Effects of Water-Saving Irrigation on Direct-Seeding Rice Yield and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in North China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study demonstrated that furrow wetting irrigation is a climate-smart irrigation practice for rice cultivation with an acceptable yield and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It will also be an effective practice in limited irrigation regions. This manuscript is well-designed, and the authors describe the experimentation in detail in the method section. The objective is clear, and the experimental findings are adequate to support the objectives of this study. The overall writing and quality of the presentation are satisfactory. This manuscript may be accepted for publication:

I have the following comments/suggestions to improve the manuscript:

L105: it should be the 'panicle initiation stage'.

L108: maintain the superscript and subscript (P2O5). 

L188: it is not clear whether it is the panicles number or others. If yes, write it as 'Number of Panicles' in the whole ms. 

If relevant, cite this 10.32604/phyton.2022.018898

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have investigated the effects of water-saving irrigation on direct-seeding rice yield and greenhouse gas emissions in North China. The attained data are of interest to readers, agronomists, and farmers to increase water use efficiency further. However, the paper has not been well documented and organized; there are many weak points that must be revised and edited to improve the quality of the article. Some comments and suggestions may be helpful for the authors as below:

1. The abstract must be reworded and further emphasized, this study was done on two consecutive years
2. Introduction must be revised, and add more information on why this topic is important to investigate. As the objective study, the authors stated "Our objectives were to assess the impacts of the new planting techniques and water management practice on the rice growth and development, grain yield and CH4 and N2O emission". It needs to reconfirm that is " new planting techniques" and must be focused on discussion and added in the abstract part as the methodology.
3. Materials and Methods: Much information needs to be explained, for instance, as shown in Fig 1, how did the author have those data? without the cited references.
4. In subsection, "2.3", why no K fertilizer was not applied, should explain?
5. Add a separate subsection as "Statistical data analyses" 
6. Generally, Materials and Methods should be rewritten and added more specific methods which directly related to the obtained results, for example: How to calculate rice growth?, how to measure rice yield? theory and real yield components? how to calculate spikelets panicle? and grain weight, and did the author calculate unfilled? spikeletets? 
7. Discussion should be improved by adding more worldwide studies related to the current topic
8. The Conclusion part must be reworded by adding specific significant data of this study
9. English language must be judiciously many grammar, spelling, typing errors and confusing sentences are available in this paper 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the efforts but the manuscript lacks some basic requirements and should be improved.

I have critically reviewed the article “Effect of water-saving irrigation on direct seeding rice yield and greenhouse gas emissions in North China” and found some discrepancies needed to be removed/revised for further processing.

Abstract: brief history is required which prepares the base of the study why you have chosen such research area. Rice is not an important crop around the globe then what is the implication of the study in Europe and Australia etc…?

Introduction: introduction is full of common sentences with ordinary information which almost known to everyone already. Objectives are missing in this section. Aim of the study is not an aim its just a statement.

Methodology: line 129: irrigation time for CK, DI1, DI2 and FMI is 13, 13, 13 and 18 days. Why 13 days for 1^st three cores and 18 for the last variate? Any reference or strong reason?

GHG sampling: what is this any equation or model which was used to calculate GHG. The equation given in this section is enough?

Results are presented in an ordinary way (Tabular results)

Discussion section is needed to be enhanced with a comparison of your findings with other studies especially conducted around the globe. Make a comparison of your findings with pre and post pandemic of COVID-19 as well if possible.

The conclusion is required to rewrite.

I haven’t seen any recent reference except 1 or 2 of 2019. All the references were coded from the studies conducted in 2001-2013. Recheck the references coded in the study and make changes accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been critically revised and edited by the authors. Before publishing, the authors are requested to judiciously edit and check spelling, English grammar, and cited references. Some minor highlights and corrections have been tracked in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf