Three Years After Soybean-Cover-Crop Rotation in Conventional and No-Till Practices: What Are the Consequences on Soil Nitrous Oxide Emissions?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the attached document.

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

Dear Authors,

My comments on your article are stated below.

Introduction Part: 

-The purpose of the study is stated in the last sentence of the introduction, but information can be given in a few sentences about what contributions this study will have for producers and soil.

 Materials and Methods Part:

-Average temperature, humidity and total precipitation values ​​for the years 2020-2023, when the experiment is carried out, should be provided.

- The sentence "the base fertiliser 1:1: 1 (30) was applied at a rate of 200 kg ha-1 at planting." should be explained. Which was fertilizer used as base fertilizer?
- The sentence "There were two soybean plots in each block and each plot was replicated three times, with one plot representing each treatment in each block; in total there were six plots." was not  compatible with the abstract section. Which one is correct?
In fact, this is a serious mistake.

- There is a 5-year rotation but observations are taken in the 3rd year. Why is observation taken in the 3rd year? Also, the planting and harvest dates of soybean and radish plants should be specified each year. Has fertilization been done each year? 

- There are serious contradictions in the method. It is reported that soil samples were taken and analyzed before the trial started in 2020. This section should be written clearly. As far as I understand, the field trials started in 2020. If so, the planting and harvesting dates of the field trial starting in 2020 should be given.

- Was herbicide applied every year and which herbicide was used?

- In addition, why were the soil sampling not obtained for each year? The climatic and growing conditions affect the soil properties. So, the sections in materials and methods should be explained very well for clarity.

Result part:

-The climate data for the year 2022-2023 given in the results section should be given in the material section.

- The CV (%) and mean of the examined dproperties should be given in Table 1.

- The results of the correlation should be discussed in the Results part. No discussion was found in this part.

- The long name of WFPS should be explained at the bottom of Table 1. Also, statistical differences should be explained.

- The figure 5 is not cited in the text. Also the figure should be designed according to their number.

Conclusion Part

- The conclusion section should be rewritten by giving important results and future perspective.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: nitrogen-3649994 Revised review report

I have reviewed the revised version of Manuscript ID: nitrogen-3649994 titled “Three years after soybean-cover-crop rotation in conventional and no-till practices: What are the consequences on soil nitrous oxide emissions?”

The authors have carried out a comprehensive revision and have responded to all my concerns. It is notable to note the following:

1. Authors have revised the abstract following my recommendations.
2. The introduction revised and improved the introduction.
3. The objectives are clearer in the revised manuscript.
4. The experimental design has been clarified.
5. Description of suggested experimental procedures have been improved.
6. Reporting of results has been enhanced.
7. The discussion section has been improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I think your article is better with corrections.

Best regards,