Productivity of Rainfed Winter Wheat with Direct Sowing and Economic Efficiency of Diversified Fertilization in Arid Region of South Kazakhstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
I have provided detailed comments and suggestions on pdf.
The article is interesting and of high importance but needs extensive revision. Please, follow the attached pdf file. Thanks
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Answers to the reviewer 1:
The affiliations of the first two authors are the same.
Line 74: the citation was inserted according to the instructions of the journal
Line 104: Agree: information on the mean annual air temperature, precipitation and sunshine is added.
Line 107: Agree: types of the relief is listed.
Line 109: Agree: more information added about Sierosem soil
Line 113: Agree: longitude and latitude are added
Line 120: Agree: RCBD experimental design is added
Line 136: Agree: „decade“ is replaced by „10-days“ throughout the text.
137: Agree: the method for soil moisture determination is added.
140: The start of a phenological phase doesn’t always fall on the same calendar day or have a defined time period. Therefore, we followed the biological development of plants to record the moment when the phenologial phase started.
164: Agree: Information on a biometric characterization is added
168-169: Agree: corrected as suggested
174-177: These are our results and data obtianed during this study
194: „Full shoots...“ –is highlighted, but there is no any comments of the reviewer. If this is addressed to the terminology „shoots“, then it is common name of the sprouting .
201-210: The paragraph doesn’t repeat any text. It discusses the results from the previous paragraph.
208-209: the word „November“ is not repeating word but mentioned again for comparison with October.
213: We agree: at first mention the „pcs“ were corrected for „pieces“. In the rest of the text „pieces“ were replaced by „pcs“.
214: the „2020“ is deleted
223: We agree: „pcs/m2 „is corrected for pcs m-2 in the places where needed.
224-225: We agree: the sentence is corrected.
236-239: We agree that this sentence is related to the results, but this specific timing of the field work is related to this particular case. For the convenience of readers' understanding, we have moved this paragraph from the "Materials and Methods" section here.
240: We agree: „decade“ is replaced by „10 day“
241: we agree: corrected as suggested
265: We agree: the sub-sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 were combined as suggested
274-277: We agree: the sentence is deleted
290-292: Agree: the sentence is moved
305-306: Agree: the sentence is deleted
309-311: Agree: the sentence is rephrased
314, 316-31: the „decade“ is replaced by „10 days“
349: 32.0 is corrected for 302.0
349: pieces/m2 are replaced by pcs m-2
354: „on“ is corrected for „in“
361-368: the paragraph is re-written as suggested
375-385: the paragraph is re-written as suggested. The references are included
421-424: the sentence is deleted
452: ïmprover”is replaced by “regulators”
Reviewer 2 Report
L47-53: though conservation agriculture is considered eco-friendly but it enhances growth of weeds and insects specially in zero tillage practice, weeds create huge problems further. As L70-79 mentioned this point, but author should address and justify the matter well.
L57: what about the other sources of soil moisture in the southern Kazakhstan?
L62: If mulch materials provided artificially using traditional tillage system instead of zero/minimum tillage what will happened? Is this feasible
L64-68: sometimes weeds kill crops 100% even balanced fertilizer provided.
L125: Why P30, 45 is taken? Same as for N.
L126: What would be happened if GS and MNF applied separately? Why they were together?
L469-471: Delete
L472-477: describe with some results data
L508: So many self-citation for Saljnikov!! Kept it within more minmum
Author Response
Answers to the reviewer 2:
The affiliations of the first two authors are the same.
Line 74: the citation was inserted according to the instructions of the journal
Line 104: Agree: information on the mean annual air temperature, precipitation and sunshine is added.
Line 107: Agree: types of the relief is listed.
Line 109: Agree: more information added about Sierosem soil
Line 113: Agree: longitude and latitude are added
Line 120: Agree: RCBD experimental design is added
Line 136: Agree: „decade“ is replaced by „10-days“ throughout the text.
137: Agree: the method for soil moisture determination is added.
140: The start of a phenological phase doesn’t always fall on the same calendar day or have a defined time period. Therefore, we followed the biological development of plants to record the moment when the phenologial phase started.
164: Agree: Information on a biometric characterization is added
168-169: Agree: corrected as suggested
174-177: These are our results and data obtianed during this study
194: „Full shoots...“ –is highlighted, but there is no any comments of the reviewer. If this is addressed to the terminology „shoots“, then it is common name of the sprouting .
201-210: The paragraph doesn’t repeat any text. It discusses the results from the previous paragraph.
208-209: the word „November“ is not repeating word but mentioned again for comparison with October.
213: We agree: at first mention the „pcs“ were corrected for „pieces“. In the rest of the text „pieces“ were replaced by „pcs“.
214: the „2020“ is deleted
223: We agree: „pcs/m2 „is corrected for pcs m-2 in the places where needed.
224-225: We agree: the sentence is corrected.
236-239: We agree that this sentence is related to the results, but this specific timing of the field work is related to this particular case. For the convenience of readers' understanding, we have moved this paragraph from the "Materials and Methods" section here.
240: We agree: „decade“ is replaced by „10 day“
241: we agree: corrected as suggested
265: We agree: the sub-sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 were combined as suggested
274-277: We agree: the sentence is deleted
290-292: Agree: the sentence is moved
305-306: Agree: the sentence is deleted
309-311: Agree: the sentence is rephrased
314, 316-31: the „decade“ is replaced by „10 days“
349: 32.0 is corrected for 302.0
349: pieces/m2 are replaced by pcs m-2
354: „on“ is corrected for „in“
361-368: the paragraph is re-written as suggested
375-385: the paragraph is re-written as suggested. The references are included
421-424: the sentence is deleted
452: ïmprover”is replaced by “regulators”
Answers to reviewer 1
L47-53: though conservation agriculture is considered eco-friendly but it enhances growth of weeds and insects specially in zero tillage practice, weeds create huge problems further. As L70-79 mentioned this point, but author should address and justify the matter well.
Thank you for your comment. We have added a sentence about risks of overuse of pecticides and necessity of studying new generation weed-control chemicals and biopreparats.
L57: what about the other sources of soil moisture in the southern Kazakhstan?
The climatic conditions of the studied region are sutable for growing winter cereals. Winter wheat here is grown under a rainfed farming without irrigation. We have added this information in the text.
L62: If mulch materials provided artificially using traditional tillage system instead of zero/minimum tillage what will happened? Is this feasible
Mulching, used in traditional farming (conventional tillage), helps to minimize moisture evaporation from the soil, regulate soil temperatures and, in some cases, replenish lost organic carbon. But with traditional tillage, even with mulching, the decomposition (mineralization) of organic carbon in the soil occurs more intensively. This means: loss of soil organic carbon, that is, soil fertility and an increase in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
L64-68: sometimes weeds kill crops 100% even balanced fertilizer provided.
Yes, we agree with you. Therefore, new generation pecticides must be tested. We added this information in the next paragraph.
L125: Why P30, 45 is taken? Same as for N.
This doses of P and N had been established long ago as optimal doses for this arid region where is no leaching of nutrients. In Europe and other more humid regions the doses are much higher. But in the conditions of very low precipitation and no irrigation, higher doses of P and N fertilizer will kill (burn) plants.
L126: What would be happened if GS and MNF applied separately? Why they were together?
Growth stimulant is a biological preparation for stimulating plant growth in arid conditions. And micronutrient fertilizers are feeding plants with necessary microelements. We have not studied variants with a separate use of these two preparations. Probably, your suggestion can be considered for further experiments.
L469-471: Delete
Deleted
L472-477: describe with some results data.
The first paragraph is deleted. We have written the conclustion in accordance with the instructions of the journal. Presenting the results of the study in this section will be considered as repeating the section Results.
L508: So many self-citation for Saljnikov!! Kept it within more minmum
There are only three papers of Dr. E.Saljnikov (as a first author) cited in the paper. This paper presents the results of the study of a PhD student and is one of the conditions to get the degree. Dr. Saljnikov is a supervisor of this PhD student. According ot the rules of the Ministry of Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan the candidate for PhD degree must have close research cooperation with her supervisor.
