Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early Maturing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management Strategies—A Different Location Investigation
, Yue Hu 3,†, Fu**g Sun 4, Wanyue Huo 1,2, Hongyu Li 1,2, Lihua Liu 1,2, Dawei Yin 1,2, Gui** Zheng 1,2 and **aohong Guo 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Recheck in all documents the super script like ha -1 . adjust in all draft. Emphasize more on English grammatical and sentence structure.
Radiation and heat use efficiency are usually synchronous and need to intercompare with each other. find out and describe the differences of heat and radiation use efficiency. In fact the radiation is source of heat on planet. . Some clarity on this issue will make the paper more robust and error free.
Author Response
Recheck in all documents the super script like ha-1 . adjust in all draft. Emphasize more on English grammatical and sentence structure. Responses: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rechecked the whole manuscript and revised the mistake. A professional language editing company has helped us polish the language. Radiation and heat use efficiency are usually synchronous and need to intercompare with each other. find out and describe the differences of heat and radiation use efficiency. In fact the radiation is source of heat on planet. . Some clarity on this issue will make the paper more robust and error free. Responses: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised it in the Discussion (L342-L348).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and suggestion are marked in the manuscript attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses: We have revised them according your suggestion. Please see L18,L20,L44,L45,L68,L69,L79,L97,L109,L143,L169,L188,L212,L237,L249,L263,L266,L301,L310,L372,L390-397.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to authors
This manuscript on “Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early-Matur- 2 ing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management 3 Strategies — a Multiple Location Investigation” demonstrates the yield and resource use efficiency of four rice cultivars under 4 different management practices in two locations. In going through the manuscript, I have made several comments to further improve the presentation of the manuscript.
Comments
The title says that ‘Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early-Matur- 2 ing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management 3 Strategies — a Multiple Location Investigation’. How reasonable to use the term ‘multiple locations’ when authors have used only two locations. I think, the title needs to be revised.
Authors have used four cultivation packages, N0: no nitrogen application; FP: local farming practice; HYP: high-yield-high-efficiency practice; SHY: super-high-yield practice and they claim that productivity of HYP: high-yield-high-efficiency practice and SHY: super-high-yield practice are greater than other two packages. Can authors take the cost-effectiveness of the improved management packages? I hope this aspect needs to be addressed in the discussion. This will be useful to get an idea about the approximate cost estimation of each management package.
What is the reason for using two mean separation procedures? Duncan’s new multiple range method and the least significant difference test. Both these are mean separation procedures. I wonder why authors have used both.
Different cultivars have been used for two sites. For Daqing site, Ken**g 6 (KJ6) and Ken**g 8 (KJ8), and for Suiling site, Long**g 31 (LJ31) and Long**g 46 (LJ46). Is this because of the commonality of cultivation by farmers in two locations? Why not same cultivars were not used for both experimental locations? I again see in the result section (L171-172) The site × treatment interaction significantly affected the number of panicles per 171 square meters and spikelets per panicle. Authors should be careful when making such statements because same varieties have not been used in both location. Could the difference in spikelets per panicle be due to cultivar difference?
In the Table 2, last column is devoted for theoretical yield. Hoe did you calculate these values? Are those potential yields?
In Table 3 (last segment of the table), Harvest Index of varieties is not accurate. Is this the way that Harvest Index is expressed? It is the same for biomass of different cultivars.
Is there any possibility to revise the Figure 2,3,4, and 5 to indicate both cultivars in one graph rather using two separate segments for two cultivars. If so, it will be clear to readership.
Even in the ‘Discussion’ you need to cite Table/Figure when you state results. For example, the statement given in L334-335; In the present study, the treatments resulted in different use efficiencies for water, 334 radiation, and energy; in term of resource-use efficiency, the treatments were ranked SHY 335 > HYP > FP > N0. This is indicating results. Statements like this should be cited by the relevant Table/Figure. I see several statements in the discussion which are not cited by Tables/Figures.
Author Response
This manuscript on “Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early-Matur- 2 ing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management 3 Strategies — a Multiple Location Investigation” demonstrates the yield and resource use efficiency of four rice cultivars under 4 different management practices in two locations. In going through the manuscript, I have made several comments to further improve the presentation of the manuscript. Comments The title says that ‘Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early-Matur- 2 ing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management 3 Strategies — a Multiple Location Investigation’. How reasonable to use the term ‘multiple locations’ when authors have used only two locations. I think, the title needs to be revised. Responses: Thank you for your suggestion. The title has been revised. Authors have used four cultivation packages, N0: no nitrogen application; FP: local farming practice; HYP: high-yield-high-efficiency practice; SHY: super-high-yield practice and they claim that productivity of HYP: high-yield-high-efficiency practice and SHY: super-high-yield practice are greater than other two packages. Can authors take the cost-effectiveness of the improved management packages? I hope this aspect needs to be addressed in the discussion. This will be useful to get an idea about the approximate cost estimation of each management package. Responses: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised it in the Discussion(L379-388). What is the reason for using two mean separation procedures? Duncan’s new multiple range method and the least significant difference test. Both these are mean separation procedures. I wonder why authors have used both. Responses: We apologize for the mistake. In this article, we use the least significant difference test. We have made the corresponding changes (L168-170). Different cultivars have been used for two sites. For Daqing site, Ken**g 6 (KJ6) and Ken**g 8 (KJ8), and for Suiling site, Long**g 31 (LJ31) and Long**g 46 (LJ46). Is this because of the commonality of cultivation by farmers in two locations? Why not same cultivars were not used for both experimental locations? I again see in the result section (L171-172) The site × treatment interaction significantly affected the number of panicles per 171 square meters and spikelets per panicle. Authors should be careful when making such statements because same varieties have not been used in both location. Could the difference in spikelets per panicle be due to cultivar difference? In the Table 2, last column is devoted for theoretical yield. How did you calculate these values? Are those potential yields? Response: This is because these two places are located in different accumulated temperature zones. The selected varieties are suitable for local production and can be safely mature. In the materials and methods, we have explained the information about varieties(L129-135). The difference in spikelets per panicle is due to cultivar difference. However, cultivation measures also cause changes in spikelets per panicle. Theoretical yield= Panicles per square × spikelet number per panicle × seed-setting rate × 1000-grain weight. Theoretical yield is not the same as potential yield. In Table 3 (last segment of the table), Harvest Index of varieties is not accurate. Is this the way that Harvest Index is expressed? It is the same for biomass of different cultivars. Is there any possibility to revise the Figure 2,3,4, and 5 to indicate both cultivars in one graph rather using two separate segments for two cultivars. If so, it will be clear to readership. Responses: This is the way that Harvest Index is expressed. Harvest Index is the ratio of economic yield (grain, fruit, etc.) to biological yield at crop harvest, also known as the coefficient of economy. It is different for biomass of different cultivars. According to your suggestion, we have revised Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. Even in the ‘Discussion’ you need to cite Table/Figure when you state results. For example, the statement given in L334-335; In the present study, the treatments resulted in different use efficiencies for water, 334 radiation, and energy; in term of resource-use efficiency, the treatments were ranked SHY 335 > HYP > FP > N0. This is indicating results. Statements like this should be cited by the relevant Table/Figure. I see several statements in the discussion which are not cited by Tables/Figures. Responses: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised it (L309,L313,L342,L378).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript title “Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early-Maturing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management Strategies — a Multiple Location Investigation” falls well within the scope of the journal Agriculture. The paper summarizes the effects of no nitrogen application (N0); local farming (FP); high-yield high-efficiency practice (HYP) (local farming practices by applying new cultivation techniques to improve yield and resource-use efficiency); and super-high-yield practice (SHY) on rice cultivar yield and physiology. Furthermore, they examined the associations between production factors and resource-use efficiency of different rice cultivars under different management strategies
I recommend this article with major revisions, based on the comments and questions.
Experimental design is not clear, why the authors used two types of irrigation and for super high yielding practice they used the potted raising method. The authors need to explain clearly the experimental treatments one by one to improve its readability. Likewise, the authors mentioned in line 91 “Each plot was 30 m × 6 m” while in table 1 they provided two more plot sizes for other treatments. The objectives and experimental design did not match.
If available, write about the varieties used in the experiment in the experimental design.
Write two to five lines about SHY in the introduction, what practices are currently used in your location for super high-yielding practices.
Line 43-44 new cultivation techniques? What did the authors mean here? Are these cultivation are applied the first time?
Figure 2. Add years inside the figure or in the caption. Furthermore, the authors mentioned in the caption “KJ6 Ken**g 6, KJ8 Ken**g 8, LJ31 Long**g 31, LJ46 Long**g 46” but there is nothing in the figure about this?
Figures 8A and 8B. The R2 value is 0.2478 and 0.06 and the authors added **, Are they sure it's highly significant? Check also Figure 7F.
Author Response
Reviewer 4 Major Revision
The manuscript title “Yield and Resource Utilization Efficiency Gap in Early-Maturing Japonica Rice Cultivars under Different Management Strategies — a Multiple Location Investigation” falls well within the scope of the journalAgriculture. The paper summarizes the effects of no nitrogen application (N0); local farming (FP); high-yield high-efficiency practice (HYP) (local farming practices by applying new cultivation techniques to improve yield and resource-use efficiency); and super-high-yield practice (SHY) on rice cultivar yield and physiology. Furthermore, they examined the associations between production factors and resource-use efficiency of different rice cultivars under different management strategies
I recommend this article with major revisions, based on the comments and questions.
Experimental design is not clear, why the authors used two types of irrigation and for super high yielding practice they used the potted raising method. The authors need to explain clearly the experimental treatments one by one to improve its readability. Likewise, the authors mentioned in line 91 “Each plot was 30 m × 6 m”while in table 1 they provided two more plot sizes for other treatments. The objectives and experimental design did not match.
Response: In addition to N0, we designed three integrated cultivation measures. For example, there are differences in seedling-raising methods, planting patterns, two fertilizer-application methods, and irrigation methods.
Otherwise, experiments were performed using a randomized block design with a plot size of 30 × 6 m and three replicates per treatment. In N0 and FP treatments, rice seedlings were transplanted at a hill spacing of 30 × 10 cm in a parallel row layout. In HYP treatment, rice seedlings were transplanted at a hill spacing of 30 × 13.3 cm in a parallel row layout. In SHY treatment, rice seedlings were planted in alternating wide (40 cm) and narrow (20 cm) rows in each plot. In order to improve readability, we added details of the experimental design. Please see it in L100-104.
If available, write about the varieties used in the experiment in the experimental design.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. For information about varieties, see L131-139 in the experimental design.
Write two to five lines about SHY in the introduction, what practices are currently used in your location for super high-yielding practices.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added this at the end of the Introduction (L71-75)
Line 43-44 new cultivation techniques? What did the authors mean here? Are these cultivation are applied the first time?
Response: We apologize for this mistake; it has been deleted. (L44-45)
Figure 2. Add years inside the figure or in the caption. Furthermore, the authors mentioned in the caption “KJ6 Ken**g 6, KJ8 Ken**g 8, LJ31 Long**g 31, LJ46 Long**g 46” but there is nothing in the figure about this?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We use the average of two years of data. We have explained it in the Materials and Methods. According to your suggestion, we have added this information in Figure 2.
Figures 8A and 8B. The R2 value is 0.2478 and 0.06 and the authors added **, Are they sure it's highly significant? Check also Figure 7F.
Response：Although R2 value is 0.2478 and 0.06, p value is less than 0.01, so we added **. It is indeed a very significant correlation. If needed, we can provide raw data and analysis process. Figure 7F is the same.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
