Cover Crop Termination Method and N Fertilization Effects on Sweet Corn Yield, Quality, N Uptake, and Weed Pressure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript reports the effect of cover crop termination strategies and four rates of nitrogen on the yield and NUE of sweet corn in the Northeast USA. This is a well-written manuscript with clear hypotheses and methodologies. Results are presented in a clear pattern and sufficient discussion is provided. the manuscript can be accepted in its current format.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: nitrogen-2164533
Reviewer 1 remarks and responses
The manuscript reports the effect of cover crop termination strategies and four rates of nitrogen on the yield and NUE of sweet corn in the Northeast USA. This is a well-written manuscript with clear hypotheses and methodologies. Results are presented in a clear pattern and sufficient discussion is provided. the manuscript can be accepted in its current format.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their time and interest in this research.
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting article, but has some flaws 1. Sweet corn - give the name of the subspecies 2. Why fresh ear yield is greater than total sweet corn 3. In figures 3, 4, 5,6,8,9,10,11,14 enter the doses of nitrogen as tested, i.e. 0, 48, 96 and 144. There must be a different scale 4. In what fertilizers nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were used 5. Why there is no conclusion regarding the influence of thermal and humidity conditions on the examined features 6. In the introduction, describe the purpose and hypothesis of the work in more detail the article therefore requires additions
Author Response
Manuscript ID: nitrogen-2164533
Reviewer 2 remarks and responses
- Sweet corn - give the name of the subspecies
Response: This has been changed to include the subspecies Latin name. [line 65]
- Why fresh ear yield is greater than total sweet corn
Response: The total sweet corn biomass is a dry measure, while fresh sweet corn includes water. Table 2 and Figure 1, 3, 7, and 8 have been changed to make this more clear. [lines 227, 235, 266, and 275]
- In figures 3, 4, 5,6,8,9,10,11,14 enter the doses of nitrogen as tested, i.e. 0, 48, 96 and 144. There must be a different scale
Response: All mentioned figures have been changed to follow this suggestion.
- In what fertilizers nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were used
Response: This information has been added to the methods section. [lines 117-119]
- Why there is no conclusion regarding the influence of thermal and humidity conditions on the examined features
Response: The authors greatly appreciate this comment since environmental conditions can certainly have large effects on sweet corn quality and weed growth. Because the environmental conditions were the same for all treatments we did not draw statistically based conclusions about the manner in which the temperature and humidity affected the response variables. Under different temperature or humidity conditions, the absolute levels of measured response variables would likely be different. For this reason, our conclusions are based on the relative differences between the cover crop termination and nitrogen treatments. The authors have included the weather records during the experiment and the environmental normals in Table 1 [lines 203-208] to facilitate comparisons between the results of this study and those found in other research. The authors did not think that weather differences in 2020 and 2021 likely affected the sweet corn quality directly. However, weed growth differences between the two years could have been related to environmental conditions and are discussed on lines 398-407.
- In the introduction, describe the purpose and hypothesis of the work in more detail the article therefore requires additions
Response: Additional information has been added to address this concern. The authors hope that this further explanation improves the understandability of the research purpose. [lines 74-80]
Reviewer 3 Report
The following comments should be considered:
-Abstract: Give some more statistical details and explain how your study is novel.
-Introduction: Describe the main problems associated with this study, that is, the problems that led you to conduct it.
-Lines 25-29: This paragraph does not require eight references!
-Lines 73-75: This sentence should be moved to the Materials and Methods section. Rather than this, describe your study's objectives.
-Materials and Methods, Lines 80-90: Provide appropriate reference/s.
-Section 2.2. Field Management and Measurements: This section should be summarized by presenting fundamental information.
-Lines 178-179: Describe the instrument and protocols in more detail.
-Results, Line 193-195: It should be removed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Manuscript ID: nitrogen-2164533
Reviewer 3 remarks and responses
The following comments should be considered:
-Abstract: Give some more statistical details and explain how your study is novel.
Response: The abstract has been changed to include information about the statistical design of the experiment. [lines 14-15]
-Introduction: Describe the main problems associated with this study, that is, the problems that led you to conduct it.
Response: Additional information has been added to address this concern. The authors hope that this further explanation improves the understandability of the research purpose. [lines 74-80]
-Lines 25-29: This paragraph does not require eight references!
Response: The authors agree that the number of references here could be confusing to readers and have reduced the number of citations. [lines 29,30]
-Lines 73-75: This sentence should be moved to the Materials and Methods section. Rather than this, describe your study's objectives.
Response: This sentence has been moved to the Materials and Methods section. [lines 95-97]
-Materials and Methods, Lines 80-90: Provide appropriate reference/s.
Response: Citation for the source of the soil type has been added. The precise soil classification has been changed since the specific area of the research farm where this experiment was conducted is actually a slightly different soil type. [lines 85-86]
-Section 2.2. Field Management and Measurements: This section should be summarized by presenting fundamental information.
Response: The authors believe that this level of detail is needed to describe the experimental activities. Another reviewer requested that some additional details be added to describe the experimental activities. Thus, we feel that a detailed description is useful to some readers. If the editors prefer, this section could be abbreviated.
-Lines 178-179: Describe the instrument and protocols in more detail.
Response: Details about the hardware and software have been added. [lines 186-188]
-Results, Line 193-195: It should be removed.
Response: These lines have been removed. These lines were mistakenly maintained from the template.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accepts all changes.
The answers are satisfactory.
