Coordination of Density and Nitrogen Fertilization Improves Stalk Lodging Resistance of Strip-Intercropped Maize with Soybeans by Affecting Stalk Quality Traits
, Yun Hu †, Bing Liang †, Guopeng Chen †, Liang Feng †, Tian Pu, Xin Sun, Taiwen Yong, Weiguo Liu, Jiang Liu, Junbo Du, Feng Yang, Xiaochun Wang * and Wenyu Yang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 132-133: English and sentences are noted correct. correct the grammer please
Line 169: error in sentence
Table 3: For plant height and ear height, there is no need of digit after decimal for both years
Table 3 is not cited in text
Line 196: put bracket after figure 1
Line 258: some error in sentenses
Table 4 also not cited in text
Table 4: for number of small vascular bundles, number of big vascular bundles and total number of vascular bundles, there is no need of digit after decimal
Line 309: some error in sentense
Conclusion: there is no need to cite references. This should be based on your own findings
All references in text are cited as 0,0 and no proper numbering. Please correct numbering as in reference list
The results are very poorly written. Please re-write the results for better understanding of the readers
Table 5 not cited in text
Extensive english editing is needed
Author Response
Dear reviewer 27 April 2023
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable feedback and questions on my article. I have made the necessary revisions based on your suggestions and the journal's requirements. The revised article and responses to the questions are in the attachment. Please check it out. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Xuyang Zhao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering me to revise the manuscript entitled “Coordination of Density and Nitrogen Fertilization Improves Stalk Lodging Resistance of Strip-planted Maize by Affecting Stalk Quality Traits”. The manuscript provides fairly robust information on the impact of different plant densities and nitrogen fertilizer on stalk lodging and stalk quality traits. The manuscript is well-written and well-presented accordingly could be accepted following minor revisions.
Suggestions
The manuscript needs English editing, especially long sentences that should be summarized and improved as in lines 87-98.
Line 25: “375 kg/hm2” is repeated twice “N375 (375 kg/hm2) and N375 (375 kg/hm2)”.
Line 37, 157, 169, 170, 172, 183….: “hm2” “2” should be superscript and also throughout the manuscript
The introduction is well written but the knowledge gap, rationale, hypothesis and objectives need more clarification.
Table 2 presents certain soil characteristics but still the textural class and the distribution of soil particles (sand, silt, and clay percentage) are required.
Line 119: I think the applied design was split-split plot design not “split-zone design”
The presented averages in Table 3 are corresponding to the interaction effect. Moreover, averages of the main effect of studied factors (N rate, plant density, and planting pattern) should be presented.
The presented signs at the end of Tables 3 and 4 for analysis of variance are better to be presented as P-values.
The year effect was significant for several traits but its interaction with N and P as well as the three-way interaction was nonsignificant which should be highlighted.
Plant density is a studied factor but its effect was not presented in the ANOVA results at the end of Table 3
The presented results in Table 3 averaged over two seasons but in Figures 1-4 the results of both seasons are presented which should be unified. The presented results in Table 4 are for just one season.
The correlation between the evaluated treatments and studied traits could be presented in PC-biplot or heatmap and hierarchical cluster.
Line 354: Citation of “[0]” need to be corrected
The discussion needs more efforts to be improved and the obtained results should be discussed better.
The reference list should be carefully revised to follow MDPI style
The manuscript needs English editing especially long sentences that should be summarized as in lines 87-98.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 27 April 2023
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable feedback and questions on my article. I have made the necessary revisions based on your suggestions and the journal's requirements. The revised article and responses to the questions are in the attachment. Please check it out. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Xuyang Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. You can find comments in text
2. In text, tables and figures you use "hm2" but results suggest you mean "ha".
hm2=100 m2 and ha=10000 m2 so please correct all units.
3. Yield difference beetwenn N0 and N375 is about 2T/ha. How do you explain this? Also, in maize monoculture, expected yields are around 15-18 T/ha for almost half N application (120-150 kg/ha). How do you explain low yields in all cases in your work? Please add in discussion section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer 27 April 2023
Thank you for taking the time to provide valuable feedback and questions on my article. I have made the necessary revisions based on your suggestions and the journal's requirements. The revised article and responses to the questions are in the attachment. Please check it out. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Xuyang Zhao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing all my comments
