Double-Cropped Winter Camelina with and without Added Nitrogen: Effects on Productivity and Soil Available Nitrogen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

AGRICLUTUR REVIEW

COMMENTS

Introduction

Line 59. Cite (Gesch and Archer 2013) to conform to journal’s specifications

 

Line 70 – 74. In a 2014 to 2015 study, for example, non–N–fertilized winter camelina in a double–cropping system with soybean was found to reduce soil NO₃–N concentrations down to 60 cm by 53 to 72% in the fall and 18 to 19% in the spring 70 compared to monocrop soybean [9].

Recast sentence to read “In a 2014 to 2015 study, for example, non–N–fertilized winter camelina in a double–cropping system with soybean was found to reduce soil NO₃–N concentrations up to 60 cm depth by 53 to 72% in the fall and 18 to 19% in the spring compared to monocrop soybean [9].

 

Lines 75 – 77. As of 2022, studies comparing the production and environmental quality of N–fertilized versus non–N–fertilized winter camelina had not been conducted in the upper Midwest.

Recast to read “As of 2022, studies comparing the production of N–fertilized versus non–N–fertilized winter camelina and their effects on and environmental quality had not been conducted in the upper Midwest”.

Line 79 – 81. “The hypotheses were that N fertilization would have a positive effect on the growth and seed yield and quality of winter camelina and on N in 80 the soil”. Recast statement.  It is unclear the nature of positive effect that N fertilization will have on N in the soil.

 

Material and Methods

Line 124. (averages of 20 and 167 respectively) Insert comma after the word “respectively)

 

Results

Line 271 Biomass was higher in study 2 than study 1 was more related to the camelina after soybean.  Kindly explain the trend in study 2 accounting for the higher biomass yield than in study 1.

 

Line 272 -273.  It is expected for grain yield of winter camelina to be higher with N fertilization.  What is needed here is the cost benefit analyses to ascertain whether fertilization with N will be more profitable than with no fertilization considering the hike in fertilizer cost vis-a-vis environmental pollution

 

Line 281 – 282. The phrase “with soybean; results from both cropping systems were significantly different in soybean only” is confusing.  Recast to bring out meaning.

 

Line 294 -296 Why was oil content of winter camelina seed higher in Study 2 than Study 1?

Line 297 Why was protein content lower than the typical range of 23 to 27.9% reported in N–fertilized experiments in the upper Midwest?

 

Lines 301 – 303.  The available N concentrations patterns in spring and fall described is confusing.  Per Figure 1, the NO₃-N levels at the plough layer (0 – 15 cm) in the spring of 2016 for camelina after maize are statistically similar just as for the 15 – 30 cm depth at SWROC.  In the spring of 2017, there was only a significant difference in NO₃-N levels between the relay cropping system and its sequential counterpart within the plough layer. In the fall of 2017, the differences were between the two systems and their respective controls for the plough layer.  The assertion that “soil available N was significantly different in the top 15 cm in spring and fall and the 15–30 cm layer in fall for maize, and in the top 15 cm in fall and the 15–30 cm 302 layer in spring for soybean is confusing  Please recast the sentence to bring out the true picture.

 

Line 304.  Per Figure 1, it is not clear that NO₃-N levels are highest in the sequential cropping system.  The statement contradicts the earlier one of “In most instances, soil available N followed a pattern of control treatments > sequential cropping > relay”.  Please, correct.

 

Lines 305 -310.  The statements are confusing and contradictory. Across seasons and soil depths, soil available N in relay maize and soybean averaged around 11 kg ha-1. It is unclear how average soil available N was higher in the sequential and control treatments of both corn and soybean–based cropping systems: at 5.5 and 10 kg ha^-1, respectively e. It is unclear how the results indicate that winter camelina in the maize–soybean rotation helped reduce N losses.  The results indicate that the winter camelina has increased N availability.  However, the arguments and the discussion per the way it pertains in the manuscript is not clear

 

Conclusions

Line 354. Recast sentence to bring out meaning better.  It is unclear what available N in crop means.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the thorough review. Our responses to your concerns and suggestions are provided in the attached file.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of the article he was reported to compare non–N– and N–fertilized winter camelina double cropped with maize and soybean as related to growth, seed yield, and quality and their effects on N in the soil. Overall, findings of this fertilizer N increased winter camelina biomass and seed yield and soil available N when double cropped with maize and soybean. The article, however, must be improved in terms of writing since some grammar and syntax errors are present in the manuscript. They should address the subject and critically review the information from the literature. 

My suggestions:

The authors need to revise the title of the paper in a more meaningful way.

The abstract is written in a way lacks logic. It should highlight the salient findings more critically.

Keywords are present in the title, choose others.

Introduction need more convincing rational for this article.

The introduction has long paragraphs, I suggest reducing the size of the paragraphs.

The results have long paragraphs, I suggest reducing the size of the paragraphs.

The results of this study are not fully explained therefore the interpretation of the results is very difficult. The author needs to provide the % increase or decrease rather than just writing ''significantly increased….''.

Insert in table 3 the standard deviations of the means.

In figures 1, 2 and 3, do the bars in the columns mean standard error or standard deviation?

Authors should discuss the results integrally. The discussion is based on individual results. I suggest that integrating the results will give more value to the work. The response of the plant to the drought and salinity is integrated. I suggest that you discuss by integrating all your results. You can use correlation tests (PCA or Pearson Correlation).

The discussion is poorly written hence, needs rewriting. The discussion should be further strengthened by adding some more relevant papers. The literature search is insufficient, only few related research papers in the past three years are cited, add the latest research results appropriately. See the below links if you think it will benefit your discussion.

Rewrite the conclusion! It needs to be much improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the thorough review. Our responses to your concerns and suggestions are provided in the attached file.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study on “Winter Camelina with and without Nitrogen Double Cropped with Maize and Soybean” and the authors have collected unique datasets. The paper is generally well written but not structured according to the journal. However, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings in regards to available data and text, and I feel this unique dataset has not been utilized to its full extent. Below I have provided numerous remarks on the text as it is often vague and long-winded. In several instances I also suggested to cite more relevant and recent literature. Furthermore I have made line by line additional suggestions for more in-depth analyses of the data. Key critical points are:-

Line by line comments to authors for the revisions of the current study

Title

Please conclude the key findings or the main contents of the study and make a meaningful title, in its current form it will not attract the readers of the same field

Abstract

Line 12-16, rewrite to make more concise and point out the key scientific problem or gaps to better understand why it was important to carry out this research.

Line 21-24, conclude the main conclusions and highlights the significance of this study for improvement of Winter Camelina.

Introduction

Line 32-34. Add reference

Line 37-38. Add reference

Line 51-53. Please specify the “Winter camelina is one of the winter annual oilseeds that has shown promise in double–cropping systems in the U.S. upper Midwest due to its extreme cold tolerance”. with reference to the other winter camelina producing countires with the same environmental conditions, surley it will help the scientific community to better understand the research hypothesis.

Line 58-59> If winter camelina in considered low input crop then why there is a dire need to address its nitrogen fertiliarion rather to focus some such type of crops with a high input. I will also suggest to please focus on line 58-59 and add up the current status of the winter camelina as you have mentioned the very old data of 2013 and it may be expected that now in 2022 it might be a high input crop.

Line 64, 65, 66, 67. Please justify the role of environmental benefits by the cultivation for both maize and winter camelina in the fields? Can it be considered as a recommendation?

Line 75 to 80. Please mention soil type where the discussed research be applied or to be applied for the increase of N in the soil.

Materials and methods

Line 84 to 86. Can authors please justify why the study one was conducted at one location and study 2 was conducted at two locations? Can we justify it statistically? Was it necessary or you can manage the only one location at site one and at site 2 two locations. Please specify

Results

Line 229 230. Please discuss the results in discussion and just elaborate your results in the result section as per journal policy and perform the same practice for the results section.

Line 278. 3.3. Oil and protein of winter camelina:- I can see that authors have showed results of the oil and protein contents in results section of your study while in materials and methods authors have not mentioned clearly the methodology applied for the determination of oil and protein contents. I will suggest to please add both methodologies with a reference to support your study.

Discussion:- I will suggest to separate the results and discussion section, in results section just elaborate in details your findings while in discussion section discuss your results in detail and with more relevant datasets on the same subject. I have seen that you have only mentioned two to three support references yet I hope on revisions authors will work more in depth to improve the discussion section as per the policy. In my suggestion authors must provide 2 to 3 pages discussion of all the experiments with logics exclusively discuss in detail the benefits for the environment by applying this model of study

Keeping all in view I will suggest major revisions and recommend that these are very necessary revisions to keep this article in a good form.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the thorough review. Our responses to your concerns and suggestions are provided in the attached file.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for attending the suggestions. The manuscript has been significantly improved. In view of the above, I believe that the article presents robust and consolidated content.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author

I am satisfied with all the incorporations made in the manuscript.

Regards