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.
The manuscript was improved by considering all recommendations.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
Even that both reviewers have highlighted the improvements done in the manuscript, minor concerns remain. The manuscript should be modified according to the reviewers' comments
The manuscript is written in clear language following the PeerJ guidelines. Raw data files were shared and all the comments made with respect to the literature references, tables and figures were addressed appropriately.
Authors have studied the effect of different factors on Δ13C of summer maize in two growing season. The research design used in the study is appropriate and the methods are clearly mentioned. Few revisions requested by the reviewer were properly addressed and corrections were made in the manuscript.
The study performed by the authors is a long experiment done during two growing seasons and includes several parameters. Authors have done their best to represent the data in a reader friendly manner. All the results were clearly presented and missing details in the figures and tables were incorporated in the revised version as requested by the reviewer.
All the corrections were incorporated and the manuscript is revised as per the reviewer's suggestion.
The authors have adressed the concerns. I think it can be accepted after a minor revision. Please double check the whole MS that is free of errors, e.g. superscript and subscript, grammar problems.
no comment
no comment/
the subheading of 3.3: it's too long, please shorten it.
Dear Authors,
The review process was completed. Both reviewers have advised major modifications before considering your manuscript for publication.
Please, ensure that all requested modifications will be done and provide a point-by-point answer.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
1. The manuscript is written in clear language following the PeerJ guidelines but improvement in “Results” section is recommended.
2. Some of the recent articles relevant to their study were not included. Some of the references mentioned in the manuscript were missing from the main text body.
3. Figures and tables are okay. Minor corrections needed.
Details are mentioned in the PDF file.
In some of the methods section, details like the factors studied and the same size for each replicate experiment are missing
The authors have tested different parameters in their experiments but have not described them clearly in their results section. It is often misleading to the readers. Some of the methods are very brief and lack details about the experimental factors tested and the number of samples used for each experiment. Hence, the manuscript needs a proper revision before being considered for publishing.
This study explored the effects of tillage and straw management on carbon isotope discrimination, and the factors affecting carbon isotope during the summer maize crop growing season. The author reported that Δ13C can be used as a prediction index for summer maize yield. It is an interesting and novel study. However, as shown in Fig. 7, a significant correlation was observed between Δ13C and yield at the pre-filling stage, while non-significance at the post-filling stage. Thus, it is suggested that conclusions are rephrased to be more rigorous. Also, the reasons for Δ13C affecting yield should be in-deep discussed. The interaction effects of tillage and straw should be conducted in Table 1 and Figure 3-6.
Specific comments
Line 8-17, the background, objectives, and methods in abstract are redundant.
Line 14-15, upper (U), middle (M), and lower (L) layers. Detailed height.
Line 24-25, should be deleted.
Line 39, reference.
Line 43-46, the author has cleared the crop production in the NCP, but writes the details about maize again. This part should be combined with Line 31.
Line 59, “between WUE, Δ13C, and specific leaf area, the return of …” Confused.
Line 70-76, this part should be placed in M&M. Clear hypothesis was lacked.
Line 90-103, shorten it.
Line 108-120, details of tillage operation could be placed in Supporting Information or as a table.
Line 165-168, Normal distribution was required.
Results: Higher or lower should be based on significance.
Line 212 and 220, delete “at different layers”.
Line 238, the factors affecting it. Detailed factors should be written out.
Line 276-282, It is repeated with Introduction.
Line 286, carbon assimilation capacities affected Δ13C? Reference.
Line 290, “soil respiration emits large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, resulting in a lower δ13C on the ground.” Difficult to understand.
Line 321, the relationship between five factors (i.e., SWC, LAI, air temperature, relative humidity, and CO2 concentration) and Δ13C should be discussed in depth. For example, Line 328 and 332, lack references, and explanation was weak.
no comment
Please see 1. Basic report
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.