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.
Dear Dr. Lv and Dr. Wang, I congratulate you on the acceptance of this article for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Dr. Lv and Dr. Wang, I ask you to carefully correct each of the shortcomings pointed out by the reviewers. I hope that the new version of this article will be approved by the reviewers.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript presents a good scientific level, with relevant findings that reflect the authors' dedicated effort. The overall structure is well organized, and the topic is pertinent to the field. However, several key aspects should be addressed to enhance the clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor of the work:
1. The hypothesis should be clearly stated in the introduction to help readers understand the study’s objectives and rationale;
2. The statistical methods require a more comprehensive description, including, when applicable, the assumptions tested, for example.
3. It is recommended to refine the language in the results section, aiming for greater clarity and conciseness, while avoiding redundancy and improving textual cohesion.
4. Conclusion: The final section should go beyond merely summarizing the results. The authors are encouraged to highlight the significance of their findings, discuss practical implications, and suggest directions for future research.
no comment
no comment
L43–44 (Abstract): Please replace “treatment could better absorb ” with “wheat plants that received N180,” which is more accurate and specific.
L63 (Introduction): The phrase “nutrient is an essential element” is redundant, as by definition, all nutrients are essential elements. Please revise for clarity.
L79–84: This section should be reformulated. The justification based on a limited number of studies is less compelling. Instead, focus on the relevance of the topic. For instance, you could expand on the sentence: “and relatively few studies have been conducted on stems and root organs that also function in nutrient absorption, transport, and storage (Zhao et al., 2021).”
L95–103: The study objectives are clearly stated; however, the central hypothesis is not explicitly presented. Please make the research hypothesis clear to the reader.
L136 (Materials & Methods): The NUE formula appears to be misplaced in the text. Additionally, it is necessary to cite the methods used to calculate NUE, NT, and other key variables, including references where applicable.
L178–185 (Statistical analyses): Did the authors assess data normality and homogeneity of variance (i.e., residuals)? If so, please indicate the tests applied (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk, Levene’s test, etc.).
Results section: Please reduce the number of decimal places reported for percentages—one decimal place is sufficient for clarity and readability.
Discussion section: The term “significant” is overused. Since statistical significance is already determined by the analysis, repeating this term throughout the text is unnecessary. It is recommended to use it only when emphasizing a particularly important result.
L477–493 (Conclusion): This section should be more concise and should not merely repeat the results. Avoid terms such as “obviously,” as they may undermine the scientific tone of the work. Please reformulate this section by clearly stating the main finding(s), followed by a discussion of their importance and suggestions for future research.
Revise the manuscript to improve sentence structure. Although the language is fluent, many sentences are overly long or fragmented, which affects readability.
References are sufficient and support the study.
Verify that all figures remain clear and consistently formatted.
Ensure Table 1 is reformatted for clarity. Add a center line to clearly separate the TC, TN, TP, and TK values.
The work is original, and the fact that it spans over two years reflects a significant investment of effort. However, addressing some of the current deficiencies would further strengthen the manuscript.
A study that will contribute to the literature. Data is provided, and statistics are done properly. Conclusions are well stated.
Introduction
In the introduction, the aims of the study are a bit scattered, and many targets are listed one after the other. It could be given in a more concise form.
The literature review is extensive but somewhat fragmented; different studies are given one after the other, but sometimes what is being discussed is not sufficiently connected. There are gaps between sentences.
Materials and Methods
Line 110-111 The statement “Annual average temperature, precipitation, and total precipitation in the 2021–2022 wheat growing seasons” is contradictory. Both “annual average” and “2021–2022 season” are mentioned, which can be confusing. Either annual average (multi-year) values or information for the 2021–2022 season only should be given and clearly separated.
Line 121-122 The statement "The N fertilizer was applied according to the ratio of 1:1 base fertilizer" is quite vague. It is not clear what is meant. It probably means that half of the N was applied as base and half as top fertilizer. This should be stated clearly.
Line 123-124: Which fertilizers were used for N, P2O5, K2O? They must be added.
The unit "kg hm⁻²" is correct, but for international readers, the form ha⁻¹ (kg per hectare) is more common. It can also be given as "kg ha⁻¹", preferably in parentheses.
Line 156: The details of the “five-point sampling method” can be explained a little more. What is the reason for choosing this method, and what are its advantages over other sampling methods? For example, how was soil heterogeneity taken into account in this method?
It should be clearly stated which method and literature are used for the measurements (TC, TN, TP, TK, etc. ).
Discussion
What should be the optimum values of TC:TN, TC:TP, TC:TK, TN:TP, TN:TK, and TP:TK ratios? You stated in the study that these ratios are high or low, but I could not find the optimum range or value of these ratios.
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.