All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Your article is now Accepted
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note - we apologize for the confusion caused by a previous incorrect decision having been issued #]
The article "Recommended nitrogen rates and the verification of effects based on leaf SPAD readings of rice" is an interesting article, which can be accepted after considering following comments
1) line 54 "SPAD may reflect the plant leaves’ N status and is simple, quick, reliable, and harmless" Please explain SPAD more clearly.
2) Line 109 Please write the name of SPAD producer, company name, city, country.
3) Line 115 please indicate the years
4) Use Fig. or Figure - please check journal suggestion
5) Figure 2 legend is wrong "Temperature and precipitation during the rice-growing stage" please correct it
6) Xiong et al. (2015; https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13389) has shown that SPAD-based leaf nitrogen estimation is impacted by environmental factors and crop leaf characteristics, how the authors considered this issue please specify.
7) Manuscript can be further benefitted by following references
"https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.17.81"
No comments
SPAD meter is for a long time use for nitrogen estimation with some limitations please specify how your work is different, and not just a confirmatory work?
Please read the cited paper of Kalaji et al. 2017: A comparison between different chlorophyll content meters under nutrient deficiency conditions.
You should add in the conclusion section that: such devices (like SPAD) allow non-invasive and trustable measurements of relative chlorophyll content. However, per Kalaji et al. 2017 such types of measurements may deliver false data if the plants are suffering due to deficiency of other nutrients than nitrogen.
English language should be revised by fluent English speakers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Using SPAD method, Easy to handle, reliable, high-efficiency, and environmentally friendly method to diagnose
plant nitrogen (N) status , predict grain yield and optimize N management is essential in
modern rice production systems
Original primary research within Scope of
the journal. Research question well defined, relevant
& meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Methods described with sufficient detail &
information to replicate.
novality is poor
he must compare with normal analysis to chlorophyll or Nitrogen
to see what is difference between his method and normal method
i asked you to compare between normal analysis and SPAD even with previous studies
Language was improve and I don't see any mistakes, Literature was replenished with suggested possitions. Authors corect the manuscript with all sugested areas
Experiment design is better described than it was previously. Rsearch and statistical methods were now corectly described . Methods were descibed with sufficient details and information.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question. Gained results are interesting for local perspective
Good job . In my opininion I can accept the manuscript and all changes which were done by authors
The authors are requested to revise the MS fundamentally.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
need native English
the idea is clear, and the authors follow the constructions of the journal
the hypotheses is clear
the authors need to folow this article
A comparison between different chlorophyl lcontent meters under nutrient deficiency
conditions . Kalaji et al 2017 Journal of Plant Nutrition 2017, VOL. 40, NO. 7, 1024–1034
Two field trials comprising of seven nitrogen (N) rates (0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225 and 270 kg N ha-1) were conducted in 2019 (two different fields in the same area with same planting pattern), using a randomized complete block design with three replicates
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question
the author need to follow (Kalaji et al 2017)
A comparison between different chlorophyl lcontent meters under nutrient deficiency
conditions . Journal of Plant Nutrition 2017, VOL. 40, NO. 7, 1024–1034
need improve your discussion part ,
answer the question (what is relationship between N and chlorophyll content
do you think it will give you same results and stress conditions?
can you compare your result with normal chlorophyll measurements?
Eglish level is poor and should be consalted with native speaker . Authors discribe the problem of N -fertilization only from one side. They see only the problem of over fertilizatision but they didn't saw that very often problem of insufficient fertilization which cause a problem of N deficiency
There is lack of information about kind of soil the experimental sites was localised there is no information about vegetation period characteristic and
All invetigation which authors done based on single basic method . There is suggest to compare gained results with some references methods. The authors did not provide information on the number of leaves in the sample for measurment
Rewrite the text using the suggestion in the review to improve qality of article
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.