Various Fertilization Managements Influence the Flowering Attributes, Yield Response, Biochemical Activity and SoilNutrient Status of Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sustainability-1629725

Title: Response of NPK Through Drip Fertigation on Flowering, Yield, Biochemical Activity and Soil Nutrient Status of Chrysanthemum

The manuscript entitled “Response of NPK Through Drip Fertigation on Flowering, Yield, Biochemical Activity and Soil Nutrient Status of Chrysanthemum” focuses on the effects of drip fertigation on chrysanthemum flowering and biochemical characteristics.

The manuscript is interesting even if the research topic is not innovative. Major revisions are required for publication.

Authors should improve the title. The comparison between different fertilization managements represents the crucial point of the paper. It should be emphasized not only in the title but also in the objectives.

The first part of the introduction should be rewritten. The information relating to the chrysanthemum is too scholastic, this part could be improved by adding data on the production and economic importance of this flower worldwide.

Materials and methods section. The authors should explain why finely ground soil is used, this technique differs greatly from those usually used.  More details and data such as those relating to soil grain size and cation exchange capacity could make this section clearer. It is recommended, considering the bibliography shown, to carry out the analyzes with more up-to-date methods. Is the pH in water or in KCl? Furthermore, Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the experimental soil. What does the third column refer to? It is not clear.  They would appear to be "qualitative levels". A bibliographic reference should be included.

It is recommended to insert a table with the different doses of fertilizer used in the different periods of the crop cycle, instead of lines 105-114.

The statistical analysis paragraph should be implemented with more information. Which statistical test is used? Statistical analysis is a very important aspect to be reviewed also in the results section.

Data presentation should be revised. All tables lack statistical interpretation of results. Letters should be inserted in the figures to better evaluate the statistical differences between the different theses.

Discussions also need improvement. This part should be addressed with greater comparisons between treatments used. In section 4.4 the choice to used drip irrigation is much emphasized but a comparison with other techniques has not been made, therefore it is recommended to review this part.

The conclusions deserve more attention, given the results obtained. It is not enough to repeat the results, more emphasis should be given to the fertilization plan of T3, justifying its advantages over the other theses.

Finally, to improve the quality of the manuscript, it is recommended to review the formatting and English language.

Other specific comments:

As regards the caption of figure 2, it could be more correct to write “the effects of the different levels of fertilization” and not of drip fertilization treatments, so as to make it uniform with the other captions.

Figure 3 is missing the caption.

For the abbreviations DAP and C.D, the words written in full are not reported in the manuscript

It is recommended to review the statistical analysis of the data in figures 4 b and 6 b.

In line 284-285, organic carbon is relative to the soil and not to the plant.

The distilled water thesis was never mentioned.

Where does it appear that The minimum available nitrogen content in soil was measured in T1 ie control 290 (270.31 kg/ha) which was statistically comparable with T4 (276.73 kg/ha) and T5 (271.85 291 kg / ha)? (Line 290-292)

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your critical suggestions and comments. Kindly find the attachment as our response to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have explained the manuscript well. It can be accepted if they incorporate some of the suggestions from my end. These are

Title

The title of the article is quiet confusing. It’s better to modify it.

Keywords

Keywords are much similar to title. Modify it.

Introduction

Introduction is written quiet well and well supported by literature. Anyhow provide some latest references in introduction section.

Materials & Methods

Over all experiment was well planned and well written. Few corrections are suggested

Correct line no. 98.

Table 1. Write the units in a similar way i.e. kg ha^-1. Also correct the unit in Table 1.

Results

Table 2. Provide the Standard Error for better representation of the results. In fact provide Standard Error in all the tables for better representation of the results.

Discussion

Discussion part is written well.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your critical suggestions and comments. Kindly find the attachment as our response to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I find the manuscript submitted for review interesting, well thought out and carefully prepared. However, it contains errors that need to be corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your critical suggestions and comments. Kindly find the attachment as our response to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

some comments of the report have not been considered, some answers are not exhaustive. The manuscript should be revised, the following comments should be approached with more attention.

-Comment: Authors should improve the title. The comparison between different fertilization managements represents the crucial point of the paper. It should be emphasized not only in the title but also in the objectives.

The goals and the title have not been improved.

Old version:

Title: Response of NPK Through Drip Fertigation on Flowering, Yield, Biochemical Activity and Soil Nutrient Status of Chrysanthemum

Objective: This study was aimed to see how drip fertigation affected chrysanthemum flowering and biochemical characteristics.

New version:

Response of NPK Through Drip Fertigation on Flowering, Yield, Biochemical Activity and Soil Nutrient Status of Chrysanthemum morifolium 'Thai Chen Queen'

Objective: This study was aimed to see how drip fertigation affected chrysanthemum in flowering and biochemical characteristics.

Comment: Materials and methods section. The authors should explain why finely ground soil is used, this technique differs greatly from those usually used. More details and data such as those relating to soil grain size and cation exchange capacity could make this section clearer. It is recommended, considering the bibliography shown, to carry out the analyzes with more up-to-date methods. Is the pH in water or in KCl? Furthermore, Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the experimental soil. What does the third column refer to? It is not clear. They would appear to be "qualitative levels". A bibliographic reference should be included.

The answer is not exhaustive.

In the new version, there is no longer any mention of finely pulverized soil. The authors assert that finely pulverized soil has greater water holding capacity and good aeration and that planting is fairly easy. Is it possible to have bibliographic references? Furthermore, the authors have no answers to the following questions. Is the pH in water or in KCl? What does the third column refer to?

Comment: Data presentation should be revised. All tables lack statistical interpretation of results. Letters should be inserted in the figures to better evaluate the statistical differences between the different theses.

There is an error, the standard deviations are all the same.

Comment: Discussions also need improvement. This part should be addressed with greater comparisons between treatments used. In section 4.4 the choice to used drip irrigation is much emphasized but a comparison with other techniques has not been made, therefore it is recommended to review this part.

It would be better to include more than one comparison, even if other kind of techniques are not successful in flower crops.

 Comment: It is recommended to review the statistical analysis of the data in figures 4 b and 6 b.

The authors assert that "the data presented in figure 4b and 6b has been critically reviewed by statistician and found that there is no significant difference between the same. Considering this statement, the figures should be corrected.

Comment: The distilled water thesis was never mentioned.

The answer is unclear.

Comment: Where does it appear that the minimum available nitrogen content in soil was measured in T1 ie control (270.31 kg / ha) which was statistically comparable with T4 (276.73 kg / ha) and T5 (271.85 291 kg / ha)? (Line 290-292)

Table 11 shows the data relating to Carotene content of inflorescence.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your critical suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Standard deviations provided in all tables seems wrong.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your critical suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the manuscript has been improved, even if the review made is not sufficient. Some aspects have not been clarified again.

1) Reference number 34 does not clarify the choice to use finely pulverized soil.

2) For pH, the solvent used (in your case distilled water) and the dilution ratio (also for the EC) must be specified in the table.

3) For figure 4, it should be written in the figure caption that the asterisk refers to the comparison of each single thesis with the control. It is not reported anywhere.

4) The minimum available nitrogen content in soil was measured in T1 i.e. control (270.31 kg / ha) which was statistically at par with T4 (276.73 kg / ha) and 381 T5 (271.85 kg/ha) (Table 11).

The error was not corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your critical suggestions and time on our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf