Optimizing the Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Vegetable Crops
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear
Nitrogen is the most important nutrient element for all the others. So the subject of this manuscript is of great importance.
Consider simplifying complex sentences to enhance readability.
Clearly state the main problem and the research goal in a concise manner.
Explicitly connect the risks posed by anthropogenic sources to the need for improving Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE).
Clearly link the reductionist understanding of the N cycle to the challenges at a holistic level.
Elaborate on why a holistic understanding is crucial and how it ties into the multi-level interactions in cropping systems, genetics, socioeconomic factors, and the environment.
Conclusion:
Please write clearly and emphasize the practical results of this review.
Summarize the key findings or insights gained from the literature review in a concise and impactful manner.
Consider adding a brief concluding statement that summarizes the main takeaway or importance of the research.
Please look the comments-Corrections in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood quality.
Author Response
Thank-you for the review of this manuscript and for your valuable suggestions.
Point 1.
Consider simplifying complex sentences to enhance readability.
Response, Long sentences were revised in several instances to enhance readability.
Point 2.
Clearly state the main problem and the research goal in a concise manner.
Response. The abstract was revised to more clearly state the main problem and research goals.
Point 3.
Explicitly connect the risks posed by anthropogenic sources to the need for improving Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE).
Response. The link of risks posed by anthropogenic sources and the need for improving NUE is explicitly state in the following text (Lines 70-73): “Despite improved genetics and the adoption of improved production practices, N2O emissions have increased by 64% over the past five decades, with agriculture accounting for 78% of the increased emissions [28], highlighting the importance to improve the NUE in agricultural systems.”
Point 4.
Clearly link the reductionist understanding of the N cycle to the challenges at a holistic level.
Response. The text was revised to better describe the challenge and importance of better evaluating the N cycle following a holistic approach (Lines 547-564]
Point 5.
Elaborate on why a holistic understanding is crucial and how it ties into the multi-level interactions in cropping systems, genetics, socioeconomic factors, and the environment.
Response. The text was revised to indicate that “While a reductionist research approach provides basic N fertilizer recommendations for the commercial production of vegetables, it often fails to incorporate potential system interaction effects, which may have an adverse impact on the NUE on the farm.” adding that a holistic approach will help to “minimize environmental losses, to improve use efficiency, and to establish more resilient systems that will be better adapted to the environmental fluctuations and extremes posed by the specter of climate change” (Lines 553-561).
Point 6.
Conclusion:
Please write clearly and emphasize the practical results of this review.
Summarize the key findings or insights gained from the literature review in a concise and impactful manner.
Consider adding a brief concluding statement that summarizes the main takeaway or importance of the research.
Please look the comments-Corrections in the manuscript.
Response. The conclusions were revised and reformulated to present the results of the study and with proposed recommendations to adopt a more holistic research approach to better understand the dynamics of NUE on the farm.
/////
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author
Review of manuscript ID: nitrogen-2784841:
"Optimizing the Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Vegetable Crops"
I consider the choice of the topic of developing a review publication and publishing it in an international journal to be appropriate. Nitrogen is the element that has the greatest impact on the quantity and quality of plant yields. Unfortunately, it can also have a very large negative impact on the parameters of the natural environment. Collecting the current scientific achievements regarding the conditions and progress in increasing the value of the "Nitrogen Use Efficiency" indicator in one study will be a synthetic source of extensive knowledge for readers. Moreover, the authors point out the need for further research on the possibility of increasing the use of nitrogen by plants from the applied doses of fertilizers. In my opinion, the area of biological reduction of dinitrogen by symbiotic bacteria, as well as the accumulation and use of nitrogen from this source by subsequent plants, requires minor supplementation (e.g. in the paper: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agronomy11030527)
With regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Thank-you for the review of this manuscript and for your valuable suggestions.
Point 1
In my opinion, the area of biological reduction of dinitrogen by symbiotic bacteria, as well as the accumulation and use of nitrogen from this source by subsequent plants, requires minor supplementation (e.g. in the paper: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agronomy11030527)
Response
The importance of legume based N fixation and their use as cover crops to contribute N to the following crop is highlighted in the text. The text states that “Cover crops represent an efficient and practical way to incorporate crop diversification within a farming operation, as part of a rotation program” (L470-471), and several examples with the use of legumes as part of a rotation program, and their respective N contributions to the following crop in the rotation, are then provided (L473-476, and 485-497).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and Author,
I have revised the manuscript entitled “Optimizing the Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Vegetable Crops”.
The review study provides a perspective on the potentials to increase the NUE of vegetable crops, by adopting a range of best management practices and by highlighting some of the N x system interactions that may be considered to better understand the complex dynamics of the N cycle, to optimize the NUE of vegetable crops, and to explore alternatives to the reliance on the use of synthetic N sources.
The study is a good contribution and highlights a subject of great relevance for the sustainability of production environments, the management of nitrogen in vegetable crops. However, some improvements are necessary to improve the manuscript quality to the level of Nitrogen Journal.
The conclusion of the manuscript takes an introductory approach and does not provide a conclusion per se.
The abstract presents the same problem and does not summarize results and conclusions succinctly. This summary of results and conclusions is important in a review study, as well as pointing out where science should look for the future of nitrogen use efficiency in future research. This is currently missing in the current version of the manuscript.
The abstract should be improved, your review study should be more attractive in the abstract section, they are not well presented in current form.
The conclusion section should be great reformulated. You need to present straight the bullet points of the study. In the current form, you have introduction and discussion which confuse the reader.
My decision is to request substantial revision in the manuscript to become suitable for publication.
Specific comments:
It seemed strange to me that the study presents only one author and at times the text is presented in the third person plural. Review the entire manuscript, this may sound bad and generate the suspicion that the text contains elements written by artificial intelligence.
Abstract: any recommendations/ suggestions or concluding remarks would make it nicer;
Line 154 You could be more didactic to explain the Mitscherlich curve, using a figure would be an option;
Line 163 Remove the text 'It should be recognized that' here;
In table 2, be more specific to detail the species contained in 'cereals'; in Region; 'global and range' is confuse, please check;
Line 203 and 216 'include a space'
Line 241 correct NH3
In all tables, when you refer to Crop species, include also the scientific name;
Line 892 - replace 'authors' to 'author'
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English writing of the manuscript is adequate and good.
Author Response
Thank-you for the review of this manuscript and for your valuable suggestions.
Point 1.
The conclusion of the manuscript takes an introductory approach and does not provide a conclusion per se.
Response.
The conclusions (L 870-914) were revised and reformulated to present the results of the study and with proposed recommendations to adopt a more holistic research approach to better understand the dynamics of NUE on the farm.
Point 2.
The abstract presents the same problem and does not summarize results and conclusions succinctly. This summary of results and conclusions is important in a review study, as well as pointing out where science should look for the future of nitrogen use efficiency in future research. This is currently missing in the current version of the manuscript.
Response.
The Abstract (L 6-21) was revised to summarize results and conclusions more succinctly. The abstract also highlights a knowledge gap on the N cycle and NUE in more diversified agricultural systems.
Point 3.
The abstract should be improved, your review study should be more attractive in the abstract section, they are not well presented in current form.
Response.
The Abstract (L 6-21) was revised to summarize results and conclusions more succinctly, and to more clearly describe the nature of the review. The abstract also highlights a knowledge gap on the N cycle and NUE in more diversified agricultural systems.
Point 4.
The conclusion section should be great reformulated. You need to present straight the bullet points of the study. In the current form, you have introduction and discussion which confuse the reader.
Response.
The conclusions (L 870-914) were revised and reformulated to present the results of the study and with proposed recommendations to adopt a more holistic research approach to better understand the dynamics of NUE on the farm.
Point 5.
It seemed strange to me that the study presents only one author and at times the text is presented in the third person plural. Review the entire manuscript, this may sound bad and generate the suspicion that the text contains elements written by artificial intelligence.
Response.
I prefer to use the third person in the manuscript as this is considered a more formal form of writing in academic or research papers. The goal of using the third person is to have the text to appear more objective and less personal.
Point 6.
Abstract: any recommendations/ suggestions or concluding remarks would make it nicer;
Response.
The Abstract (L 6-21) was revised to summarize results and conclusions more succinctly, and to more clearly describe the nature of the review. The abstract also highlights a knowledge gap on the N cycle and NUE in more diversified agricultural systems. Thank-you for the suggestion.
Point 7.
Line 154 You could be more didactic to explain the Mitscherlich curve, using a figure would be an option;
Response.
Additional text was provided to better illustrate the Mitscherlich response curve, which describes the law of diminishing returns. Thank-you for the suggestion.
Point 8.
√ Line 163 Remove the text 'It should be recognized that' here;
Response.
DONE, thank-you for the suggestions.
Point 9.
√ In table 2, be more specific to detail the species contained in 'cereals'; in Region; 'global and range' is confuse, please check;
Response.
DONE, thank-you for the suggestions.
Point 10.
√ Line 203 and 216 'include a space'
Response.
DONE, thank-you for the suggestions.
Point 11.
√ Line 241 correct NH3
Response.
DONE, thank-you for the suggestions.
Point 12.
√ In all tables, when you refer to Crop species, include also the scientific name;
Response.
DONE, thank-you for the suggestions.
Point 13.
√ Line 892 - replace 'authors' to 'author'
Response.
DONE, thank-you for the suggestions.
////
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear
I am happy to read that the majority of the proposed changes have been succesfully incorporated in the manuscript. In my opinion the manuscript could be published. Please read again carefully in order to check for minor english/grammar errors.
Best Regard
Dear
I am happy to read that the majority of the proposed changes have been succesfully incorporated in the manuscript. In my opinion the manuscript could be published. Please read again carefully in order to check for minor english/grammar errors.
Best Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and author,
The revised version of the manuscript met the suggested requests. I consider the manuscript suitable for publication in its current form.
Cordially,
