Onion (Allium cepa L.) Yield and Growth Dynamics Response to In-Season Patterns of Nitrogen and Sulfur Uptake
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Onion (Allium cepa L.) yield and growth dynamics response, to in-season patterns of nitrogen and sulfur uptake.
As the authors mention, the objective of this research was to define the in-season models of dry matter, N, and S accumulation by onion as well as to define the responsible parameters for onion yield.
After all the experiments they found that Weather was the key factor in differentiating the total dry weight.
- Have you done experiments under more controllable conditions i.e. a greenhouse?
- Tables are so rich in information but, they have so many symbols that it is difficult to understand their statistical significance i.e. Table 2, Table 9 etc., letters a, b, c, ab, bc, bcd, *, **,***. What is the difference between a and b or c?
- Could you please align numbers of equations, eq.1, 6, 7, and 8 ?.
- References with number 12, 18 and 23 somehow the first author is not well written, could you please check your latex file.
Author Response
Odpowiedź dla recenzenta 1 komentarz
Dziękuję za wiele pomocnych sugestii dotyczących ulepszenia rękopisu. Skorygowaliśmy rękopis zgodnie z twoją sugestią. Manuskrypt został wysłany do usługi edycji języka MDPI w celu ulepszenia gramatyki i stylu (Certificat 20706). Skrupulatnie i gruntownie poprawiliśmy również rękopis w odpowiedzi na sugestie recenzentów. Szczegółową odpowiedź na komentarze każdego recenzenta przedstawiono poniżej. Odpowiedzi na pytania i / lub przeróbki są podawane na czerwono
Recenzent nr 1
Tytuł: Plon cebuli ( Allium cepa L. ) i odpowiedź dynamiki wzrostu na sezonowe wzorce pobierania azotu i siarki.
Jak wspominają autorzy, celem badań było zdefiniowanie sezonowych modeli akumulacji suchej masy, N i S przez cebulę oraz określenie parametrów odpowiedzialnych za plon cebuli.
After all the experiments they found that Weather was the key factor in differentiating the total dry weight.
- Have you done experiments under more controllable conditions i.e. a greenhouse?
No, we have not done this experiment in a greenhouse. This experiment was conducted under field conditions. The field data obtained clearly stressed a high sensitivity of onion grown under rain-fed conditions to the course of weather during a particular growing season.
Tables are so rich in information but, they have so many symbols that it is difficult to understand their statistical significance i.e. Table 2, Table 9 etc., letters a, b, c, ab, bc, bcd, *, **,***. What is the difference between a and b or c?
Subsection “Statistical analysis” has been improved in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion. The new version of the manuscript explains the difference in the interpretation of "asterisks" and lowercase letters in superscript. The progressive number of asterisks as shown in the legend of Tables 2-9 indicate the increasing significance of ANOVA test (F-test). Whereas lowercase letters (a, b, c) next to means allow efficient reporting of pairwise treatment comparisons. Means not sharing any the same letter are significantly different by the HSD-test (HSD = Tukey’s honestly significant) at the 5% level of significance. On the other hand, means with at least one common letter are not significantly different.
Aby uniknąć pomyłki, w nowej wersji rękopisu, w tabeli 1 w odniesieniu do zawartości przyswajalnego fosforu i potasu, symbole „gwiazdek” zostały zastąpione skrótami, np. VL - bardzo niska, L - niska, itp.
Czy mógłbyś wyrównać liczby równań, równania 1, 6, 7 i 8?
Opracowane równania uporządkowano zgodnie z sugestią recenzenta.
- Odnośniki z numerami 12, 18 i 23 w jakiś sposób pierwszy autor nie jest dobrze napisany, czy mógłbyś sprawdzić swój plik lateksowy.
Piśmiennictwo o numerach 12, 18 i 23 zostało poprawione zgodnie z sugestią recenzenta.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript falls well within the topics of the journal and presents a discrete degree of novelty, regarding the interaction between nitrogen and sulfur fertilization, but major revisions are required before accepting the manuscript (see specific comments).
The paper must be revised for the English language.
Abstract
The abstract must be re-written adding some numeric information about the results.
Line 19: the verb is singular (“was determined”) but the subject is plural (“dynamics”). The English language must be revised.
Introduction
Line 47: accumulation? Maybe uptakes?
Line 54: measures? Maybe agricultural practices or techniques?
Lines 55-56: the sentence is repetitive (see lines 51-52)
Lines 70-71: add a reference
Lines 85-86: this sentence should not be included in the aim of the paper
Materials and methods
Why the soils of the three years are so different in the chemical properties? Are different sites?
Table 1: the numbers in the columns are not non-aligned; in addition, it’s better if the authors report the nitrogen values as g per kg, specifying the determination method.
Figure 1: Please, modify the figure: the zero of the two y-axis should coincide for a more easer interpretation of the figure.
Lines 108-110: the authors must be better to explain the experimental design. Is a split-plot? The S plots are the main plots and the nitrogen was split in them? please indicate the acronym of all treatment (see line 222 “AC”???)
Lines 109-110: write “sulfur rate” and no “S rate”, and “nitrogen rate” and no “N rate”
Line 112: also ammonium nitrate was added two weeks before onion sowing?
Line 133: K? maybe N?
Line 154: insert full stop after the reference [30]
Results
Line 166: the experimental factor is the “year” no “weather”
Line 169: please check “…followed by 2010 (2202 g m-2 FW)”, the year is 2011.
Figure 2a and 2b don’t correspond to information in the text: line 166 “The key factor affecting yields of onion was the course of the weather”, lines 169-171 “Onion yield was significantly dependent on doses of applied N and S, but the interaction of both experimental factors was not found” and “The effect of the S rate on onion yield was independent of the weather and N rates”. If there is not the interaction between the factors, but only the main effect of year, nitrogen, and sulfur, the authors cannot report the interaction Year X N and Year X S, in the figure. Instead, if the authors found these interactions, please write it clearly in the text.
Table 2: please delete the TDW values, because they are also reported in figure 3.
Line 219: see comment line 166
Lines 218-220: please re-write the sentence, specifying that the authors found the interaction between N x S, as they reported in table 3.
Line 221: in table 3 there isn’t the day 10, maybe day 20?
Line 225: no yield but the total dry weight (table 3)
Table 3: Please re-write the comment about table 3, because it is too detailed, and the information is often not significant.
Line 247: what is table A1? Maybe is table 4??
Line 263: Please correct the table 4, as table 3. The authors should insert two columns for the two factors (N and S) and don’t write Sx + Nx
Line 267: add “T” (TDWtb no DWtb)
Line 274: in table 2 the TDW is reported and no yield, moreover please see the comment about table 2
Line 276: the years are 2009 and 2010, and no 2010 and 2011. Please check!
Line 279-291: Please re-write the comment about table 6, because it is too detailed, and the information is often not significant
Line 291: please check the treatments, the authors reported two times the same treatment.
Line 305: 3.03 g m-2 is in 2009 and no 2010, and 0.11 is in 2010 and no 2011.
Line 307: Table A1? The authors could add the supplementary table to the paper
Line 325: please see the comment line 274
Line 326: please insert “(figure 4)” after “The observed patterns of TSU” and delete it at the end of the sentence
Line 331: no N, but S
Line 335: please indicate table 8
Line 363: in table 10 TSUT2 is reported no TSUp, please correct
Line 367-369: SCm is no significant
Line 372: see comment line 363
Line 374: “The maximum relative S uptake as recorded on the 20th”, where can I see this?
Line 376: 0.128 isn’t correct, in table 10 the value of S30+N120 is 0.138; please correct
Discussions
Line 392-394: if there isn’t interaction N x S, the figure 2b cannot be reported (please see the comment about figure 2)
Line 423: Maybe DAE 50???
Line 445: “In general”, no “The general”
Line 448: Maybe DAE 50???
Line 462-466: the sentence is not clear, please re-write
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for the many helpful suggestions to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to your suggestion. The manuscript has been sent to the MDPI Language Editing Service to improve gramma and style (Certificat 20706 ). We have also carefully and thoroughly revised the manuscript in response to the reviewer suggestions. The detailed response to each reviewer’s comments is outlined below. Responses to questions and/or remaks are given in red
The manuscript falls well within the topics of the journal and presents a discrete degree of novelty, regarding the interaction between nitrogen and sulfur fertilization, but major revisions are required before accepting the manuscript (see specific comments).
The paper must be revised for the English language.
Abstract
The abstract must be re-written adding some numeric information about the results.
The numeric information in this study, in fact, refers to the type of the regression models developed, and to the yield prognosis based on parameters of TDW, TNU, and TSU in particular stages of onion growth. The most important fact, referring to the yield prognosis at DAE 40, was inserted into the abstract.
Line 19: the verb is singular (“was determined”) but the subject is plural (“dynamics”). The English language must be revised.
It has been corrected. The whole text has been corrected with respect to the language, according to suggestions of the Reviewers by the MDPI Author Services (Certificate MDPI).
Introduction
Line 47: accumulation? Maybe uptakes?
The Unit Nutrient Accumulation is an index used to determine the requirement of a crop for a particular nutrient. This index is evaluated based on the nutrient content in a crop at harvest. It is well-documented that the nutrient content at harvest can differ substantially with its value at maximum uptake. The classical example is potassium (Source: Arnold Finck. 1992. Dunger and Dungung. Grundlagen und Anleitung zur Dungung der Kulturpflanzen. Publisher: VCH Verlagsgesellchaft mbH, Weinheim, Germany).
Line 54: measures? Maybe agricultural practices or techniques?
It has been corrected.
Lines 55-56: the sentence is repetitive (see lines 51-52)
This sentence has been removed from the text.
Lines 70-71: add a reference
Respective references have been added.
Lines 85-86: this sentence should not be included in the aim of the paper
This sentence has been removed from a manuscript.
Materials and methods
Why the soils of the three years are so different in the chemical properties? Are different sites?
The experiment was conducted each year on other fields within the same farm, differing slightly or considerable in the content of available nutrients, for example, in S-SO4.
Table 1: the numbers in the columns are not non-aligned; in addition, it’s better if the authors report the nitrogen values as g per kg, specifying the determination method.
The content of available nutrients is, as a rule, expressed in mg 100 g-1 soil or in mg kg-1 of soil. The exception is mineral N, which is expressed as kg ha-1. Sources: Wehrmann J and Scharpf HC (1986) The Nminmethod — an aid to integrating various objectives of nitrogen fertilization. Z Pflanzenernähr Bodenk 149: 428–440; K. Mengel 1991. Available nitrogen in soils and its determination by the ‘Nmin-method’ and by electroultrafiltration (EUF)
Fertilizer research 28, pages251–262.
Figure 1: Please, modify the figure: the zero of the two y-axis should coincide for a more easer interpretation of the figure.
It has been corrected in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion.
Lines 108-110: the authors must be better to explain the experimental design. Is a split-plot? The S plots are the main plots and the nitrogen was split in them? please indicate the acronym of all treatment (see line 222 “AC”???)
The experiment was made according to a randomized block design, with four replications. It was not a split-plot. The treatments (nitrogen and sulfur fertilization) are randomly allocated to the experimental units inside each block (I, II, II and IV). When all treatments appear at least once in each block, we have a randomized complete block design . This design is more precise than the completely randomized design. Within each block, the conditions are as homogeneous as possible. Therefore, this experiment design minimizes the effect of soil variability. Moreover, the aim of this experimental design was not to distinguish between a main factor and a minor factor.
AC - absolute control, acronym has been explained on first use.
Lines 109-110: write “sulfur rate” and no “S rate”, and “nitrogen rate” and no “N rate”
In the majority of scientific papers, also published in Agronomy, as a rule the phrase “N rate” is frequently used.
Line 112: also ammonium nitrate was added two weeks before onion sowing?
There has been added a phrase .., including ammonium nitrate..”.
Nitrogen in the form of ammonium nitrate was applied two weeks before sowing. It is an ordinary practice in order to avoid toxicity of ammonia to germinating seeds.
Line 133: K? maybe N?
It has been corrected. Should be “N”.
Line 154: insert full stop after the reference [30]
It has been corrected.
Results
Line 166: the experimental factor is the “year” no “weather”
It has been corrected.
Line 169: please check “…followed by 2010 (2202 g m-2 FW)”, the year is 2011.
It has been corrected.
Figure 2a and 2b don’t correspond to information in the text: line 166 “The key factor affecting yields of onion was the course of the weather”, lines 169-171 “Onion yield was significantly dependent on doses of applied N and S, but the interaction of both experimental factors was not found” and “The effect of the S rate on onion yield was independent of the weather and N rates”. If there is not the interaction between the factors, but only the main effect of year, nitrogen, and sulfur, the authors cannot report the interaction Year X N and Year X S, in the figure. Instead, if the authors found these interactions, please write it clearly in the text.
This part of the text has been checked and corrected, clearly indicating that the effect of the S rate on onion yield was independent of the weather and N rates. Figure 2 was corrected in line with the Reviewer comments. There is no “S x N interaction” as it was not significant. In figure 2a the influence of the year, sulfur and nitrogen was demonstrated. Figure 2b shows the "year x nitrogen" interaction.
Table 2: please delete the TDW values, because they are also reported in figure 3.
It has been removed from the Table No 2.
Line 219: see comment line 166
It has been corrected.
Lines 218-220: please re-write the sentence, specifying that the authors found the interaction between N x S, as they reported in table 3.
This sentence has been re-written. A significant N x S "interaction was obtained for total dry weight (TDW).
Line 221: in table 3 there isn’t the day 10, maybe day 20?
It has been corrected.
Line 225: no yield but the total dry weight (table 3)
It has been corrected.
Table 3: Please re-write the comment about table 3, because it is too detailed, and the information is often not significant.
This part of a manuscript was checked and shortened.
Line 247: what is table A1? Maybe is table 4??
These data are included in Table A1 (in new version of manuscript Table S1) presenting correlations between the parameters for the developed TDW, TNU and TSU models.
Line 263: Please correct the table 4, as table 3. The authors should insert two columns for the two factors (N and S) and don’t write Sx + Nx
It has been corrected.
Line 267: add “T” (TDWtb no DWtb)
It has been corrected.
Line 274: in table 2 the TDW is reported and no yield, moreover please see the comment about table 2
It has been corrected.
Line 276: the years are 2009 and 2010, and no 2010 and 2011. Please check!
It has been corrected.
Line 279-291: Please re-write the comment about table 6, because it is too detailed, and the information is often not significant
This part of a manuscript has been checked and shortened.
Line 291: please check the treatments, the authors reported two times the same treatment.
It has been corrected.
Line 305: 3.03 g m-2 is in 2009 and no 2010, and 0.11 is in 2010 and no 2011.
It has been corrected.
Line 307: Table A1? The authors could add the supplementary table to the paper
Table A1 (Table S1) has been added as a supplementary material.
Line 325: please see the comment line 274
The part of Table 8, overlapping data on TSU dynamics, which are present on Figure 4, had been removed.
Line 326: please insert “(figure 4)” after “The observed patterns of TSU” and delete it at the end of the sentence
It has been corrected.
Line 331: no N, but S
It has been corrected.
Line 335: please indicate table 8
It has been added.
Line 363: in table 10 TSUT2 is reported no TSUp, please correct
It has been corrected.
Line 367-369: SCm is no significant
The SCm parameter of S accumulation by onion during the growing season significantly affected NCm, and consequently, TDW. This was the main reason to describe SCm trends in response to S and N doses.
Line 372: see comment line 363
It has been corrected.
Line 374: “The maximum relative S uptake as recorded on the 20th”, where can I see this?
It has been corrected.
Line 376: 0.128 isn’t correct, in table 10 the value of S30+N120 is 0.138; please correct
Discussions
Line 392-394: if there isn’t interaction N x S, the figure 2b cannot be reported (please see the comment about figure 2)
Line 423: Maybe DAE 50???
Yes, it has been corrected.
Line 445: “In general”, no “The general”
It has been corrected.
Line 448: Maybe DAE 50???
Yes, it has been corrected.
Line 462-466: the sentence is not clear, please re-write
This part of a manuscript has been re-written. Under favorable growth conditions for onion, the highest yield was obtained provided the amount of applied N and S was as 1 : 1. However, under unfavorable conditions the ratio of applied nutrients should be as 1 : 2, i.e. the double S dose with respect to the N applied dose.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, I noted your efforts in correcting the paper based on review suggestions, also if sometimes only partially. In particular, I don't find the nitrogen determination method (electroultrafiltration -EUF) in the text of material and methods, I suggest inserting it. Moreover, I would also highlight that the nitrogen, given as nitrate, is very soluble and leaching, so it could be best furnish it after the emergence of plants. Finally, in my comment -Line 166: the experimental factor is the “year” no “weather”- I intended that in the results the authors should be talking of "year" and no "weather" because "weather" indicates the climate, but the experimental factor is the "year"; it is obvious that at different year correspond different weather, but I think that is more correct in results write "year".
However, the paper can be accepted.
