement is not clear.
L 327 HNO3 write HNO3
Results
Legend of the tables are missing.
L 383 English in the following statement is not clear: In turn, the least level of micronutrients in stems (except from Zn) was noted in the second year of own research.
L 386 English in the following statement is not clear: On the other hand, the least Zn and Cu concentration 386 was stated in 2014.
L 443 The figure 8 and 9 shows the… correct to: The figures 8 and 9 show the…
Discussion
First seven lines in the Discussion section are too general!
L 490 The following statement is not clear: However, in some experiments Fe and Mn uptake under waste activated sludge characterized two, three times more value compared to control
Discussion it is only a list of what the authors have done and what is written in the literature. There are nor explanations or discussion with other aothors.
Specific comments
English is not clear and should be improved!
What is mean by uptake?
Miscanthus is written in many ways
The idea of MS is interesting. However, MS is hard to read on some places, since English is not clear, and thus statements are not clear. I recommend authors to rewrite the MS to be more deep.
My suggestions: major revision
Author Response
Question - comments:
L 314 The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the … This statement is not clear.
Response:
The statement was corrected with a following formula:
Line 314-320:
CEA = ((CEL x %LS) + (CES x %SS))/100
where CEA is the concentration (g kg-1) of the element in the aboveground parts of plant (shoots), CEL is the concentration (g kg-1) of the element in the leaves, %LS is the percentage of leaf dry matter (with leaf sheaths) in the shoot dry matter, CES is the concentration (g kg-1) of the element in the stems, and %SS is the percentage of stem dry matter in the shoot dry matter.
Question - comments:
Legend of the tables are missing.
Response:
Legends of the tables are completed.
* Data significance was assessed at P value ≤0.05.
Question - comments:
L 383 English in the following statement is not clear: In turn, the least level of micronutrients in stems (except from Zn) was noted in the second year of own research.
In turn, the lowest levels of micronutrient concentra-389 tions in stems (except from Zn) were noted in the second year of re-390 search.
L 386 English in the following statement is not clear: On the other hand, the least Zn and Cu concentration 386 was stated in 2014.
On the other hand, the lowest Zn and Cu concentration was stat-393 ed in 2014.
L 443 The figure 8 and 9 shows the… correct to: The figures 8 and 9 show the…
Corrected.
Question - comments:
First seven lines in the Discussion section are too general!
Response:
These lines has been deleted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy that the authors have addressed my comments.
I have still only the concern for the keywords. whether the authors did not understand my comment from the very first version, that was to provide the keywords which should not be included in the title of the manuscript.
the second concern is still the English language that authors will send to the language editors.
Author Response
Question - comments:
I have still only the concern for the keywords. whether the authors did not understand my comment from the very first version, that was to provide the keywords which should not be included in the title of the manuscript.
Response:
We would like to apologise for misunderstanding this point of the suggestion. We corrected this issue and added new keywors.
Question - comments:
The second concern is still the English language that authors will send to the language editors.
Response:
Manuscript has been sent to English Editing to MDPI service to correct the Englisg language.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I sugget acceptance of the MS. Just check the spaces in the MS.
Author Response
Many thanks！
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
The manuscript “Content and uptake of selected microelements by different parts of Miscanthus x giganteus under nitrogen fertilization” is based on innovative research and provides novel knowledge about upregulation of mineral elements under nitrogen fertilization in Miscanthus crop. However, there are a many sentences and grammatical mistakes in overall manuscript that cannot be overlooked at this stage. Therefore, it is suggested that English language corrections should be done by an English mother language expert. Moreover, there is no symmetry throughout the manuscript regarding correlation of sentences. Moreover, there are also many cases in which there is no continuity among the sentences like one sentence talk about one thing and next sentence presents entirely different story.
The overall format of the manuscript is not according to the author’s guidelines. Half of the figures data is missing that makes it impossible to analyze the results and comment on them. This draws down the significance of manuscript…. Moreover, I can’t find the Results heading in the manuscript. Due to the missing data I am unable to comment on results section.
The title does not say anything about the objectives of the study that have been achieved in this research
Keywords must be different from title. Use more precise keywords describing your study.
Objectives and future prospects of the study also missing in the abstract section as well as in introduction. Moreover, the abstract section also does not talk about the treatments applied during this experiment.
Line 32: natural environment.???
Line 95: fertilization in dose 60 kg ha-1….. of what?
Line 111: Field experiment site and fertilization treatments of Miscanthus x giganteus…… check spellings and subheading number for this heading…..follow the format
Line 115: The soil condition, dimension, date on plot and fertilizer doses are described in article [21] …… include your data in methodology section in a tabular form.
2.2. Chemical analysis of plant material: needs reference for this procedure
Line 168: 3.1 Iron content and uptake ……. Mind the subheadings number ….. follow the format…. I guess it comes under results section but results heading is missing…
The second major drawback of this manuscript is the discussions section which needs to be improved properly. Moreover, some of the discussions are very exaggerating and speculative. The authors should provide more accurate and precise reasons for the results obtained. Moreover, there are many sentences and grammatical errors throughout this section. also, this section lacks the statement about the objectives that have been obtained in this research
References are not properly formatted. Please follow the proper format as given by the journal
To sum up, the manuscript can find interest among specialists when the comments will be taken into account. However, in the present form, I cannot recommend the work.
Good Luck!
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers of Agriculture
We are thankful for insightful comments and the opportunity to revise, and resubmit the manuscript entitled:
"Content and uptake of selected microelements with biomass of Miscanthus x giganteus depending on nitrogen fertilization" by Izabela Gołąb-Bogacz, Waldemar Helios, Andrzej Kotecki ,Marcin Kozak Anna Jama-Rodzeńska.
We addressed all Reviewers and Editors' comments and followed guidelines for authors for the required changes. Below is the point-by-point response to each comment and description of changes in the manuscript. As suggested by the editor, the word content was changed to the word concentration throughout the manuscript.
Answers to the first Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
The title does not say anything about the objectives of the study that have been achieved in this research.
Response:
The title of the manuscript was changed to
Effect of nitrogen fertilization on the dynamics of concentration and uptake of selected microelements with biomass of Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
Keywords must be different from title. Use more precise keywords describing your study.
Response:
New keywords has been added conncted with the title of the manuscript: Nitrogen fertilization, dynamics concentration, uptake, microelements, rhizomes, aboveground part, miscanthus.
Question - comments:
Objectives and future prospects of the study also missing in the abstract section as well as in introduction. Moreover, the abstract section also does not talk about the treatments applied during this experiment.
Response:
Abstract has been changed according to Reviewers suggestions and contained the above suggestion (bold):
Line 11-23: The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
Line 32: natural environment.???
Response:
The expression has been deleted.
Question - comments:
Line 95: fertilization in dose 60 kg ha-1….. of what?
Response:
The information has been completed:
Line 81-85: The work hypothesis assumes that fertilization in dose 60 kg N ha-1 will contribute in changes in concentration an uptake of selected micronutrients. It has been estimated that particular parts of the plant (rhizomes, stems, leaves) will be characterized by different Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu accumulation. Additionally fertilization in a dose 60 kg ha-1 N cause the increase the uptake of selected microelements.
Question - comments:
Line 111: Field experiment site and fertilization treatments of Miscanthus x giganteus…… check spellings and subheading number for this heading…..follow the format
Response:
We checked and modified the above issue:
2.1. Field experimet site and fertilization treatments of Miscanthus x giganteus
Question - comments:
Line 115: The soil condition, dimension, date on plot and fertilizer doses are described in article [21] …… include your data in methodology section in a tabular form.
Response:
We have incorporated the reviewer's suggestion and ordered the soil condition data, fertilizers treatments and doses in a TABLE 1.
Table 1. Soil abundance and fertilisation treatment
|
Chemical composition of the soil in the deph 0-20 cm |
|||||||||||
|
Year |
pH 1 N KCl |
Macroelements |
Microelements |
||||||||
|
N g kg-1 |
P mg· kg-1
|
K mg kg-1
|
Mg mg kg-1
|
Fe mg·kg-1 |
Mn mg·kg-1 |
Zn mg·kg-1 |
Cu mg·kg-1 |
||||
|
2014 |
5.0 |
0.58 |
119.6 |
114.0 |
24.3 |
428 |
93.4 |
82.3 |
1.82 |
||
|
2015 |
5.0 |
0.60 |
119.6 |
115.3 |
27.3 |
461 |
97.1 |
79.4 |
1.69 |
||
|
2016 |
4.8 |
0.59 |
119.7 |
112.6 |
26.0 |
463 |
95.2 |
78.5 |
1.78 |
||
|
Fertilisation |
|||||||||||
|
Characteristics |
N |
P |
K |
||||||||
|
Name |
ammonium nitrate |
enriched superphosphate |
potassium salt |
||||||||
|
Amount of component |
32% N |
40% P2O5 |
60% K2O |
||||||||
|
Doses |
0 or 60 kg N ha-1 |
17,5 kg P ha-1 |
50 kg K ha-1 |
||||||||
|
method |
Hand broadcast |
||||||||||
|
term of use |
March/April |
||||||||||
Question - comments:
2.2. Chemical analysis of plant material: needs reference for this procedurę
Response:
We included reviewer’s suggestion and added the reference for chemical analysis.
Question - comments:
Line 168: 3.1 Iron content and uptake ……. Mind the subheadings number ….. follow the format…. I guess it comes under results section but results heading is missing…
Response:
We have corrected and completed the section titles.A dditionally, as suggested by the second reviewer, we have made changes in the interpretation of the factors tested for micronutrient content in Miscanthus biomass as below:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
The second major drawback of this manuscript is the discussions section which needs to be improved properly. Moreover, some of the discussions are very exaggerating and speculative. The authors should provide more accurate and precise reasons for the results obtained. Moreover, there are many sentences and grammatical errors throughout this section. also, this section lacks the statement about the objectives that have been obtained in this research.
Response:
As suggested by the reviewer, the discussion was completely revised. The text will additionally be referred for English language editing.
Question - comments:
References are not properly formatted. Please follow the proper format as given by the journal
Response:
References has been formatted properly according to journal requirements.
Dear Editor and Reviewers of Agriculture
We are thankful for insightful comments and the opportunity to revise, and resubmit the manuscript entitled:
"Content and uptake of selected microelements with biomass of Miscanthus x giganteus depending on nitrogen fertilization" by Izabela Gołąb-Bogacz, Waldemar Helios, Andrzej Kotecki ,Marcin Kozak Anna Jama-Rodzeńska.
We addressed all Reviewers and Editors' comments and followed guidelines for authors for the required changes. Below is the point-by-point response to each comment and description of changes in the manuscript. As suggested by the editor, the word content was changed to the word concentration throughout the manuscript.
Answers to the first Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
The title does not say anything about the objectives of the study that have been achieved in this research.
Response:
The title of the manuscript was changed to
Effect of nitrogen fertilization on the dynamics of concentration and uptake of selected microelements with biomass of Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
Keywords must be different from title. Use more precise keywords describing your study.
Response:
New keywords has been added conncted with the title of the manuscript: Nitrogen fertilization, dynamics concentration, uptake, microelements, rhizomes, aboveground part, miscanthus.
Question - comments:
Objectives and future prospects of the study also missing in the abstract section as well as in introduction. Moreover, the abstract section also does not talk about the treatments applied during this experiment.
Response:
Abstract has been changed according to Reviewers suggestions and contained the above suggestion (bold):
Line 11-23: The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
Line 32: natural environment.???
Response:
The expression has been deleted.
Question - comments:
Line 95: fertilization in dose 60 kg ha-1….. of what?
Response:
The information has been completed:
Line 81-85: The work hypothesis assumes that fertilization in dose 60 kg N ha-1 will contribute in changes in concentration an uptake of selected micronutrients. It has been estimated that particular parts of the plant (rhizomes, stems, leaves) will be characterized by different Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu accumulation. Additionally fertilization in a dose 60 kg ha-1 N cause the increase the uptake of selected microelements.
Question - comments:
Line 111: Field experiment site and fertilization treatments of Miscanthus x giganteus…… check spellings and subheading number for this heading…..follow the format
Response:
We checked and modified the above issue:
2.1. Field experimet site and fertilization treatments of Miscanthus x giganteus
Question - comments:
Line 115: The soil condition, dimension, date on plot and fertilizer doses are described in article [21] …… include your data in methodology section in a tabular form.
Response:
We have incorporated the reviewer's suggestion and ordered the soil condition data, fertilizers treatments and doses in a TABLE 1.
Table 1. Soil abundance and fertilisation treatment
|
Chemical composition of the soil in the deph 0-20 cm |
|||||||||||
|
Year |
pH 1 N KCl |
Macroelements |
Microelements |
||||||||
|
N g kg-1 |
P mg· kg-1
|
K mg kg-1
|
Mg mg kg-1
|
Fe mg·kg-1 |
Mn mg·kg-1 |
Zn mg·kg-1 |
Cu mg·kg-1 |
||||
|
2014 |
5.0 |
0.58 |
119.6 |
114.0 |
24.3 |
428 |
93.4 |
82.3 |
1.82 |
||
|
2015 |
5.0 |
0.60 |
119.6 |
115.3 |
27.3 |
461 |
97.1 |
79.4 |
1.69 |
||
|
2016 |
4.8 |
0.59 |
119.7 |
112.6 |
26.0 |
463 |
95.2 |
78.5 |
1.78 |
||
|
Fertilisation |
|||||||||||
|
Characteristics |
N |
P |
K |
||||||||
|
Name |
ammonium nitrate |
enriched superphosphate |
potassium salt |
||||||||
|
Amount of component |
32% N |
40% P2O5 |
60% K2O |
||||||||
|
Doses |
0 or 60 kg N ha-1 |
17,5 kg P ha-1 |
50 kg K ha-1 |
||||||||
|
method |
Hand broadcast |
||||||||||
|
term of use |
March/April |
||||||||||
Question - comments:
2.2. Chemical analysis of plant material: needs reference for this procedurę
Response:
We included reviewer’s suggestion and added the reference for chemical analysis.
Question - comments:
Line 168: 3.1 Iron content and uptake ……. Mind the subheadings number ….. follow the format…. I guess it comes under results section but results heading is missing…
Response:
We have corrected and completed the section titles.A dditionally, as suggested by the second reviewer, we have made changes in the interpretation of the factors tested for micronutrient content in Miscanthus biomass as below:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
The second major drawback of this manuscript is the discussions section which needs to be improved properly. Moreover, some of the discussions are very exaggerating and speculative. The authors should provide more accurate and precise reasons for the results obtained. Moreover, there are many sentences and grammatical errors throughout this section. also, this section lacks the statement about the objectives that have been obtained in this research.
Response:
As suggested by the reviewer, the discussion was completely revised. The text will additionally be referred for English language editing.
Question - comments:
References are not properly formatted. Please follow the proper format as given by the journal
Response:
References has been formatted properly according to journal requirements.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
# Overall comments
The paper presents the effects of fertilization on the content of micronutrients- and reducing the concentration of such microelements is the goal to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution.
The paper without much relevant points revealing the results' novelty or impact in the field of study. The results alone might be relevant, but due to the poor arrangement and explanation of them, it is not so clear what authors claim with them.
The language used in the manuscript is not up to the standard for publication, and several major and minor mistakes are shown, and many of the phrasese are not clear. It should go through a complete proof-reading by a native speaker.
# Specific comments
## Abstract
L17: Experience or experiment?
L20: Place the abbreviations together with the expansions on L12, then use the abbreviations.
L22: why abbreviation to expansion again? And what about nitrogen (N)?
L28: Nice results, but what does it mean? (conclusions)
## Introduction
L32-35: Something went wrong with these sentences.
L37-38: sounds great, where are those places? Examples?
L46: Here and there abbreviations come first often (e.g. CO2 see L53). Throughout the ms check for these mistakes.
L58: "is relied" to "relies" or "depends"
L59: Mxg is Miscanthus x giganteus? then why not indicate it at L56 when you first mention it?
L61: C4 crops - explain a bit for non-specialists
## Materials and Methods
L136: where?
L150: The is a repetition of the first section of M&M, and nothing to do with statistics.
## Results
Comments: The results section consists of repeated structure showing Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn in same way with statistic analysis. I believe the results can be presented in a better way. I suggest as follows:
3.1 Effects of N application on micronutrient content (mg kg-1) and uptake (g m-2) (Factor: fertlizer application)
3.2 Variation in micronutrient content and uptake among plant parts (Factor: plant parts)
3.3. Seaosnal variation in micronutrient content and uptake (Factor: Time of sampling)
L168: I believe this is where the heading for "Results" should come in.
L174: grew? you mean, increased?
Ll178: 60 kg ha-1 ?
Figure 2: legend becomes invisible.
Talbe 1-6: Synthesize the tables with statistic analysis as the newly suggested results structure.
## Discussion
L307: State the most important results from your study in the beginning of the discussion.
L320-321: This contradicts to the literatures that you cited (L316-319), and it is fine to have contrasting results. But what would be the reasons behind? Are there any other literatures showing no effects of fertilization on micronutrient concentrations?
L341-342: is this ranking all relevant for your study? Or only the four that you measured?
L349-350: I don't get the point of this sentence.
L354: HM ??
L355: Substrate of what?
Author Response
Answers to the second Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
L17: Experience or experiment?
Response:
The sentence has been deleted, however we used the term field experiment via whole manuscript.
Question - comments:
L20: Place the abbreviations together with the expansions on L12, then use the abbreviations.
Response:
We corrected it to. Here is the correction in the Abstract section and indicating changes:
The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
L22: why abbreviation to expansion again? And what about nitrogen (N)?
Response:
We corrected it to in the abstract and next sections of the manuscript.
Question - comments:
L28: Nice results, but what does it mean? (conclusions)
Response:
These results has been changed into:
Line 21-23: In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
L32-35: Something went wrong with these sentences.
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 31-33: The benefits of bioenergy crops apart from high yield potential, is cultivation on marginal land, which characterizes by low productivity of field crops [3,4].
Question - comments:
L37-38: sounds great, where are those places? Examples?
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 34-37: The most effective way of biomass production for energy purposes according to the EU assumptions, is cultivation of bioenergy crops in agricultural areas [1,2]. Because of the specific chemical structure and high calorific value, plant biomass can be destined for various conversion processes to produce liquid, gaseous and solid fuels [5–7]. Plant biomass currently accounts for only 3% of basic energy consumption in highly developed countries [6,8].
Question - comments:
L46: Here and there abbreviations come first often (e.g. CO2 see L53). Throughout the ms check for these mistakes.
Response:
The sentence and abbreviations has been changed into:
Line 39-47: Plant biomass is an extremely important raw material due to the zero balance of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the amount of CO2 that is emitted to the atmosphere is equal to the amount taken in the photosynthesis process). In the process of biomass combustion, we are dealing with lower emissions of gases (carbon, nitrogen and sulphur oxide), soot, tar product and dusts that have no harmful effect on the human health compared to coal combustion. Bioenergy crops combustion contributed to 90% less sulphur emission compared to coal [6]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also present during biomass combustion process. However, since it comes from harvested or combustion plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere in the first place, these are not additional quantities [6,9]. Moreover the part of carbon is stored in the soil [10].
Question - comments:
L58: "is relied" to "relies" or "depends"
Response:
We will definitely use the word depend.
Question - comments:
L59: Mxg is Miscanthus x giganteus? then why not indicate it at L56 when you first mention it?
Response:
Throughout the manuscript we will not use the abbreviation Mxg and the abbreviation has been changed to Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
L61: C4 crops - explain a bit for non-specialists
Response:
Short explanation has been added:
Line: 55-58: The plants C3 assimilate CO2 directly in Calvin’s cycle. The first durable product of this process is tricarbon 3-phosphoglyceric acid, whereas in the case of C4 the four carbon oxaloacetic acid is formed. C4 plants are regarded to have the highest potential productivity compared to plant C3. Detailed literature related to C4 plants is presented in Sage et al. (2011) [13].
Question - comments:
L136: where?
Response:
The information has been added:
Line: 124-126: The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the laboratory belongs to the Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production and Department of Plant Nutrition, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland.
Question - comments:
L150: The is a repetition of the first section of M&M, and nothing to do with statistics.
Response:
Line 151-166 (old version) has been moved to section 2.1 and presently is in the:
Line 111-122: Miscanthus rhizomes (length 10 cm long with the presence of 3-6 nodes) were planted in a 75 cm row spacing and 48 cm spacing in a row (all together on 1 ha accrues 27 7778 rhizomes). The plot of single size was 20 m2. Miscanthus sampling started from the 30th day of the vegetation period beginning and each every 30 days until the end of vegetation period (start from June, July, August, September, October, November, and end in December). At each date of sampling, a plant sample of the aboveground part of the plant and rhizomes was sampled from an area of 0.25 m2. Plant material was taken gently from the area of 0.25 m2 by extraction of rhizomes from the soil with the whole stems. Samples for chemical analysis were reduced according to the standard requirements of PN-EN 96 ISO 14780:2017-07 [21](defines methods for appropriate decreasing combined samples to laboratory samples and laboratory samples to sub-samples and general analysis samples and is usable to solid biofuels). Dry mass for laboratory samples was examined by air-drying the dry mass at 105°C for three hours according to Polish standard [22] .
Question - comments:
Comments: The results section consists of repeated structure showing Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn in same way with statistic analysis. I believe the results can be presented in a better way. I suggest as follows:
3.1 Effects of N application on micronutrient content (mg kg-1) and uptake (g m-2) (Factor: fertlizer application)
3.2 Variation in micronutrient content and uptake among plant parts (Factor: plant parts)
3.3. Seaosnal variation in micronutrient content and uptake (Factor: Time of sampling)
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the proposed layout of the results description is clear, readable and concise. The proposed layout has been carried out.
The titles of these subsections are:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
L168: I believe this is where the heading for "Results" should come in.
Response:
Here, the title of the Results section was mistakenly removed. It has been restored again.
Question - comments:
L174: grew? you mean, increased?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the word "grew" should be replaced with "increased." However, this sentence was removed due to the changes made in this section.
Question - comments:
Ll178: 60 kg ha-1 ?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that this place we should have used 60 kg ha-1 instead of 60 of nitrogen fertilization.
Question - comments:
Talbe 1-6: Synthesize the tables with statistic analysis as the newly suggested results structure.
Response:
The tables have been reordered according to the new order of the RESULTS section. The number of tables has been reduced.
Question - comments:
L307: State the most important results from your study in the beginning of the discussion.
Response:
The discussion section has been completely revised. The reviewer's suggestions have been incorporated.
Question - comments:
L354: HM ??
Response:
It is the abbreviation from heavy metals, however this sentence has been removed.
Question - comments:
L355: Substrate of what?
This sentence has been removed.
Answers to the second Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
L17: Experience or experiment?
Response:
The sentence has been deleted, however we used the term field experiment via whole manuscript.
Question - comments:
L20: Place the abbreviations together with the expansions on L12, then use the abbreviations.
Response:
We corrected it to. Here is the correction in the Abstract section and indicating changes:
The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
L22: why abbreviation to expansion again? And what about nitrogen (N)?
Response:
We corrected it to in the abstract and next sections of the manuscript.
Question - comments:
L28: Nice results, but what does it mean? (conclusions)
Response:
These results has been changed into:
Line 21-23: In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
L32-35: Something went wrong with these sentences.
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 31-33: The benefits of bioenergy crops apart from high yield potential, is cultivation on marginal land, which characterizes by low productivity of field crops [3,4].
Question - comments:
L37-38: sounds great, where are those places? Examples?
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 34-37: The most effective way of biomass production for energy purposes according to the EU assumptions, is cultivation of bioenergy crops in agricultural areas [1,2]. Because of the specific chemical structure and high calorific value, plant biomass can be destined for various conversion processes to produce liquid, gaseous and solid fuels [5–7]. Plant biomass currently accounts for only 3% of basic energy consumption in highly developed countries [6,8].
Question - comments:
L46: Here and there abbreviations come first often (e.g. CO2 see L53). Throughout the ms check for these mistakes.
Response:
The sentence and abbreviations has been changed into:
Line 39-47: Plant biomass is an extremely important raw material due to the zero balance of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the amount of CO2 that is emitted to the atmosphere is equal to the amount taken in the photosynthesis process). In the process of biomass combustion, we are dealing with lower emissions of gases (carbon, nitrogen and sulphur oxide), soot, tar product and dusts that have no harmful effect on the human health compared to coal combustion. Bioenergy crops combustion contributed to 90% less sulphur emission compared to coal [6]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also present during biomass combustion process. However, since it comes from harvested or combustion plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere in the first place, these are not additional quantities [6,9]. Moreover the part of carbon is stored in the soil [10].
Question - comments:
L58: "is relied" to "relies" or "depends"
Response:
We will definitely use the word depend.
Question - comments:
L59: Mxg is Miscanthus x giganteus? then why not indicate it at L56 when you first mention it?
Response:
Throughout the manuscript we will not use the abbreviation Mxg and the abbreviation has been changed to Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
L61: C4 crops - explain a bit for non-specialists
Response:
Short explanation has been added:
Line: 55-58: The plants C3 assimilate CO2 directly in Calvin’s cycle. The first durable product of this process is tricarbon 3-phosphoglyceric acid, whereas in the case of C4 the four carbon oxaloacetic acid is formed. C4 plants are regarded to have the highest potential productivity compared to plant C3. Detailed literature related to C4 plants is presented in Sage et al. (2011) [13].
Question - comments:
L136: where?
Response:
The information has been added:
Line: 124-126: The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the laboratory belongs to the Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production and Department of Plant Nutrition, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland.
Question - comments:
L150: The is a repetition of the first section of M&M, and nothing to do with statistics.
Response:
Line 151-166 (old version) has been moved to section 2.1 and presently is in the:
Line 111-122: Miscanthus rhizomes (length 10 cm long with the presence of 3-6 nodes) were planted in a 75 cm row spacing and 48 cm spacing in a row (all together on 1 ha accrues 27 7778 rhizomes). The plot of single size was 20 m2. Miscanthus sampling started from the 30th day of the vegetation period beginning and each every 30 days until the end of vegetation period (start from June, July, August, September, October, November, and end in December). At each date of sampling, a plant sample of the aboveground part of the plant and rhizomes was sampled from an area of 0.25 m2. Plant material was taken gently from the area of 0.25 m2 by extraction of rhizomes from the soil with the whole stems. Samples for chemical analysis were reduced according to the standard requirements of PN-EN 96 ISO 14780:2017-07 [21](defines methods for appropriate decreasing combined samples to laboratory samples and laboratory samples to sub-samples and general analysis samples and is usable to solid biofuels). Dry mass for laboratory samples was examined by air-drying the dry mass at 105°C for three hours according to Polish standard [22] .
Question - comments:
Comments: The results section consists of repeated structure showing Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn in same way with statistic analysis. I believe the results can be presented in a better way. I suggest as follows:
3.1 Effects of N application on micronutrient content (mg kg-1) and uptake (g m-2) (Factor: fertlizer application)
3.2 Variation in micronutrient content and uptake among plant parts (Factor: plant parts)
3.3. Seaosnal variation in micronutrient content and uptake (Factor: Time of sampling)
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the proposed layout of the results description is clear, readable and concise. The proposed layout has been carried out.
The titles of these subsections are:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
L168: I believe this is where the heading for "Results" should come in.
Response:
Here, the title of the Results section was mistakenly removed. It has been restored again.
Question - comments:
L174: grew? you mean, increased?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the word "grew" should be replaced with "increased." However, this sentence was removed due to the changes made in this section.
Question - comments:
Ll178: 60 kg ha-1 ?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that this place we should have used 60 kg ha-1 instead of 60 of nitrogen fertilization.
Question - comments:
Talbe 1-6: Synthesize the tables with statistic analysis as the newly suggested results structure.
Response:
The tables have been reordered according to the new order of the RESULTS section. The number of tables has been reduced.
Question - comments:
L307: State the most important results from your study in the beginning of the discussion.
Response:
The discussion section has been completely revised. The reviewer's suggestions have been incorporated.
Question - comments:
L354: HM ??
Response:
It is the abbreviation from heavy metals, however this sentence has been removed.
Question - comments:
L355: Substrate of what?
This sentence has been removed.
Answers to the second Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
L17: Experience or experiment?
Response:
The sentence has been deleted, however we used the term field experiment via whole manuscript.
Question - comments:
L20: Place the abbreviations together with the expansions on L12, then use the abbreviations.
Response:
We corrected it to. Here is the correction in the Abstract section and indicating changes:
The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
L22: why abbreviation to expansion again? And what about nitrogen (N)?
Response:
We corrected it to in the abstract and next sections of the manuscript.
Question - comments:
L28: Nice results, but what does it mean? (conclusions)
Response:
These results has been changed into:
Line 21-23: In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
L32-35: Something went wrong with these sentences.
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 31-33: The benefits of bioenergy crops apart from high yield potential, is cultivation on marginal land, which characterizes by low productivity of field crops [3,4].
Question - comments:
L37-38: sounds great, where are those places? Examples?
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 34-37: The most effective way of biomass production for energy purposes according to the EU assumptions, is cultivation of bioenergy crops in agricultural areas [1,2]. Because of the specific chemical structure and high calorific value, plant biomass can be destined for various conversion processes to produce liquid, gaseous and solid fuels [5–7]. Plant biomass currently accounts for only 3% of basic energy consumption in highly developed countries [6,8].
Question - comments:
L46: Here and there abbreviations come first often (e.g. CO2 see L53). Throughout the ms check for these mistakes.
Response:
The sentence and abbreviations has been changed into:
Line 39-47: Plant biomass is an extremely important raw material due to the zero balance of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the amount of CO2 that is emitted to the atmosphere is equal to the amount taken in the photosynthesis process). In the process of biomass combustion, we are dealing with lower emissions of gases (carbon, nitrogen and sulphur oxide), soot, tar product and dusts that have no harmful effect on the human health compared to coal combustion. Bioenergy crops combustion contributed to 90% less sulphur emission compared to coal [6]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also present during biomass combustion process. However, since it comes from harvested or combustion plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere in the first place, these are not additional quantities [6,9]. Moreover the part of carbon is stored in the soil [10].
Question - comments:
L58: "is relied" to "relies" or "depends"
Response:
We will definitely use the word depend.
Question - comments:
L59: Mxg is Miscanthus x giganteus? then why not indicate it at L56 when you first mention it?
Response:
Throughout the manuscript we will not use the abbreviation Mxg and the abbreviation has been changed to Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
L61: C4 crops - explain a bit for non-specialists
Response:
Short explanation has been added:
Line: 55-58: The plants C3 assimilate CO2 directly in Calvin’s cycle. The first durable product of this process is tricarbon 3-phosphoglyceric acid, whereas in the case of C4 the four carbon oxaloacetic acid is formed. C4 plants are regarded to have the highest potential productivity compared to plant C3. Detailed literature related to C4 plants is presented in Sage et al. (2011) [13].
Question - comments:
L136: where?
Response:
The information has been added:
Line: 124-126: The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the laboratory belongs to the Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production and Department of Plant Nutrition, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland.
Question - comments:
L150: The is a repetition of the first section of M&M, and nothing to do with statistics.
Response:
Line 151-166 (old version) has been moved to section 2.1 and presently is in the:
Line 111-122: Miscanthus rhizomes (length 10 cm long with the presence of 3-6 nodes) were planted in a 75 cm row spacing and 48 cm spacing in a row (all together on 1 ha accrues 27 7778 rhizomes). The plot of single size was 20 m2. Miscanthus sampling started from the 30th day of the vegetation period beginning and each every 30 days until the end of vegetation period (start from June, July, August, September, October, November, and end in December). At each date of sampling, a plant sample of the aboveground part of the plant and rhizomes was sampled from an area of 0.25 m2. Plant material was taken gently from the area of 0.25 m2 by extraction of rhizomes from the soil with the whole stems. Samples for chemical analysis were reduced according to the standard requirements of PN-EN 96 ISO 14780:2017-07 [21](defines methods for appropriate decreasing combined samples to laboratory samples and laboratory samples to sub-samples and general analysis samples and is usable to solid biofuels). Dry mass for laboratory samples was examined by air-drying the dry mass at 105°C for three hours according to Polish standard [22] .
Question - comments:
Comments: The results section consists of repeated structure showing Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn in same way with statistic analysis. I believe the results can be presented in a better way. I suggest as follows:
3.1 Effects of N application on micronutrient content (mg kg-1) and uptake (g m-2) (Factor: fertlizer application)
3.2 Variation in micronutrient content and uptake among plant parts (Factor: plant parts)
3.3. Seaosnal variation in micronutrient content and uptake (Factor: Time of sampling)
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the proposed layout of the results description is clear, readable and concise. The proposed layout has been carried out.
The titles of these subsections are:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
L168: I believe this is where the heading for "Results" should come in.
Response:
Here, the title of the Results section was mistakenly removed. It has been restored again.
Question - comments:
L174: grew? you mean, increased?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the word "grew" should be replaced with "increased." However, this sentence was removed due to the changes made in this section.
Question - comments:
Ll178: 60 kg ha-1 ?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that this place we should have used 60 kg ha-1 instead of 60 of nitrogen fertilization.
Question - comments:
Talbe 1-6: Synthesize the tables with statistic analysis as the newly suggested results structure.
Response:
The tables have been reordered according to the new order of the RESULTS section. The number of tables has been reduced.
Question - comments:
L307: State the most important results from your study in the beginning of the discussion.
Response:
The discussion section has been completely revised. The reviewer's suggestions have been incorporated.
Question - comments:
L354: HM ??
Response:
It is the abbreviation from heavy metals, however this sentence has been removed.
Question - comments:
L355: Substrate of what?
This sentence has been removed.
Answers to the second Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
L17: Experience or experiment?
Response:
The sentence has been deleted, however we used the term field experiment via whole manuscript.
Question - comments:
L20: Place the abbreviations together with the expansions on L12, then use the abbreviations.
Response:
We corrected it to. Here is the correction in the Abstract section and indicating changes:
The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
L22: why abbreviation to expansion again? And what about nitrogen (N)?
Response:
We corrected it to in the abstract and next sections of the manuscript.
Question - comments:
L28: Nice results, but what does it mean? (conclusions)
Response:
These results has been changed into:
Line 21-23: In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
L32-35: Something went wrong with these sentences.
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 31-33: The benefits of bioenergy crops apart from high yield potential, is cultivation on marginal land, which characterizes by low productivity of field crops [3,4].
Question - comments:
L37-38: sounds great, where are those places? Examples?
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 34-37: The most effective way of biomass production for energy purposes according to the EU assumptions, is cultivation of bioenergy crops in agricultural areas [1,2]. Because of the specific chemical structure and high calorific value, plant biomass can be destined for various conversion processes to produce liquid, gaseous and solid fuels [5–7]. Plant biomass currently accounts for only 3% of basic energy consumption in highly developed countries [6,8].
Question - comments:
L46: Here and there abbreviations come first often (e.g. CO2 see L53). Throughout the ms check for these mistakes.
Response:
The sentence and abbreviations has been changed into:
Line 39-47: Plant biomass is an extremely important raw material due to the zero balance of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the amount of CO2 that is emitted to the atmosphere is equal to the amount taken in the photosynthesis process). In the process of biomass combustion, we are dealing with lower emissions of gases (carbon, nitrogen and sulphur oxide), soot, tar product and dusts that have no harmful effect on the human health compared to coal combustion. Bioenergy crops combustion contributed to 90% less sulphur emission compared to coal [6]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also present during biomass combustion process. However, since it comes from harvested or combustion plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere in the first place, these are not additional quantities [6,9]. Moreover the part of carbon is stored in the soil [10].
Question - comments:
L58: "is relied" to "relies" or "depends"
Response:
We will definitely use the word depend.
Question - comments:
L59: Mxg is Miscanthus x giganteus? then why not indicate it at L56 when you first mention it?
Response:
Throughout the manuscript we will not use the abbreviation Mxg and the abbreviation has been changed to Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
L61: C4 crops - explain a bit for non-specialists
Response:
Short explanation has been added:
Line: 55-58: The plants C3 assimilate CO2 directly in Calvin’s cycle. The first durable product of this process is tricarbon 3-phosphoglyceric acid, whereas in the case of C4 the four carbon oxaloacetic acid is formed. C4 plants are regarded to have the highest potential productivity compared to plant C3. Detailed literature related to C4 plants is presented in Sage et al. (2011) [13].
Question - comments:
L136: where?
Response:
The information has been added:
Line: 124-126: The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the laboratory belongs to the Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production and Department of Plant Nutrition, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland.
Question - comments:
L150: The is a repetition of the first section of M&M, and nothing to do with statistics.
Response:
Line 151-166 (old version) has been moved to section 2.1 and presently is in the:
Line 111-122: Miscanthus rhizomes (length 10 cm long with the presence of 3-6 nodes) were planted in a 75 cm row spacing and 48 cm spacing in a row (all together on 1 ha accrues 27 7778 rhizomes). The plot of single size was 20 m2. Miscanthus sampling started from the 30th day of the vegetation period beginning and each every 30 days until the end of vegetation period (start from June, July, August, September, October, November, and end in December). At each date of sampling, a plant sample of the aboveground part of the plant and rhizomes was sampled from an area of 0.25 m2. Plant material was taken gently from the area of 0.25 m2 by extraction of rhizomes from the soil with the whole stems. Samples for chemical analysis were reduced according to the standard requirements of PN-EN 96 ISO 14780:2017-07 [21](defines methods for appropriate decreasing combined samples to laboratory samples and laboratory samples to sub-samples and general analysis samples and is usable to solid biofuels). Dry mass for laboratory samples was examined by air-drying the dry mass at 105°C for three hours according to Polish standard [22] .
Question - comments:
Comments: The results section consists of repeated structure showing Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn in same way with statistic analysis. I believe the results can be presented in a better way. I suggest as follows:
3.1 Effects of N application on micronutrient content (mg kg-1) and uptake (g m-2) (Factor: fertlizer application)
3.2 Variation in micronutrient content and uptake among plant parts (Factor: plant parts)
3.3. Seaosnal variation in micronutrient content and uptake (Factor: Time of sampling)
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the proposed layout of the results description is clear, readable and concise. The proposed layout has been carried out.
The titles of these subsections are:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
L168: I believe this is where the heading for "Results" should come in.
Response:
Here, the title of the Results section was mistakenly removed. It has been restored again.
Question - comments:
L174: grew? you mean, increased?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the word "grew" should be replaced with "increased." However, this sentence was removed due to the changes made in this section.
Question - comments:
Ll178: 60 kg ha-1 ?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that this place we should have used 60 kg ha-1 instead of 60 of nitrogen fertilization.
Question - comments:
Talbe 1-6: Synthesize the tables with statistic analysis as the newly suggested results structure.
Response:
The tables have been reordered according to the new order of the RESULTS section. The number of tables has been reduced.
Question - comments:
L307: State the most important results from your study in the beginning of the discussion.
Response:
The discussion section has been completely revised. The reviewer's suggestions have been incorporated.
Question - comments:
L354: HM ??
Response:
It is the abbreviation from heavy metals, however this sentence has been removed.
Question - comments:
L355: Substrate of what?
This sentence has been removed.
Answers to the second Reviewer's comments:
Question - comments:
L17: Experience or experiment?
Response:
The sentence has been deleted, however we used the term field experiment via whole manuscript.
Question - comments:
L20: Place the abbreviations together with the expansions on L12, then use the abbreviations.
Response:
We corrected it to. Here is the correction in the Abstract section and indicating changes:
The paper presents the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on the concentration of selected micronutrients - as an important issue to reduce the combustion-induced air pollution The effect of dose 60 kg N kg-1 in different terms biomass sampling on the concentration and uptake of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) in dry matter by underground and aerial part of Miscanthus x giganteus in the years 2014-2016 was studied. The order of microelements concentration [mg kg-1] in rhizomes and aboveground parts of plant is as follows: Fe>Mn>Zn>Cu. N fertilization had no significant effect on the concentration of selected microelements in the Mischanthus biomass (except Mn concentration in the stems and Cu in leaves). Results indicated that the quality of combustion biomass has not was been worsened under nitrogen fertilisation. During the whole vegetation period the iron concentration increased in rhizomes and decreased in a case of Zn and Cu. In the aboveground part of the plant the concentration of all tested elements has decreased. In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
L22: why abbreviation to expansion again? And what about nitrogen (N)?
Response:
We corrected it to in the abstract and next sections of the manuscript.
Question - comments:
L28: Nice results, but what does it mean? (conclusions)
Response:
These results has been changed into:
Line 21-23: In turn, the uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (except Fe in the stems) by rhizomes and aboveground parts of Mischanthus depended significantly on N fertilization.
Question - comments:
L32-35: Something went wrong with these sentences.
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 31-33: The benefits of bioenergy crops apart from high yield potential, is cultivation on marginal land, which characterizes by low productivity of field crops [3,4].
Question - comments:
L37-38: sounds great, where are those places? Examples?
Response:
The sentence has been changed into:
Line 34-37: The most effective way of biomass production for energy purposes according to the EU assumptions, is cultivation of bioenergy crops in agricultural areas [1,2]. Because of the specific chemical structure and high calorific value, plant biomass can be destined for various conversion processes to produce liquid, gaseous and solid fuels [5–7]. Plant biomass currently accounts for only 3% of basic energy consumption in highly developed countries [6,8].
Question - comments:
L46: Here and there abbreviations come first often (e.g. CO2 see L53). Throughout the ms check for these mistakes.
Response:
The sentence and abbreviations has been changed into:
Line 39-47: Plant biomass is an extremely important raw material due to the zero balance of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the amount of CO2 that is emitted to the atmosphere is equal to the amount taken in the photosynthesis process). In the process of biomass combustion, we are dealing with lower emissions of gases (carbon, nitrogen and sulphur oxide), soot, tar product and dusts that have no harmful effect on the human health compared to coal combustion. Bioenergy crops combustion contributed to 90% less sulphur emission compared to coal [6]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also present during biomass combustion process. However, since it comes from harvested or combustion plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere in the first place, these are not additional quantities [6,9]. Moreover the part of carbon is stored in the soil [10].
Question - comments:
L58: "is relied" to "relies" or "depends"
Response:
We will definitely use the word depend.
Question - comments:
L59: Mxg is Miscanthus x giganteus? then why not indicate it at L56 when you first mention it?
Response:
Throughout the manuscript we will not use the abbreviation Mxg and the abbreviation has been changed to Miscanthus x giganteus.
Question - comments:
L61: C4 crops - explain a bit for non-specialists
Response:
Short explanation has been added:
Line: 55-58: The plants C3 assimilate CO2 directly in Calvin’s cycle. The first durable product of this process is tricarbon 3-phosphoglyceric acid, whereas in the case of C4 the four carbon oxaloacetic acid is formed. C4 plants are regarded to have the highest potential productivity compared to plant C3. Detailed literature related to C4 plants is presented in Sage et al. (2011) [13].
Question - comments:
L136: where?
Response:
The information has been added:
Line: 124-126: The concentration of micronutrients was determined in the laboratory belongs to the Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production and Department of Plant Nutrition, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland.
Question - comments:
L150: The is a repetition of the first section of M&M, and nothing to do with statistics.
Response:
Line 151-166 (old version) has been moved to section 2.1 and presently is in the:
Line 111-122: Miscanthus rhizomes (length 10 cm long with the presence of 3-6 nodes) were planted in a 75 cm row spacing and 48 cm spacing in a row (all together on 1 ha accrues 27 7778 rhizomes). The plot of single size was 20 m2. Miscanthus sampling started from the 30th day of the vegetation period beginning and each every 30 days until the end of vegetation period (start from June, July, August, September, October, November, and end in December). At each date of sampling, a plant sample of the aboveground part of the plant and rhizomes was sampled from an area of 0.25 m2. Plant material was taken gently from the area of 0.25 m2 by extraction of rhizomes from the soil with the whole stems. Samples for chemical analysis were reduced according to the standard requirements of PN-EN 96 ISO 14780:2017-07 [21](defines methods for appropriate decreasing combined samples to laboratory samples and laboratory samples to sub-samples and general analysis samples and is usable to solid biofuels). Dry mass for laboratory samples was examined by air-drying the dry mass at 105°C for three hours according to Polish standard [22] .
Question - comments:
Comments: The results section consists of repeated structure showing Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn in same way with statistic analysis. I believe the results can be presented in a better way. I suggest as follows:
3.1 Effects of N application on micronutrient content (mg kg-1) and uptake (g m-2) (Factor: fertlizer application)
3.2 Variation in micronutrient content and uptake among plant parts (Factor: plant parts)
3.3. Seaosnal variation in micronutrient content and uptake (Factor: Time of sampling)
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the proposed layout of the results description is clear, readable and concise. The proposed layout has been carried out.
The titles of these subsections are:
3.1. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the concentration and uptake of selected microelements
3.2. Microelements concentration and uptake in different parts of miscanthus
3.3. Seasonal variation in micronutrients content and uptake
Question - comments:
L168: I believe this is where the heading for "Results" should come in.
Response:
Here, the title of the Results section was mistakenly removed. It has been restored again.
Question - comments:
L174: grew? you mean, increased?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that the word "grew" should be replaced with "increased." However, this sentence was removed due to the changes made in this section.
Question - comments:
Ll178: 60 kg ha-1 ?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that this place we should have used 60 kg ha-1 instead of 60 of nitrogen fertilization.
Question - comments:
Talbe 1-6: Synthesize the tables with statistic analysis as the newly suggested results structure.
Response:
The tables have been reordered according to the new order of the RESULTS section. The number of tables has been reduced.
Question - comments:
L307: State the most important results from your study in the beginning of the discussion.
Response:
The discussion section has been completely revised. The reviewer's suggestions have been incorporated.
Question - comments:
L354: HM ??
Response:
It is the abbreviation from heavy metals, however this sentence has been removed.
Question - comments:
L355: Substrate of what?
This sentence has been removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am thankful to the authors for their efforts to address my comments. but unfortunately the manuscript is still unsatisfactory to be considered for acceptance in its current state.
there are still many drawbacks that are as follows
the names of the authors are missing
the keywords have still the same issue which i highlighted in last revision
there are still many format issues in throughout the manuscript. there are many unnecessary blank lines left throughout the manuscript. the references are still not properly formatted as i mentioned last time. e.g. the year should be in bold letters, the name of journals should be abbreviated, the title of article cannot be in italic font and the font design is also not according to the format etc.
The English language is still unsatisfactory and the authors have also admitted this weakness in their author's note. therefore, the manuscript should go under English language editing.
Table 1: the units for macro and micro elements should be same for all. in second part of this table the units for N,P,K should be mentioned in column of Doses.
Table 2,3,4,5: the units for micro elements are missing. moreover, follow the same sequence for first column of Dose. because in some cases N kg ha-1 is bracketed and in some cases its without brackets. the authors should also mention the statistical significance statement of their results below each table.
the discussion section still looks very speculative and it should go under serious revisions.
the author's contribution statement, acknowledgements and author's conflict of interest statements are missing as well.
the references heading should not be numbered.
