Potassium Determines Sugar Beets’ Yield and Sugar Content under Drip Irrigation Condition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewed manuscript “Potassium determined sugar beet yield and sugar content” is an original and interesting study. Authors comprehensively demonstrated the Potassium and irrigation effect on yield and sugar content of sugar beet for sustainable productivity. I would suggest minor revision.
Following are some suggestions for further improvements:
First few lines of the abstract should be about the importance of study.
Lines 53-55: Consider revising the lines.
Lines 70-73: Consider revising the lines.
Introduction and Discussion section needs to further strengthen by latest studies on the subject.
At some places in the text, there are grammatical mistakes that need to be corrected by some native English colleague.
To further strengthen introduction, following latest studies etc. are suggested to cite for the importance potassium and irrigation for sugar beet and its sugar content.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
I have replied to your comments point by point. Please see the attachment for details.
Best wish
Xiangwen Xie
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read through the paper and found it interesting with average novelty. The paper can be accepted. However clarity is needed on the methodology
1. what motivated the fertilizer treatments? Why was there no hydroquinone on other treatments now give that the best treatment was W1F3? Were the chosen ratios based on commercial availability or some other considerations?
2. Would a factorial design not have improved the analysis?
3. Redundancy is normally used for multiple datasets. In this case only a few variables were used and the data seems straight forward. Can the authors justify the use of Principal Components Analysis.
3. The World Reference base system could be used for wider audience to understand the soil types.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
I have replied to your comments point by point. Please see the attachment for details.
Best wish
Xiangwen Xie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Detailed comments:
1) In my opinion, the biggest shortcoming of this work is that the results of only a one-year field experiment (April to October 2019) are presented here. Therefore, formulating generalisations based on them for the entire general population may be subject to considerable error.
2) I suggest changing the manuscript title as it does not address all of the content. The study determined not only the effect of potassium fertilization but also drip irrigation (W1 and W2) on the yield of sugar beet roots and the sugar content in the roots. The influence of these experimental factors on some growth and physiological indicators and fertilizer use efficiency was also indicated.
3) In the Abstract - provide the location of the experiment, years of research and irrigation method.
4) Table 1 shows the irrigation regimes as used in the experiment. In table 1 for "Irrigation water quota" in the amount of e.g. 6750 m3 ha-1 10 "irrigation times" and 450 mm "irrigation norm" are given - a total of 4500 mm? Moreover, in the further part of this work, under the charts and tables, the Authors provide "W1: Irrigation water quota of 45 mm; W2: Irrigation water quota of 60 mm". Please, provide more detailed information on how the water was dosed.
In my opinion, Table 1 is redundant. The terms irrigation treatment and the doses of water delivered to plants could be given in the text in 1 or 2 sentences.
5) I suggest rewording the sentence in line L 11 to “These soil properties were determined according to generally accepted methods [31,32]”.
6) L 142-147: Based on what methodology were these measurements made?
7) How many repetitions were the physiological measurements taken? Which leaves were selected for the measurements, in which part of the leaves the measurements were taken?
8) L 196-197: This section of the manuscript needs rewording.
9) L 307: "... the water use efficiency ..." - The authors did not present such data in the study.
10) The way the literature is cited in the manuscript and the list of bibliographies should be in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainability journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
I have replied to your comments point by point. Please see the attachment for details.
Best wish
Xiangwen Xie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
After corrections were made by the Authors, the paper can be accepted for publication in Sustainability.
