Phosphorus Application during Rapeseed Season Combined with Straw Return Improves Crop Productivity and Soil Bacterial Diversity in Rape-Rice Rotation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
It s a good work and a significant improvement in draft has been observed compared to previous draft. The Weather data may also be considered for synchronizing the result so as the straw return treatments , its decomposition on return and microbial community/diversity is also dependent on weather conditions. Bacteria are also active for decomposition and provision of excess phosphorus when temperatures are fairly high which is usually not the case for rape s growing season which is cool season. Further in rice season the system gets more water which in one aspect has good hydrolytic properties to breakdown the returned straw in field. A side study of the material to be returned can be tested in open air in a pot or container without mixing in soil. Checking the loss in weight after the complete season to know about volatile losses and decomposition process as well. As of now it is a good agronomic study with due emphasis on the agri residue return which need to be enhanced definitely and is a genuine consequence for recommending it to farmers but the Allelopathic effect may also can not be ignored especially in case of rotation of rape-rice.
The rape plant and rice plant both give out some chemicals in root zone which are allelochemicals and may hinder the growth of subsequent crop.
The P2 treatment has been given a natural advantage if seen from the doses in treatments, which seems to be a biased planning or error in research designing.
Further more the doses of 0, 90, 120 may have statistical variation and periodic adjustment in treatment may not give incremental effect as it may be with equal gaps in doses, 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 or other sub sets.
Author Response
It s a good work and a significant improvement in draft has been observed compared to previous draft. The Weather data may also be considered for synchronizing the result so as the straw return treatments , its decomposition on return and microbial community/diversity is also dependent on weather conditions. Bacteria are also active for decomposition and provision of excess phosphorus when temperatures are fairly high which is usually not the case for rape s growing season which is cool season. Further in rice season the system gets more water which in one aspect has good hydrolytic properties to breakdown the returned straw in field. A side study of the material to be returned can be tested in open air in a pot or container without mixing in soil. Checking the loss in weight after the complete season to know about volatile losses and decomposition process as well. As of now it is a good agronomic study with due emphasis on the agri residue return which need to be enhanced definitely and is a genuine consequence for recommending it to farmers but the Allelopathic effect may also can not be ignored especially in case of rotation of rape-rice.
Thank you for editor’ and reviewers’ opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript.
The rape plant and rice plant both give out some chemicals in root zone which are allelochemicals and may hinder the growth of subsequent crop.
Thank you. Rape-rice rotation system is a common water and drought rotation system. Soil drying-wetting alternation, differently genetic characteristics of rape / rice and different growth environments reduce the negative effects of root allelochemicals on subsequent crops. In terms of phosphorus utilization, root exudates and straw returning can improve soil phosphorus availability by promoting the dissolution of phosphate minerals and the activity of related phosphorus soluble bacteria
The P2 treatment has been given a natural advantage if seen from the doses in treatments, which seems to be a biased planning or error in research designing.
Thank you. In this study, the yield of rapeseed and rice under P2 treatment was lower than that under P3 treatment, indicating that phosphorus application level under high-yield cultivation conditions of rapeseed and rice ( P2 ) would inhibit the increase of rapeseed and rice yield. In terms of microorganisms, there was no significant difference in soil bacterial diversity between P2 and P3, and the bacterial diversity of P2 and P3 reached the highest in each phosphorus treatment. At the same time, the promotion effect of straw returning on crops and bacteria was also found in this study. In summary, T2P3 treatment was the optimal treatment in this experiment.
Further more the doses of 0, 90, 120 may have statistical variation and periodic adjustment in treatment may not give incremental effect as it may be with equal gaps in doses, 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 or other sub sets.
Thank you.The amount of phosphate fertilizer used in this study is based on the amount of phosphate fertilizer used in high-yield cultivation of rape and rice. In view of the low utilization efficiency of phosphorus fertilizer, long after-effect time and large amount of straw, explore the appropriate phosphorus fertilizer application mode and straw promotion effect suitable for rape - rice rotation, hoping to achieve the purpose of reducing phosphorus and increasing efficiency and stabilizing yield and income.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript " "Phosphorus application during rapeseed season combined with straw return improves crop productivity and soil bacterial diversity in rape-rice rotation" is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal. Authors studied the combined benefits of straw return with P application on the system productivity and soil microbial community. Overall, manuscript is well structured and can be improved further by considering the following suggestions:
Authors should add some photographs of the experiment for phenotypic view
The nutrient contents i.e., NPK in below and above ground plant parts must be determined and added
Why authors used RCDB rather split plot? how authors managed mechanized straw return in RCBD?
What were the basis of cultivar selection?
In addition to soil microbial community, soil physical properties can also be added to further explore the soil health improvements owing to straw return
It would be more suitable to add economic analyses, for the application point of view at farmer scale.
Discussion should be more mechanistic. Following literature might be helpful in this regard:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2021.12.008
https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20578
There are some minor corrections so i suggest authors to must read the manuscript carefully to avoid such mistakes/typos. One of the example is
Line 146: The absorbance was measured at 663, 646, 145 and 4720 nm; 4720 nm is incorrect.
Table 2: 1000-weight can be replaced with 1000-grain weight
Author Response
The manuscript " "Phosphorus application during rapeseed season combined with straw return improves crop productivity and soil bacterial diversity in rape-rice rotation" is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal. Authors studied the combined benefits of straw return with P application on the system productivity and soil microbial community. Overall, manuscript is well structured and can be improved further by considering the following suggestions:
Authors should add some photographs of the experiment for phenotypic view
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions. We added relevant pictures as phenotypic references for experimental results in future experiments.
The nutrient contents i.e., NPK in below and above ground plant parts must be determined and added
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions. The exploration of other nutrients will be supplemented in future experiments.
Why authors used RCDB rather split plot? how authors managed mechanized straw return in RCBD?
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions. In the process of experimental design, the annual rotation cycle and fixed-point test were considered, so the random block could better reflect the effect of phosphorus fertilizer application in the test. In this experiment, the straw was crushed and the straw was buried by a small rotary tiller.
What were the basis of cultivar selection?
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions. In the experiment, the high-yield varieties mainly promoted in the production area were used as test materials.
In addition to soil microbial community, soil physical properties can also be added to further explore the soil health improvements owing to straw return
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions. We will consider these aspects in future experiments.
It would be more suitable to add economic analyses, for the application point of view at farmer scale.
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions.
Discussion should be more mechanistic. Following literature might be helpful in this regard:
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions. we have already modify it.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2021.12.008
https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20578
There are some minor corrections so i suggest authors to must read the manuscript carefully to avoid such mistakes/typos. One of the example is
Thank you for reviewers’ opinions.
Line 146: The absorbance was measured at 663, 646, 145 and 4720 nm; 4720 nm is incorrect.
Thank you, we have already modify it.
Table 2: 1000-weight can be replaced with 1000-grain weight
Thank you, we have already modify it.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors made a lot of improvements in the manuscript. Accept the mansucript
Author Response
Thank you for your comment.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Rapeseed Season phosphorus application combined with Straw Returning improves Crop Productivity and Soil Bacterial Diversity in rape-rice rotation" is very interesting. It can be accepted with major revision
1. Modify the title
2. Line number 18-19: The results shown taht the maximun rpesed grian yields of T2P3 was increased by 15.57% and 21.05% in 2019, 18.02% and 32.69% in 2020 compared with T2P2 and T2P4, respectivly. Check spellings and grammars of this sentence
3. Hypothesis of the study is missing
4. line number 64: Sun et al. Check this citation
5. Results and discussion are neatly presented. Check the citations lot of mistakes in the sentences.
6. Conclusion: include the major findings of the study with limitations and future line of work.
Reviewer 2 Report
English is very hard to understand. A lot of Grammatical and spell mistakes. No sentence is properly formatted. No sensible argument.
