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 authors are commended for improving the article as per PeerJ standards.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Ann Hedrick, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewer's comment about lack of detailed methodology for measuring agronomic traits and measuring them only in one season has been addressed in details in the rebuttal letter. However, a concise reasoning for this two-part comment should be included in the main manuscript as well. There is no need to specify the health reasons in the manuscript.
You are requested to do the revisions immaculately.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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 is generally well-written and professionally formatted. The introduction is comprehensive and provides appropriate background on the issues of rice straw management and methane emissions in cold-region rice systems. The figures are relevant and of good quality, with sufficient resolution and informative captions. The authors cite recent and relevant literature to support the context and need for the study.
Abstract
• Problem statement is missing in the abstract
• Line 28- 29 sentences is confusing. It can be write as T2 shown significantly increased soil nitrogen, phosphorus, and calcium levels and maintained higher root activity and
• stem numbers compared to T1 and CK
• The authors must highlight some results of nitrogen etc
• The methane emission measured data is missing
• Line 31-34 abstract conclusion is not clear
Introduction
• No data is provided for decomposition of residues
• Consistency in hyphenation (e.g., “cold-region rice systems” vs “cold region rice systems”) should be improved.
• Objectives are not clear
• Need English language improvement
• Replication details could be clarified. While “three replicates” are mentioned, the spatial layout (e.g., randomization, blocking) and potential confounding environmental variables (e.g., soil microvariability) are not described.
• The methodology around straw decomposition temperature thresholds (e.g., 7°C minimum for decomposition) relies heavily on literature (Yan et al. 2019) and assumptions. It would be helpful to discuss any soil temperature monitoring that validates decomposition activity during the fallow period.
• The conclusion that T2 mitigates methane emissions needs to account for total CH₄ budgets more explicitly, especially including potential off-season emissions after autumn incorporation. This is critical if the field remained flooded after T2 incorporation, which could bias CH₄ emission savings.
• Soil organic matter (SOM) showed no significant increase across treatments, which conflicts with much of the cited literature. The authors acknowledge this but do not explore potential explanations (e.g., short study duration, high SOM baseline).
• Although differences in ORP are discussed, the causal link between ORP and yield components remains associative. More caution in drawing mechanistic conclusions is advised (e.g., “led to yield stability” vs “associated with reduced yield loss”).
Conclusion
• It is not written clearly
References
• Add DOI of the available references
1. Language and Structure
The manuscript is written in professional, clear English and complies with academic writing standards.
2. Figure Quality
All figures (Figures 1-7) are well-prepared with clear annotations. It is recommended that:
In Figure 2, the units for CH4 and ORP on the axes should be standardized to international units (e.g., mg CH4 m-2 h-1).
3. Data Completeness
The authors have provided the raw data files, which align with PeerJ policies.
4. Innovation and Necessity
This study presents the first systematic comparison of the ecological effects of straw incorporation in spring and autumn in cold-region rice fields in China, filling a research gap in straw management for high-latitude rice cultivation at 43°N. It is recommended to:
Add a comparative analysis with relevant agricultural systems abroad in the Introduction (lines 60-75).
Supplement the basic physicochemical properties of the soil and the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the straw.
5. Methodological Rigor
The monthly sampling frequency effectively captures the dynamics of methane emissions.
6. Data Reliability
The temporal correlation between methane emission peaks and straw decomposition rates (lines 236-252) is biologically reasonable and consistent with the model predictions of Tang et al. (2016).
7. Statistical Methods
The Tukey’s HSD test (line 186) is appropriate for multiple group comparisons. However, it is recommended to:
Supplement significant differences with the corresponding ANOVA p-values (p < 0.05) where applicable.
The manuscript requires moderate revisions before acceptance, primarily focusing on refining statistical analyses and mechanistic discussions. This study holds significant academic value and practical implications for the sustainable management of temperate rice cropping systems.
No comment
No comment.
No comment.
- The experimental design method has not been specified in detail, nor has it been clarified which specific layout type was employed.
- The basis for selecting a straw incorporation rate of approximately 8,000 kg ha⁻¹ is not justified in the manuscript. It is unclear whether this value was derived from actual field measurements, local farmer practices, or references.
- The methodology for determining agronomic parameters is lacking. Please explain why agronomic traits were measured only in one season!
- The methodology for CH4 measurement is lacking.
- Numerous inconsistencies remain in citations and units of measurement.
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.