Delayed Sowing Can Improve Potassium Utilization Efficiency and Grain Potassium Concentration in Winter Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the content of the manuscript presented to me for evaluation will raise quite interesting from a practical point of view the possibility of improving the efficiency of K use from mineral fertilizers. This can contribute to reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment and improving the economic balance of farms.

Introduction

In my opinion, this section is correctly written. It raises issues related to the management techniques tested in the manuscript and gradually describes them. At the end of the section the authors included the purpose of the work so it is also appropriate.

Materials and methods

The section generally presents all the most important information related to crop management and is adequately detailed. However, I have a few suggestions for this section:

L109 (Figure 1) Figure is very illegible, I suggest improving the quality of the figure and describing the weather conditions prevailing during the field experiment

L114 there is an error in the unit I think the authors wanted to present here the number of grains sown per hectare

L119-121 The stated N fertilization is not clear. Are these reported split N rates or was variable N fertilization applied to the experimental objects?

L170 Correlation is presented in the results presented while there is no information about it in this section.

Results

The presented description of the results is adequate. The authors give percentage changes which is clear and commonly used. However, I have some comments on the tables: I would suggest providing standard deviations for the results obtained and p-values for statistical analysis. Additionally, why are letters of variation not given for some of the evaluated traits, e.g., K concentration in grain (Table 1)?

An additional technical note is that each paragraph begins with the same words: "As the sowing date was delayed from September 26 and October 8 to October 22" I suggest remodeling this as it negatively affects the readability of the section.

L304-308 The values of the obtained correlation and the level of significance should be given.

Discussion

In my opinion, this section needs significant improvement. The authors did not discuss the obtained results with the works of other authors and generally do not suggest the mechanisms causing the obtained variable results under the influence of the analyzed management technique. In addition, some of the obtained results are not addressed in this section.

Conclusions

The section is fairly well and concisely structured, and requires minor additions and clarifications.

L376-377 On what basis do the authors suggest the possibility of lowering K fertilization? this should be clearly stated

In addition, I would suggest supplementing with information that this does not cause yield losses as this is particularly important information for broad agricultural practice.

Good luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript submitted for review concerns the effect of delayed sowing date on the content and efficiency of potassium utilisation by two winter wheat varieties. I consider the topic to be important and current. The rational use of potassium and the rate of translocation of potassium from vegetative parts to grain affects the yield and quality of winter wheat and the environment. A delayed sowing date may give better results than an early and optimal sowing date in areas where temperatures are rising due to climate warming. Despite the validity of the research, which has an element of novelty, the paper contains a number of errors and inaccuracies. It also requires additions of necessary information.

Abstract.

Line 15. Please write what varieties were tested.

Line 17. Please insert years of research.

Line 18. What components?

Line 18. GNC what is it?

Keywords. Keywords should not include words in the title.

Introduction

In this chapter, please write more about the impact of environmental and agricultural factors on the efficiency of potassium use, and not about indicators used to assess this efficiency (lines 48-59).

Line 65. Climatic factors (temperature, precipitation) also affect the absorption rate. Write a few sentences about it.

Lines 78-79. What does "the accumulated temperature before winter" mean (what period is involved?).

Lines 89-91. Please reword the aim of this study. In  the aim of this study, there should be no indicators. Indicators are a tool for examining the effectiveness of the use of K.

Material and methods.

Lines 97-100. Please complete the soil characteristics with: “The soil containts: sand?, coarse?, silt?, clay?

Line 100. Write how many soil samples were taken. Were samples taken from each plot?

Lines 104-105. Please describe the weather conditions (temperature and precipitation). Write whether the studied seasons in terms of temperatures and precipitation were favorable for wheat vegetation or unfavorable and why.

Figure 1 in this form is unclear.

Line 114. Please indicate how many wheat grains were sown per 1m². To what depth was the wheat sown? Why was the row width of 25 cm used? When the wheat was harvested (ripeness stage, date)?

Lines 116-117. What was the experimental scheme. In my opinion, the experience was two-factorial. 1 factor - varieties, 2 - factor sowing dates. I don't understand why there were 72 subplots. In my opinion: 2 varieties x 3 ways of sowing x 3 replication x  2 years = 36.

Line 119. What does N rates mean (was the differentiated dose of N an experience factor, or was the entire dose of N divided? If divided, when used).

Line 120. K and P rates should be given in elemental form, not oxide form (when were they used?).

Line 121. I don't understand.

Line 123. What preparations were used?

Line 127. Is this quadrat?

Lines 125, 128. Specify the exact developmental phases (e.g. BBCH).

Lines 128-130. Write whether plant samples were taken from each plot.

Line 131. Was K concentration tested from each plot?

Line 149. Is this quadrat?

In this chapter, there is no information on how the number of grains per ear and the weight of 1 000 grains were determined. At what stage of maturity was the wheat grain harvested? Why was the grain yield not determined from each plot, but from a 2.25^m2 area?

Lines 168-170. The description of statistical analysis is very weak and insufficient. What statistical analysis was used? What features were analyzed (because the tables and figures show that not all of them). What test was used to assess differences between these characteristics? What correlation analysis was used? Which features were subjected to correlation analysis? (because not all of them).

Results.

Table 2. The determination of the development phases of wheat "Jointing", "Maturity" is not very precise. Please provide them accurately based on a specific scale (BBCH or other).

Table 3 and Table 4. Change the order of the columns so that it matches the description (first K content per single stem, then K content per unit land area).

Figure 3. (KCR) please add after "The contibution ratio".

Line 267. This is not entirely true. In the first season, there were no significant differences between 8 October and 22 October.

Table 6. UTP connect to %.

Table 6. Why no statistical analysis for VPE (%). Any feature that has replications can be statistically analysed.

Line 283. Change the order of description: first UPE and then UTE.

Line 304. The key characteristics (specify exactly which).

You should check all the differences (%) presented in the paper. In some cases, there are errors.

Overall, this chapter is poorly written. It should be rewritten and described in a more concise, synthetic way. For many of the traits studied, the differences between sowing dates are the same or similar (this can be put together).

Discussion

Lines 310-312. Move to the 'Materials and methods' chapter.

Line 332. What does it mean “the accumulated temperature before winter (what period: from-to).

Lines 340-344. Don't write about photosynthesis. This is not the subject of research.

Lines  362-364. This sentence is a repetition of a sentence from the chapter “Introduction” (lines 61-63).

Line 357. What does it mean AGN.

Line 358. What does it mean AGK.

Lines 91, 368 and 369. What does it mean GNC.

Conclusion.

The use of abbreviations in "Conclusion" makes the text difficult to understand.

References.

Please include more new publications (from 2020-2023/2024). There are only 6 publications from the last 5 years.

Please include in the Supplementary material the abbreviations used in this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review

Accept after minor revision. I would like to stress that I support the potential publication of this paper. Pay special attention to the sections "Materials and Methods" and "Results".

Abstract – The scientific problem is very clear. The objectives of the manuscript are well-defined (provide direction and guide research design).

Line 13-15 – Delete “Additionally, few studies have addressed the influences of crop K status on KUE, UPE, UTE, and GKC in winter wheat.”

Introduction – This section is expanded on major issues related to this study including appropriate references. Systematic, critical evaluations of current literature are given in the introduction. A niche in the section is established and the research objectives are clearly stated.

Line 68 – Change “people” to “farmers”.

Materials and Methods – The methodology is adequate and does give readers information. However, in the 2.2 section, should add all investigated traits of wheat. In lines 163-166, the relationship between the two variables was determined by the correlation coefficient. However, the authors did not explain which correlation coefficient (Pearson and Spearman) was used. The authors did not explain which methods of data were used (by seasons or the average of the two continuous years). Regression analysis would help to find the trait that most determined the grain yield, or maybe for a better understanding all relationships. The authors could discuss important correlations extensively and more in-depth.

Line 68 – Please explain to me what it is 420 × 104 ha^-1?

Line 167 – Which is the plot design (experimental method) used for this study? What correlation coefficient did you use? How do you calculate correlation coefficients?

Results – The tables and figures are clear. However, there is a repetition of similar sentences. Here, try to “play” a little bit with the expressions you use. Do not repeat always the same expressions. This lowers the quality of your writing. In general, repetition and redundancy cause problems because unnecessary repetition distracts or bores readers. Please, use a variety of different transition words, vary the structure and length of your sentences, and avoid repetition of particular words and redundancies.

Interaction of factors in ANOVA, factor interaction means that not all objects respond equally to the combinations of factors. For many traits, for sure there is an obvious interaction of factors. It would be interesting to conclude from this. In my opinion, the most interesting conclusion is that most traits of genotypes react differently to changes in factors. Significant interactions are usually the best background for discussion. 

Discussion – The authors clearly describe, analyze, and interpret their findings. However, emphasis should also be placed on the tested varieties in terms of their advantages for cultivation.

Line 310-312 – Write in one clear sentence to eliminate unnecessary words that do not add any meaning or value to your discussion.

Conclusion – This is not a conclusion, only results. It is necessary to further interest farmers and to give suggestions for the best combinations of sowing dates (late sowing) and variety. It is also necessary to highlight the importance of genotype.

Submission date:

16 April 2024

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for addressing the comments you sent. In my opinion, the manuscript has been largely corrected and completed. The introduction contains adequate detail of the subject matter of the research undertaken. In the materials and methods section, the authors have included all the necessary descriptions of the experiment and management technique. The results section is clearly and legibly described. The discussion section, on the other hand, sufficiently relates the results to the research of other Authors and suggests the alleged causes of the phenomena. The conclusions provide a good summary and an outlook for future field research.

I have no further comments on the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have put in a lot of work to improve this manuscript. After improvement, the article looks incomparably better. In my view, it may be accepted now.