Quantitative Determination of Nitrogen Fixed by Soybean and Its Uptake by Winter Wheat as Aftercrops Within Sustainable Agricultural Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results of their research are clear, and they were analyzed coherently. However, I think they could be better understood by considering the following suggestions:

The processing of the soil and plant samples needs to be described in more detail. For example, how were the samples processed? Were they dried? Were they weighed? How much seed, plant residues, or soil was the N content determined? Also, the names of the techniques used for the determination, along with the names of the equipment used, need to be included.

Data such as irrigation period or system are missing.

Perhaps it should be mentioned whether nodules were detected on soybean plants, indicating the presence of Bradyrhizobium in any treatments, to confirm the biological fixation of atmospheric N.

The data are adequately described in the results and discussion section, however, the support from previous related work seems insufficient

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The results of their research are clear, and they were analyzed coherently. However, I think they could be better understood by considering the following suggestions:

The processing of the soil and plant samples needs to be described in more detail. For example, how were the samples processed? Were they dried? Were they weighed? How much seed, plant residues, or soil was the N content determined? Also, the names of the techniques used for the determination, along with the names of the equipment used, need to be included.

Data such as irrigation period or system are missing.

Perhaps it should be mentioned whether nodules were detected on soybean plants, indicating the presence of Bradyrhizobium in any treatments, to confirm the biological fixation of atmospheric N.

The data are adequately described in the results and discussion section, however, the support from previous related work seems insufficient

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have given us to address the shortcomings pointed out by the reviewers in the original manuscript. We hope that You are satisfied with our revisions and that the modified manuscript will be considered for publication in Sustainability special issue ‘Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Cropping Systems’. We are very grateful for Your valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

Please see below our point by point answers:

We added to the section Materials and methods information about the processing of the soil and plant samples. Moreover we complete with the names of the techniques used for the determination, along with the names of the equipment used in laboratory.

We added the information that plants were grown without irrigation.

In these experiments we did not focus on counting nodules, hence we do not present these results, but of course such observations are valuable and we added information about the presence of nodules to the methodology to confirm the biological fixation of atmospheric N.

The literature on the subject is quite limited, but in accordance with the Reviewer’s suggestion we tried to expand the results and discussion section based on the previously obtained results.

 

We hope that our answer satisfactorily addresses your question and want to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable comment and constructive suggestions.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study identifies the possibility of obtaining nitrogen from the air and finding ways to monitor nitrogen cycling in soybean and wheat rotations, which could be one of the fundamental solutions for increasing plant productivity in sustainable agricultural systems. However, in my opinion, the English needs a bit of work using more precise words in certain places, and there are some comments that need to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript and make it acceptable for publication. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript is appropriate to be published in the journal, but according to following points, some modifications are needed:

The introduction needs to be simplified and does not highlight the purpose of the author's study.

Significance analyses need to be included in the statistical data in the manuscript, and the results and analyses should also be labelled with the appropriate significance.

Please simplify the conclusions section by showing the main conclusions, not a repetition of results, much less a discussion. Therefore, the conclusion should be rewritten.

The conclusion should be simpler and clearer.

References cited need to be up to date and not cite references that are too old.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This study identifies the possibility of obtaining nitrogen from the air and finding ways to monitor nitrogen cycling in soybean and wheat rotations, which could be one of the fundamental solutions for increasing plant productivity in sustainable agricultural systems. However, in my opinion, the English needs a bit of work using more precise words in certain places, and there are some comments that need to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript and make it acceptable for publication. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript is appropriate to be published in the journal, but according to following points, some modifications are needed:

The introduction needs to be simplified and does not highlight the purpose of the author's study.

Significance analyses need to be included in the statistical data in the manuscript, and the results and analyses should also be labelled with the appropriate significance.

Please simplify the conclusions section by showing the main conclusions, not a repetition of results, much less a discussion. Therefore, the conclusion should be rewritten.

The conclusion should be simpler and clearer.

References cited need to be up to date and not cite references that are too old.

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have given us to address the shortcomings pointed out by the reviewers in the original manuscript. We hope that You are satisfied with our revisions and that the modified manuscript will be considered for publication in Sustainability special issue ‘Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Cropping Systems’. We are very grateful for Your valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

Please see below our point by point answers:

We simplified the introduction section and highlighted the purpose of our study.

We added ANOVA with the appropriate significance results to the results section (in brackets).

We rewritten the conclusion section to show the main conclusions, not as repetition of results and much less a discussion, just to simplify as Reviewer suggested, but we also focused on relevant results and close with perspectives, applications and functionality of the research.

We rewritten the conclusion to be simpler and clearer as Reviewer indicated.

The literature on the subject is quite limited, but in accordance with the Reviewer’s suggestion we tried to cite new references and to delete too old one.

We hope that our answer satisfactorily addresses your question and want to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable comment and constructive suggestions.

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the research is interesting since it is important for soil use and conservation to carry out this type of monitoring.

The title is too long (25 words), and it should be aligned with the hypothesis, objective and conclusion. It  give the appearance to be describing what the research group did.

ABSTRACT

There is not any comment on this section because it is necessary to make corrections in the body text.

INTRODUCTION

Line 37-44.  It is a complex sentence with facts, so it needs to be citated.

Line 63-64    Citation

Line 83-84     IDEM

Line 88-90     IDEM

Line 97-99     IDEM

Line 112-125.  It is a paragraph that is too long, so dived and make the respective citations to the information.

Line 141-146.  Usually, at the end of the introduction, there is where we make emphasis to the general purpose of the research. It is necessary to mention the hypothesis, general objective and GAP because this is not clear. As I consider it is clear for the research group but not for the reader. However, is necessary a closing sentence that could be perspectives of the research.

M & M

149-151 The first sentence needs to answer the following questions: Where? When? How?

151-153 Starts as…. Soil physical characteristics where…. It is understandable that it is from the experimental site

153-155.  Connect with the sentence above… Also, some chemical properties where determinated….

In this sentences there is doubt.  The hydrogen potential goes without units. Why KCl?

155-156  Connect with the sentence above… However, the nutritional analysis revealed that the experimental site has levels of P, K and Mg …..

156-157 Meteorological conditions were recorded during the experiment.

168  Make it in uniform format

173 IDEM

174 IDEM

Figure 1. Put the units to the left of the graph. They show the historical of temperature and precipitation but in the results and discussion it information was not mention or compared with nothing.

188-193 There is no context to assume that goes in results or even in conclusions. This es M & M

194 There is no description of operational conditions of the equipment (Pressure, temperature, injection volume, flow..)

Line 211 There is clear that it was a field experiment, it was mentioned at the beginning of the M & M, but this is repetitive in the text.

Line 226-227 Make a connection of your results with the example.

Line 452 It is necessary to start the conclusion with the hypothesis and re-establish the objective. Then, make emphasis on relevant results and close with perspectives, applications and functionality of the research and also which could be GAP for  future research.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

In general, the research is interesting since it is important for soil use and conservation to carry out this type of monitoring.

The title is too long (25 words), and it should be aligned with the hypothesis, objective and conclusion. It  give the appearance to be describing what the research group did.

ABSTRACT

There is not any comment on this section because it is necessary to make corrections in the body text.

INTRODUCTION

Line 37-44.  It is a complex sentence with facts, so it needs to be citated.

Line 63-64    Citation

Line 83-84     IDEM

Line 88-90     IDEM

Line 97-99     IDEM

Line 112-125.  It is a paragraph that is too long, so dived and make the respective citations to the information.

Line 141-146.  Usually, at the end of the introduction, there is where we make emphasis to the general purpose of the research. It is necessary to mention the hypothesis, general objective and GAP because this is not clear. As I consider it is clear for the research group but not for the reader. However, is necessary a closing sentence that could be perspectives of the research.

M & M

149-151 The first sentence needs to answer the following questions: Where? When? How?

151-153 Starts as…. Soil physical characteristics where…. It is understandable that it is from the experimental site

153-155.  Connect with the sentence above… Also, some chemical properties where determinated….

In this sentences there is doubt.  The hydrogen potential goes without units. Why KCl?

155-156  Connect with the sentence above… However, the nutritional analysis revealed that the experimental site has levels of P, K and Mg …..

156-157 Meteorological conditions were recorded during the experiment.

168  Make it in uniform format

173 IDEM

174 IDEM

Figure 1. Put the units to the left of the graph. They show the historical of temperature and precipitation but in the results and discussion it information was not mention or compared with nothing.

188-193 There is no context to assume that goes in results or even in conclusions. This es M & M

194 There is no description of operational conditions of the equipment (Pressure, temperature, injection volume, flow..)

Line 211 There is clear that it was a field experiment, it was mentioned at the beginning of the M & M, but this is repetitive in the text.

Line 226-227 Make a connection of your results with the example.

Line 452 It is necessary to start the conclusion with the hypothesis and re-establish the objective. Then, make emphasis on relevant results and close with perspectives, applications and functionality of the research and also which could be GAP for  future research.

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have given us to address the shortcomings pointed out by the reviewers in the original manuscript. We hope that You are satisfied with our revisions and that the modified manuscript will be considered for publication in Sustainability special issue ‘Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Cropping Systems’. We are very grateful for Your valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

Please see below our point by point answers:

We changed the title to be aligned with the hypothesis, objective and conclusion as Reviewer suggested.

Line 37-44. These are Prof. Kalembasa one of co-authors words, but of course we tried to cite some similar literature.

Line 63-64 These are Prof. Kalembasa one of co-authors words, but of course we tried to cite some similar literature.

Line 83-84 These are Prof. Kalembasa one of co-authors words, but of course we tried to cite some similar literature.

 

Line 88-90 These are Prof. Kalembasa one of co-authors words, but of course we tried to cite some similar literature.

Line 97-99 These are Prof. Kalembasa one of co-authors words, but of course we tried to cite some similar literature.

Line 112-125. We dived and make the respective citations to the information in this paragraph to be shorter.

Line 141-146 We rephrased the paragraph to show general purpose of the research according to hypothesis, general objective and GAP, to be more clear for reader. Also we added a closing sentence that could be perspectives of the research as Reviewer suggested.

M & M

149-151 we tried to add to the first sentence answers the following questions: Where? When? How?

151-153 we added information ‘from the experimental site’

153-155. we connected with the sentence above… Also, some chemical properties where determinated….we added units.

We added units to total nitrogen. Soil pH was measured after flooding the soil with 1 M KCl solution. This is in line with the recommendations for soil pH measurement in Poland. In addition, 1 M KCl is listed in the procedure describing pH determination included in ISO 10390:2021.

155-156 we connected with the sentence above… However, the nutritional analysis revealed that the experimental site has levels of P, K and Mg …..

156-157 we added information that meteorological conditions were recorded during the experiment.

168  we made it in uniform format

173 IDEM

174 IDEM

Figure 1.The units are located on the left side of the graph in our opinion correct on the Y axis. We added some comments to results.

188-193 we removed it.

194 we have supplemented the methods with laboratory equipment and detailed information

Line 211 we removed repetition.

Line 226-227 we made a connection of our results with the example cited.

Line 452 we rewritten the conclusion starting with the hypothesis and re-establish the objective. Then, we emphasized relevant results and close with perspectives, applications and functionality of the research and also which could be GAP for future research as Reviewer suggested.

We hope that our answer satisfactorily addresses your question and want to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable comment and constructive suggestions.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

some sentences and captions would need improvement to increase readability 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some sentences and captions would need improvement to increase readability 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

some sentences and captions would need improvement to increase readability

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have given us to address the shortcomings pointed out by the reviewers in the original manuscript. We hope that You are satisfied with our revisions and that the modified manuscript will be considered for publication in Sustainability special issue ‘Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Cropping Systems’. We are very grateful for Your valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

All the comments included in pdf file were adapted in the manuscript according to Reviewer suggestions. Please see the changes in new version of manuscript saved with change tracking.

We hope that our answer satisfactorily addresses your question and want to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable comment and constructive suggestions.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the current and important issues related to the study of nitrogen fixation. It investigates the biological nitrogen fixation in soybeans and its subsequent impact on nitrogen uptake by successive crops, particularly winter wheat, within a crop rotation system. The study aims to ascertain the potential for nitrogen acquisition from the atmosphere and to develop a methodology for monitoring the nitrogen cycle in a soybean-wheat crop rotation.

The study demonstrates that biological nitrogen fixation in soybeans is an underestimated fundamental solution for enhancing crop productivity within sustainable agricultural systems. It holds significant implications for planning rational fertilizer management, reducing the application of chemical fertilizers, and improving nitrogen use efficiency within crop rotation systems.

However, there are following issues that should be clarified:

Comments 1: The abstract provides a good overview of the study's purpose, methods, and key findings. However, it could be more concise.

Comments 2: In the section of Materials and Methods, verify that all methods and materials are described with enough detail for replication. If statistical analyses were used, the type of test used should be detailed. 

Comments 3: Use tables and figures effectively to present data. Ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Besides, consider summarizing the data in the text before delving into specific details in the tables and figures.

Comments 4: In the lines 203-204. How the results provide a base for the calculation of analyzed parameters according to the formulas presented by Kalembasa et al. 

Comments 5: In the lines 218-219, Why yield of seeds was slightly higher than Panasiewicz et al’ s research? Is it possible to explain why?

Comments 6: In the conclusions, it is possible to summarize the research done and then put an ordinal number to the conclusions to make the organization clearer. 

Comments 7: Address the study's limitations and how they might affect the interpretation of the results. Discuss the practical applications of the research findings and the future research direction.

Comments 8: Check for any missing recent references that could provide additional context or support for the study's findings.

Author Response

Reviewer 5

The paper addresses the current and important issues related to the study of nitrogen fixation. It investigates the biological nitrogen fixation in soybeans and its subsequent impact on nitrogen uptake by successive crops, particularly winter wheat, within a crop rotation system. The study aims to ascertain the potential for nitrogen acquisition from the atmosphere and to develop a methodology for monitoring the nitrogen cycle in a soybean-wheat crop rotation.

The study demonstrates that biological nitrogen fixation in soybeans is an underestimated fundamental solution for enhancing crop productivity within sustainable agricultural systems. It holds significant implications for planning rational fertilizer management, reducing the application of chemical fertilizers, and improving nitrogen use efficiency within crop rotation systems.

However, there are following issues that should be clarified:

Comments 1: The abstract provides a good overview of the study's purpose, methods, and key findings. However, it could be more concise.

Comments 2: In the section of Materials and Methods, verify that all methods and materials are described with enough detail for replication. If statistical analyses were used, the type of test used should be detailed. 

Comments 3: Use tables and figures effectively to present data. Ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Besides, consider summarizing the data in the text before delving into specific details in the tables and figures.

Comments 4: In the lines 203-204. How the results provide a base for the calculation of analyzed parameters according to the formulas presented by Kalembasa et al. 

Comments 5: In the lines 218-219, Why yield of seeds was slightly higher than Panasiewicz et al’ s research? Is it possible to explain why?

Comments 6: In the conclusions, it is possible to summarize the research done and then put an ordinal number to the conclusions to make the organization clearer. 

Comments 7: Address the study's limitations and how they might affect the interpretation of the results. Discuss the practical applications of the research findings and the future research direction.

Comments 8: Check for any missing recent references that could provide additional context or support for the study's findings.

 

 

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have given us to address the shortcomings pointed out by the reviewers in the original manuscript. We hope that You are satisfied with our revisions and that the modified manuscript will be considered for publication in Sustainability special issue ‘Sustainability Assessment of Agricultural Cropping Systems’. We are very grateful for Your valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

Please see below our point by point answers:

Comments 1: We tried to make abstract more concise.

Comments 2: We have supplemented the section of Materials and Methods with the laboratory equipment and detailed information. Also test used in statistical was added in detailed.

Comments 3: We confirmed that our tables and figures effectively present data. All figures and tables are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. We added some summarizing the data in the text before delving into specific details in the tables and figures as Reviewer suggested.

Comments 4: In the lines 203-204 to avoid repetitions we just cited Kalembasa et al., without showing formulas. Laboratory analyzed parameters (yield and chemical analysis) were calculated with the use of these formulas, so they stated a base for new parameters.

Comments 5: In the lines 218-219, Unfortunately there is no possible explanation, even the same early cultivar with the same sowing dates was used.

Comments 6: We rewritten the conclusions to make it more clearer, but we cannot put them in an ordinal number because of editorial requirements and comments to another Reviewer suggesting to emphasize relevant results and close with perspectives, applications and functionality of the research…

Comments 7: We added to discussion the study's limitations and how they might affect the interpretation of the results. We also tried to discuss the practical applications of the research findings and the future research direction.

Comments 8: The literature on this subject is quite limited but we tried to find the latest references that could provide additional context or support for our findings and provide them to discussion section as Reviewer suggested.

We hope that our answer satisfactorily addresses your question and we want to express our sincere appreciation for your valuable comment and constructive suggestions.

Sincerely,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider this manuscript to be at a publishable level.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We are very grateful for valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal, which was confirmed by the attached certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can still be improved, I have mased few suggestions for your consideration

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the english can be improved 

Author Response

We are very grateful for Your valuable suggestions and for considering our work.

All the comments included in pdf file were adapted in the manuscript according to suggestions. 

The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal, which was confirmed by the attached certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf