Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written and nicely presented and needs the incorporation of the following suggestions.

1. The title must be changed author should replace the word prevent with reduced as prevention is very impossible in field conditions?

2. Abstract is well written just add one concluding line at the end of the abstract.

3. Kindly add the hypothesis in a clean-cut way along with the objective in the introduction.

4. Methodology should b strengthen by adding extraction procedures.

5. Results is ok language check suggested.

6. In the discussion part kindly remove the old references.

7. Conclusion must be short and client-oriented.

Langue must be improved throughout the article. Cross-check the table numbers mentioned in the text and references.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘Growing wheat landrace in rotation with lupin and fallow prevents soil depletion and minimises the use of chemical fertilizers’ is of great interest for agricultural scientists and farmers’ community. Although the manuscript contains good information but there are many flaws that must be addressed and fulfilled for the validation of study and output.

For improvement of manuscript, following suggestions and comments may be addressed accordingly.

Title is not clear. Use the scientific names in the title to make it clear. Title may be changed to make it attract and decent. Abstract is not well written. In the title, wheat landrace is mentioned while wheat varieties and wheat ecotypes are in the abstract. Use same terminology throughout the manuscript.

Introduction

Introduction section is not properly organized. Discuss the background with scientific approach.

Line 69: What is GHG? Write full name when used first time.

Materials and Methods

Treatment plan is not clear. Please use bullet to make it understandable. Figure 1 is not self-explanatory.

Line 100: What do you mean by “(Carral, A Coruña, Galicia)”? For international reader, it is not clear.

Line 108: Change the format of date…it may be misleading as various formats are followed in the world. You may write it like October 2, 2017 or February 10, 2017. Same for line 110 and use same format throughout the draft.

Overall, Material and Methods section look lengthy. Make it precise.

Results

Figure 1 is already presented in Material and Methods section. It should be replaced as Figure 2 and vice versa for others.

Provide the comparison value in the table 1.

Line 117: Quality of Figure 2 is poor.

Figure 3, 4 and 5 are not given…

Discussion

There is no need of sub-section in Discussion. Try to create the link among various parameters by citing the recent studies. It may be improved with logical and scientific approaches.

Conclusion

Conclusion must be short, specific and quantified. Conclusion given here is too lengthy.

Reference

The authors need to work on the reference list according to the journal style and cross matching.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been well written, and presented and contains high scientific soundness of interest to the farming community globally. The crop rotation data gave a good indicator of sustainable food production.  

The manuscript has been well defined in most aspects, and well supports the study objectives. Requires minor editing in syntax/grammar.  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We take on your suggestion in the corrections of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed all the comments and manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.