Regulatory Effects of “Straw-Nitrogen Fertilizer” on Maize Yield Enhancement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I  review your manuscript entitled " Regulatory effects of “straw-nitrogen fertilizer” on maize yield 2 enhancement " The results of your study provide valuable knowledge about the benefits of straw for soil and plants and the use of nitrogen fertilizers. However, the goal of regulating the interaction between straw and N is not new, as you confirmed by presenting a lengthy discussion of studies already conducted by other authors.

The article is good, the results are presented clearly, only the explanation is in the pictures “Data are presented as means ± standard error ”The explanation is incorrect because the averages are not provided. And there is no explanation of what the line means in Figure 1, 2, 3.

The conclusion could be more detailed, e.g., regarding the release of nutrients from the soil. Did the use of N cause the nutrients in the straw to be released and become a source of nutrition for the corn? Does additional N fertilization facilitate the uptake of nutrients from the soil?

Author Response

Comments 1: The goal of regulating the interaction between straw and N is not new, as you confirmed by presenting a lengthy discussion of studies already conducted by other authors.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have strengthened the description of our specific novelty in the Introduction of the article on page 2, line 81 of the article.

 

Comments 2:  The explanation is in the pictures “Data are presented as means ± standard error ”The explanation is incorrect because the averages are not provided. And there is no explanation of what the line means in Figure 1, 2, 3.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have already removed the inappropriate expressions in the image you mentioned on page 3, line 94; page 4, line 125; page 5, line 143;  page 5, line 148; page 6, line 162; page 9, line 221 of the article.

 

Comments 3: The conclusion could be more detailed, e.g., regarding the release of nutrients from the soil. Did the use of N cause the nutrients in the straw to be released and become a source of nutrition for the corn? Does additional N fertilization facilitate the uptake of nutrients from the soil?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have expanded the Conclusions section of the article to address these specific details on page 15, line 469 of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Regulatory effects of 'straw-nitrogen fertilizer' on maize yield enhancement” entails the fertilization effects on tomato growth and soil health. The manuscript's content was written in accordance with the journal's purpose and scope. However, it was determined that the authors made careless punctuation and grammatical errors in the draft. Additionally, some significant shortcomings were highlighted. Some of these are highlighted in the PDF file. You can review the file there and make corrections.

 

TITLE

The title is written well and reflects its contents.

Abstract

It is well prepared and clear.

Introduction

The research question, hypothesis, and goals need to be presented clearly defined. Authors clearly stated the rationale for the study, highlighting research gaps. Some sentences require references to current literature. These are shown in the PDF file. At the end of this section, you need to notice the importance and uniqueness of this study. Because it is well known that a lot of studies have been conducted about different fertilization treatments and plant residue (straw) effects on the nutritional value of soils and the soil environment. A thorough literature review should be conducted, and it should be stated which gaps this article will address.

M&M section

It is well prepared.

Discussion

It is comprehensive and well conducted.

Conclusion

Is brief and reflects well the research results obtained. But I recommend that the authors summarize the key findings for sustainability and elaborate on their practical applications in a global context.

Although generally a well-designed article, it has some important shortcomings that need to be addressed. Perhaps most importantly, the effects of environmental factors, particularly climate, on plant growth are not sufficiently emphasized. How will this study show producers what plant treatments and fertilization can achieve in the future?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: It was determined that the authors made careless punctuation and grammatical errors in the draft. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. All the issues mentioned in the PDF file have been resolved on page 2, line 43; page 2, line 46; page 2, line 67; page 2, line 74 of the article.

 

Comments 2: A thorough literature review should be conducted, and it should be stated which gaps this article will address.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have strengthened the description of our specific novelty in the Introduction of the article on page 2, line 81 of the article.

 

Comments 3: I recommend that the authors summarize the key findings for sustainability and elaborate on their practical applications in a global context.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have added a summary paragraph focusing on sustainability and global application on page 12, line 343 of the article.

 

Comments 4: How will this study show producers what plant treatments and fertilization can achieve in the future?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have elaborated in the Discussion and Conclusions sections of the article on the practical value for producers on page 12, line 371 of the article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I was reading the manuscript "Regulatory effects of “straw-nitrogen fertilizer” on maize yield 2 enhancement" carfully and found it quite interesting and clearly written.

Basically, the are just some minor improvement necessary:

1. Please define the "box" in the abstract... this means, just mention whether if the trial was maintained in pots.
2. There is a shift in the citation numbering (Discussion) as Gao (page 11) should be with [24] and Zhang with [25].
3. Please provide appropriate ciations for the "4.4. Measurement Indices and Methods" mentioned in Materials and methods.
4. I have one additional concern. The whole discussion is documented by citations usually covering almost the whole findings in the manuscript. Please, could you improve (highlight) what is new within this research field provided by your manuscript?

Thank you.

Author Response

Comments 1: Please define the "box" in the abstract... this means, just mention whether if the trial was maintained in pots.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have added text(The box refers to the cylinder used for planting maize.) on page 1, line 15 of the article.

 

Comments 2: There is a shift in the citation numbering (Discussion) as Gao (page 11) should be with [24] and Zhang with [25].

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have already adjusted the incorrect numbering of the references on page 11, line 291 of the article.

 

Comments 3: Please provide appropriate ciations for the "4.4. Measurement Indices and Methods" mentioned in Materials and methods.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have added references to the 'Measurement Indices and Methods' section on page 14, line 426-440 of the article.

 

Comments 4: Please, could you improve (highlight) what is new within this research field provided by your manuscript?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out we agree wth this comment. Therefore we have significantly highlighted the core novelty in the Abstract of the article on page 1, line 21 of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx