Green Manuring Reduces Agronomic Indicators of Fodder Winter Barley Regardless of Fertilization Type

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled "Green manuring reduces the agronomic indicators of fodder winter barley regardless of the type of fertilization" is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal. However there are some points that need further clarification:

Abstract

1. L13-17: Make the purpose section concise, please rewrite.
2. L20: Please delete “We found”
3. This section is written very casually. Throughout abstract no data for various parameters was given.

Keywords

1. Please arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.
2. What is CLPP?

Introduction

1. L58-59: The statement should be supplemented by reference.
2. L75-81: The statement should be supplemented by reference.
3. L79-82: Please rewrite.
4. L97: In fact, there is no research goal, and no significance. Please add.
5. 5. Please add the definition of green manure
6. Arrange your introduction section in a systematic scientific way with citations of recent studies.

Material and Method

1. The experimental design is unclear. How many treatments were carried out in total? Is there any repetition in the experiment? What is the area of the test plot? Is there any isolation between the plots? Please add other management measures, such as water management. Please supplement the meteorological data during the test.
2. L142: How to sample the rhizosphere soil?
3. L142-143: Rhizosphere soil was sampled twice – before fertilization and sowing and during the grain formation of barley– What is the basis?
4. L170-174: The statement should be supplemented by reference.
5. L188: Please delete “.”
6. L188: Plant physiology? –Too extensive.
7. L189: Please supplement the sampling period
8. L199-204: Important, but not here. Please move to the introduction section.
9. L216-217: Delete “.” and please supplement the sampling period.

Results

1. Extensive improvement is required to interpret the findings. Directly state the significant findings. Make the results section concise.

Such as: L252, 275-277, 287-288, 295-296, 299-300, 337, 391-392, 406-410, 414-419, and 478-479: please delete.

2. Fig 1. (L313-315) – change “different letters” to “different small letters”
3. Table 2–Please supplement the standard error
4. Table 3–Statistically significant differences between treatments?
5. Table 4– Please carefully examine the labeling of statistically significant differences between treatments.

Discussion

1. L517-530: Please do not repeat your results.
2. In many cases, the authors have only mentioned their own results and compared them with some consistent findings. The authors should have not only addressed the issues mentioned above but also discussed the potential mechanisms on the observed changes.
3. This section is too simple. Authors should try to strengthen this part.

Conclusion

1. The conclusion section should be streamlined according to the research objectives. Please rewrite.

References

1. Cross match the references and format according to journal style.

Such as 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 28, 32, 33, 35, 43, and 46.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the revision of our manuscript, which is very precise and detailed. This will certainly lead to a significant improvement in the quality of the article. In this regard, I am attaching a PDF file with detailed responses to your comments and a modified manuscript.

Your sincerely,

Stefan Shilev

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The chosen topic aligns well with current priorities in sustainable agriculture and organic resource recycling. The following suggestions are offered for the authors' consideration:

1.The abstract does not adequately summarize the key findings of the manuscript and lacks quantitative results.

2.What does the keyword "CLPP" stand for?

3.The field layout is not described; was it a completely randomized block, split-plot, or strip design? Please add a field-plan diagram or randomization scheme.

4.No baseline soil data are provided, so "preceding-crop" effects can easily be confounded with field effects. Supply spatial pre-test data (0–30 cm layers) to demonstrate that the two fields were initially similar.

5.N-P-K inputs differ greatly among treatments, yet they are compared as "fertilizer type" effects. Include a N-P-K balance table so yield differences can be judged against nutrient deficits/surpluses.

6.The abstract and discussion state that "green manure reduced yield," but also report "higher photosynthetic rates in Field 1." If photosynthetic capacity was higher, why did grain yield fall? A detailed explanation is required.

7.Figures 4 and 5 lack error-bar—are they SEM or SD?

8.Check and correct the formatting of the reference list.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the revision of our manuscript, which is very precise and detailed. This will certainly lead to a significant improvement in the quality of the article. In this regard, I am attaching a PDF file with detailed responses to your comments and a modified manuscript.

Your sincerely,

Stefan Shilev

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations for the authors Manuscript Agriculture-3900588.

The manuscript in well-structured and documented; however, it could be improved by highlighting the study’s limitations, clarifying its practical implications, and expanding the long-term analysis, including testing other fertilizer combinations and adjusting doses to optimize results.

It is recommended to include in the Material and Methods section data on the thermal and precipitation regime during the growing season, including mean and extreme values, as well as precipitation distribution, to allow proper interpretation of the results and reproducibility of the study under similar conditions.

Additionally, detailed description of the soil profile is suggested including FAO and RSST, classification, pH values, humus and clay content, soil texture and relevant diagnostic horizons, to ensure rigorous reproducibility of the study and accurate interpretation pf the results in an agronomic context.

The manuscript can be accepted for the publication after the implementation of the theses minor revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the revision of our manuscript, which is very precise and detailed. This will certainly lead to a significant improvement in the quality of the article. In this regard, I am attaching a PDF file with detailed responses to your comments and a modified manuscript.

Your sincerely,

Stefan Shilev

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your great efforts in improving the manuscript. It is improved dramatically. Now, the paper should be accepted for the publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form