Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report

General

This manuscript was to investigate the impact of nitrogen and sulphur fertilisation on the yield, protein content and fat content of the winter oilseed rape cultivar LG Absolut. The result showed that the highest seed yields were obtained with the application of 200 kg N ha^-1 combined with sulphur. The highest fat and protein yields were obtained after the application of 200 kg N ha-1 28 together with sulphur. A high-fat yield was also recorded for the lower nitrogen dose (150 kg ha-1 ) 29 when combined with higher sulphur doses. I believe that the study is relevant to the aims and scope of the “Nitrogen”. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it can be accepted for publication in this journal.

Specific comments will follow below.

Abstract: 

L18, “In a single-factor experiment”, two nitrogen fertilisation variants (150 or 18 200 kg ha^-1 ) were compared in combination with three additional sulphur fertilisation doses (20, 40, 19 or 60 kg ha^-1 ). There are obviously two factors here, why a single factor design?

Introduction:

L109, The introduction of the main idea of this study is a little sudden, so it is suggested to add some transitional sentences. 

Materials and Methods:

L147, The introduction of the main idea of this study is a little sudden, so it is suggested to add some transitional sentences. 

Results: 

In order to make the chart beautiful, it is suggested to change the horizontal and vertical coordinates and scale lines of all the graphs in the paper to black, and unify the scale lines on the inside or outside. In addition, It is repeatedly mentioned in the paper that some indicators are affected by weather conditions, how to define this, need to do a correlation analysis. 

L212, The bar chart is incomplete, has no axis title, and the picture below has the same situation, please correct. 

L215, It is suggested to use some data representation in the description of the column chart, and to compare the different processing, please make the same correction in the full text.

L235, This paragraph lacks logic and may confuse the reader by jumping directly to yield differences in specific years and treatments while discussing the effects of sulphur fertilizer on low and high doses of nitrogen fertilizer. Logical coherence can be improved by adding transitional sentences or paragraphs. 

Discussion:

The discussion section, when citing the results of different studies, should more clearly point out the similarities and differences between these studies and how they work together to support or refute the conclusions of the current studies. For the introduction of different findings, an in-depth analysis of possible reasons should be carried out, rather than simply listing these findings. 

Conclusion:

Embellish and refine the conclusion to ensure clear and accurate expression. 

L427, The conclusion part does not need to be compared between processes anymore. It is suggested to delete and simplify the conclusion part to ensure that the conclusion part is clearly expressed, accurate and in line with academic norms. 

Other suggestions are detailed in the annotations to the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several comments in the manuscript.

All findings were already reported by other researchers

Too long discussion for known effects on yield parameters considering the above.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

this study is very interesting with scientific and practical importance. The manuscript is about the impact of nitrogen and sulphur fertilization on yield of the winter oilseed rape cultivar LG Absolut. Effectiveness of N and S fertilization varied between individual years. Fertilization with a higher dose of nitrogen without sulphur significantly increased seed yield compared to a lower dose. The additional application of sulphur was advantageous for both the lower and higher nitrogen doses. On the basis of the results, authors are recommended that for soils with moderate levels of mineral nitrogen and sulphur, fertilization of winter oilseed rape has to be with 200 kg N ha^-1 combined with 20 or 40 kg S ha^-1.

In the manuscript, introduction section is very well and clear written. The materials and methods section is very well written and given in details. The results are presented in 3 tables and 6 figures are relevant to the proposed study. The discussion is very detailed and appropriate in the context of the results. The conclusions are supported by the results. The references are appropriate in the field of study.

Before accepting of the manuscript, following parts have to be corrected:

 

15,18,...  fertilisation  >          fertilization          in the entire manuscript

18        (150 or            >          (150 and        

20        or 60                >          and 60

22,29   with sulphur.   >          which sulphur fertilization dose?

50        [11, 12]           >          [11,12]            without space between brackets in the entire manuscript

 

203      Figure 1.

            Temperature ^oC          >          Temperature (^oC)

            Legend - not labeled precipitation and temperature 

>          for bars: Multi-year (mm), and for lines: Multi-year (^oC)

 

386      Losak [2003]      >     reference citation number should be in brackets

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you once more for your valuable time and expertise.  Your guidance has been immensely appreciated. 
Yours sincerely, 
Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As in my previous review I pointed that Table 2 does not provide any information related to the study.

I still believe that the discussion is too long i.e. lines 316-337 about weather conditions could be shorter: 10 lines maximum.

Author Response

Comments 1

As in my previous review I pointed that Table 2 does not provide any information related to the study.

Response 1:

We agree with the comment and accept it. Table no. 2 has been removed

 

Comments 1

I still believe that the discussion is too long i.e. lines 316-337 about weather conditions could be shorter: 10 lines maximum.

Response 1:

We agree with the reviewer's remark and commentary. Therefore, the Discussion section has been shortened. The unnecessary reference to literature has been removed.