Improved Nutrient Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity and Profitability of Wheat under Mid-Indo-Gangetic Plains of India
, Janardan Yadav 1, Vijay Singh Meena 3,4, Deepranjan Sarkar 1,5, Sunita Kumari Meena 6, Amitava Rakshit 1 and Rahul Datta 7,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review comments
The manuscript entitled, “Improved nutrient management practices for enhancing productivity and profitability of wheat under mid-Indo-Gangetic Plains of India”, aimed at quantifying the Best Management Practice options on wheat productivity, best nutrient supply options and profitability and relationship compared to different nutrient supply options with a broad view to assess optimization of nutrient management practices to maintain wheat productivity which is within the scope of Agriculture Journal. I wish to thank the authors for the tireless efforts put to write this nice and interesting piece of work. However, I would like them to include the Tukey/means comparison tests for the data. Since there are significant effects of the nutrients supplied, it is important to identify which treatments are significantly different from each other and which ones are yielded the same results. This should be applied to Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and any that will work. In doing that we shall then see the significantly differences when small letters are put e., a, b, c, ab, so that at the base of the table, we find the writing “means followed by different letters significantly different at Tukey p < 0.05 test. By the way, table 3 should be separated or reorganized and please take note that while designing tables, treatments should run vertically while parameters/variables measured horizontally for better comparison. Table 3 followed this principle, the same should apply to all the results tables.
In addition, the authors should specify the levels of significance in their write up. For instance, in Lines 218-219: “Results revealed that the plots with FYM treatments (10 t ha-1 FYM) significantly higher grain yield 37.37 q ha-1 and straw yield 53.67 q ha-1, respectively, as compared to FYM treatment.”, they should include the p-values, i.e. p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 or p < 0.001 so that the above statement becomes, “Results revealed that the plots with FYM treatments (10 t ha-1 FYM) significantly (p < 0.01) higher grain yield 37.37 q ha-1 and straw yield 53.67 q ha-1, respectively, as compared to FYM treatment. The same should be applied to all statements where the word “significant” or “significantly” appears in the results.
Last but not least, in the method section under data analysis, the authors should specify which softwares were used to conduct data analysis, spss or stata or minitab etc. and which versions were used. Then how were means compared for significant ANOVAs? Also specify how interactions were arrived at? Was it a two-way ANOVA or something else?
And finally, the authors should modify the abstract, by indicating the treatments/methods in at least one line. In addition, include the rates of bioinoculants and FYM tested.
I am against the use of the character @ because it will be interpreted differently by readers. Avoid using it e.g. NPK fertilizer + FYM @ 10 t/ha is not suitable but NPK fertilizer + FYM at 10 t/ha or NPK fertilizer + 10 t/ha FYM is easily understood. Make modifications throughout the manuscript.
Otherwise, the manuscript suits the standards of Agriculture and can be publishable after the above amendments.
Thank you
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments (agriculture-1901727)
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We greatly appreciate your and the referees’ kinder suggestions and comments on our research manuscript, and we are very pleased to know that our manuscript “agriculture-1901727” has an opportunity to be accept after a minor revision. All the referees’ comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and we have made modification in the revised MS according to each suggestion for our manuscript.
|
Explanation to Reviewer #1: |
|
|
The manuscript entitled, “Improved nutrient management practices for enhancing productivity and profitability of wheat under mid-Indo-Gangetic Plains of India”, aimed at quantifying the Best Management Practice options on wheat productivity, best nutrient supply options and profitability and relationship compared to different nutrient supply options with a broad view to assess optimization of nutrient management practices to maintain wheat productivity which is within the scope of Agriculture Journal. |
Thank you so much for appreciating, valuable comments and suggestion. We have incorporated all correction in revised MS. |
|
I wish to thank the authors for the tireless efforts put to write this nice and interesting piece of work. However, I would like them to include the Tukey/means comparison tests for the data. Since there are significant effects of the nutrients supplied, it is important to identify which treatments are significantly different from each other and which ones are yielded the same results. This should be applied to Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and any that will work. In doing that we shall then see the significantly differences when small letters are put e., a, b, c, ab, so that at the base of the table, we find the writing “means followed by different letters significantly different at Tukey p < 0.05 test. |
The details of Statical Analysis have been added in revised MS. “The generated pool data were processed for analysis of variance (ANOVA) and SPD analysis were followed in developed program. Pooled analysis of the data for two year was carried out using standard analysis of variance suggested by Gomez and Gomez [15]” |
|
By the way, table 3 should be separated or reorganized and please take note that while designing tables, treatments should run vertically while parameters/variables measured horizontally for better comparison. Table 3 followed this principle, the same should apply to all the results tables. |
Modified, and added as sperate table. |
|
In addition, the authors should specify the levels of significance in their write up. For instance, in Lines 218-219: “Results revealed that the plots with FYM treatments (10 t ha-1 FYM) significantly higher grain yield 37.37 q ha-1 and straw yield 53.67 q ha-1, respectively, as compared to FYM treatment.”, they should include the p-values, i.e. p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 or p < 0.001 so that the above statement becomes, “Results revealed that the plots with FYM treatments (10 t ha-1 FYM) significantly (p < 0.01) higher grain yield 37.37 q ha-1 and straw yield 53.67 q ha-1, respectively, as compared to FYM treatment. The same should be applied to all statements where the word “significant” or “significantly” appears in the results. |
Agreed, revised |
|
Last but not least, in the method section under data analysis, the authors should specify which softwares were used to conduct data analysis, spss or stata or minitab etc. and which versions were used. Then how were means compared for significant ANOVAs? Also specify how interactions were arrived at? Was it a two-way ANOVA or something else? |
Added in Statical Analysis section |
|
And finally, the authors should modify the abstract, by indicating the treatments/methods in at least one line. In addition, include the rates of bioinoculants and FYM tested. |
Agreed, added missing information in abstract section. |
|
I am against the use of the character @ because it will be interpreted differently by readers. Avoid using it e.g. NPK fertilizer + FYM @ 10 t/ha is not suitable but NPK fertilizer + FYM at 10 t/ha or NPK fertilizer + 10 t ha-1 FYM is easily understood. Make modifications throughout the manuscript. Otherwise, the manuscript suits the standards of Agriculture and can be publishable after the above amendments. |
Corrected as suggested |
Thanking you very much once again for your so nice cooperation.
With best & sincere regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has some lacunas and needs to be addressed before further processing-
1. In the method section, Lines 98-99 and 101-105, test results are mentioned, but these methods are not given. Give the methodology by which these results were obtained. Also, move these data to the result section.
2. Table 1 mentions CRI, what is it ? Provide the full form
3. In many places, citation year is missing, for example, lines 166-167, 180 and so on. Check the whole manuscript.
4. Different in-text reference citation style has been used. Follow one style.
5. Line 218-219 does not make any sense. Revise
6. Figure 6 is mentioned in the conclusion, which is unnecessary. If the figure needs to be given then move it to the introduction and explain there.
7. Overall discussion is poor and represents elaborated results. Improve discussion.
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments (agriculture-1901727)
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We greatly appreciate your and the referees’ kinder suggestions and comments on our research manuscript, and we are very pleased to know that our manuscript “agriculture-1901727” has an opportunity to be accept after a minor revision. All the referees’ comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and we have made modification in the revised MS according to each suggestion for our manuscript.
|
Explanation to Reviewer #2: |
|
|
The manuscript has some lacunas and needs to be addressed before further processing-
1. In the method section, Lines 98-99 and 101-105, test results are mentioned, but these methods are not given. Give the methodology by which these results were obtained. Also, move these data to the result section. |
Thank you so much for, valuable comments and suggestion. These are the results of initial soil properties. This would be better at M & M section to understand the history of experimental soils. |
|
2. Table 1 mentions CRI, what is it ? Provide the full form |
Agreed, added in Table 1 |
|
3. In many places, citation year is missing, for example, lines 166-167, 180 and so on. Check the whole manuscript. |
Corrected |
|
4. Different in-text reference citation style has been used. Follow one style. |
Agreed, modified |
|
5. Line 218-219 does not make any sense. |
Corrected |
|
6. Figure 6 is mentioned in the conclusion, which is unnecessary. If the figure needs to be given then move it to the introduction and explain there. |
Deleted |
|
7. Overall discussion is poor and represents elaborated results. Improve discussion. |
Revised accordingly |
Thanking you very much once again for your so nice cooperation.
With best & sincere regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is good, however there are some point where it can be improved.
1. the length of the paper. Too long and too much text with often no valuable information. The shorter the better.
2. In the materials and methods some more exact information should be delivered on the inoculum used. That wide range of bacteria and mycorrhiza mentioned should be described somehow to highlight the aim of the treatment.
3. The results obtained are really good, however they can be accepted as "evergreen" findings. Since Homer we know, that the use of manure and nutrients may increase the yield.
4. More emphasis should be given to the discussion in relation with the interactions obtained in combined treatments.
5. The economic evaluation passages seems to me too complicated, - almost confused. I know that the mistake is probably in myself, however a more clear and more simple assessment would be welcome by the future readers.
6. Just a hint for the future. Try to avoid the use of this fashionable abreviation dumping ABC and DEF and whatever GHI. It is always too complicated for the readers to go forward and backward in tha paper tracing the meaning of such things. Write in words whatever the data are about.
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments (agriculture-1901727)
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We greatly appreciate your and the referees’ kinder suggestions and comments on our research manuscript, and we are very pleased to know that our manuscript “agriculture-1901727” has an opportunity to be accept after a minor revision. All the referees’ comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and we have made modification in the revised MS according to each suggestion for our manuscript.
|
Explanation to Reviewer #3: |
|
|
The paper is good, however there are some point where it can be improved. |
Thank you so much for appreciating, valuable comments and suggestion. We have incorporated all correction in revised MS. |
|
1. the length of the paper. Too long and too much text with often no valuable information. The shorter the better. |
Deleted, repeated information. |
|
2. In the materials and methods some more exact information should be delivered on the inoculum used. That wide range of bacteria and mycorrhiza mentioned should be described somehow to highlight the aim of the treatment. |
Agreed, missing information added. |
|
3. The results obtained are really good, however they can be accepted as "evergreen" findings. Since Homer we know, that the use of manure and nutrients may increase the yield. |
Thank you so much for appreciating. |
|
4. More emphasis should be given to the discussion in relation with the interactions obtained in combined treatments. |
Discussion section has been revised |
|
5. The economic evaluation passages seems to me too complicated, - almost confused. I know that the mistake is probably in myself, however a more clear and more simple assessment would be welcome by the future readers. |
We have revised this section in more simple way. |
|
6. Just a hint for the future. Try to avoid the use of this fashionable abbreviation dumping ABC and DEF and whatever GHI. It is always too complicated for the readers to go forward and backward in the paper tracing the meaning of such things. Write in words whatever the data are about. |
Agreed, corrected as suggested |
Thanking you very much once again for your so nice cooperation.
With best & sincere regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks too much for the invitation to review this research paper titled: “Improved nutrient management practices for enhancing productivity and profitability of wheat under mid-Indo-Gangetic Plains of India”. The authors describe the results of two years field studies in wheat fertilization. The manuscript is well written and the results are of interest, whoever, some revisions are required before accepting the paper for publication.
1- It is required to show the importance of the study in the introduction to the abstract. and the most important recommendations must be highlighted at the end of the abstract, which justifies the practical importance of the study.
2- Scientific names must be in italic
3- There is a lot of missing information in the materials and methods of the experiment, and this section needs more details to be added so that others can repeat or evaluate the experiment. For example: Who did you irrigate the soil? Most of the chemical analysis are mot described well.
4- The discussion’ section is quite comprehensive; however, the authors should consider more about logic of the current work. Discuss the effect of your climate condition as it is the aim of the study.
5- Where is the caption of figure 6
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments (agriculture-1901727)
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We greatly appreciate your and the referees’ kinder suggestions and comments on our research manuscript, and we are very pleased to know that our manuscript “agriculture-1901727” has an opportunity to be accept after a minor revision. All the referees’ comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and we have made modification in the revised MS according to each suggestion for our manuscript.
|
Explanation to Reviewer #4: |
|
|
The authors describe the results of two years field studies in wheat fertilization. The manuscript is well written and the results are of interest, whoever, some revisions are required before accepting the paper for publication. |
Thank you so much for appreciating, valuable comments and suggestion. We have incorporated all correction in revised MS. |
|
1- It is required to show the importance of the study in the introduction to the abstract. and the most important recommendations must be highlighted at the end of the abstract, which justifies the practical importance of the study. |
Modified |
|
2- Scientific names must be in italic |
Corrected |
|
3- There is a lot of missing information in the materials and methods of the experiment, and this section needs more details to be added so that others can repeat or evaluate the experiment. For example: Who did you irrigate the soil? Most of the chemical analysis are mot described well. |
Agreed, missing information added in M & M section |
|
4-The discussion’ section is quite comprehensive; however, the authors should consider more about logic of the current work. Discuss the effect of your climate condition as it is the aim of the study. |
Corrected |
|
5- Where is the caption of figure 6 |
Deleted as suggested by other reviewers also. |
Thanking you very much once again for your so nice cooperation.
With best & sincere regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript has been revised as per the suggestions and seems to be better than the previous version. From my point of view, with this version, it can be processed further.
