Effects of Combined Potassium and Organic Fertilizer Application on Newhall Navel Orange Nutrient Uptake, Yield, and Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- There is no title for the Introduction section.
2. Incorrectly numbered sections of the article.
3. The depth from which the soil samples were taken is not provided.
- According to the information provided, it is doubtful whether the amount of used nutrients content has been correctly calculated (Table 1).
- Authors should provide sufficient detail about statistical analysis.
- Abbreviations should be defined in Table 3 and 4.
- The article contains proofreading/layout errors (indicated in the text).
- It is expedient to discuss the reasons for the change of indicators in more details.
- The other links are in the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- From what depth are soil samples?
Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewritten this statement in the text as follows: The orchard was transformed from a paddy field with homogeneous purple soil, which had a soil pH of 5.51, soil organic matter content of 16.07 g·kg-1, soil total nitrogen of 49.58 mg·kg-1, soil available phosphorus of 8.35 mg·kg-1, and soil available potassium of 78.79 mg·kg-1, indicating medium and low levels of fertility. Soil was sampled at depths of 0~30 cm soil layer for the above data analysis.
- What does K25, K20, K15, K05 mean? Below the table it is necessary to explain
Thank you for your suggestion, we have added a note at the end of the table to describe in detail. In order to give readers a more intuitive understanding, we use simplified letters to represent organic fertilizer and K fertilizer respectively, and the number behind the letters may indirectly indicate the amount of fertilizer (kg) applied per tree.
3. By my calculations, that are: 0,701; 0,748; 0,795; 0,842.
Thank you very much for your careful observation, we are very sorry for the writing error caused by our negligence. In the text, 46.7% should be 47%, which was incorrectly written, although we used 47% in our actual calculations. It has now been corrected in the text.
- Authors should provide sufficient detail about statistical analysis. ‘The data were statistically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS 25.0.’
Thank you for your suggestion, we have added some content as follows：The data were statistically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS 25.0. Each treatment was repeated three times, and the significance of differences between treatments was assessed by Duncan's new complex extreme difference method （DMRT）.
Are the reasons just these? But "Fertilizers were applied in March, July, and October of each year" in all variants.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewritten the sentence as follows: which may be related to the time and dosage of the potassium fertilizer and the dosage of organic fertilizer, and the application of the potassium fertilizer in July and October can more fully meet the large amount of potassium demand during the growing period of autumn shoot.
- "were not significantly"? ‘They were both highest in OM0+K25-treated trees and were not significantly different between the other three treatments.’
Thank you for your suggestion, our presentation is confusing. What we really want to express is that the content of N in the pulp and whole fruit, OM0+K25-treated is the highest compared with other treatments, while the content of N in the other three treatments has no significant difference. We have rewritten the sentence as follows: It was higher in OM0+K25-treated trees for the pulp and whole fruit compared with other treatments, but that were not significantly different between the other three treatments.
On the other hand, we re-examined the text throughout and made changes where the semantics were unclear in the revised paper.
7. Table 3 : Abbreviations L, a, b should be defined.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have already expressed the definition of L, a, b in the materials and methods (2.3.2. Collection of fruit samples and quality and nutrient determination) of the original paper. To facilitate understanding, the definition of L, a, and b is added at the bottom of Table 3 in the revised paper. Besides, these abbreviations in Table 4 have already been defined.
- N2O is formed due to denitrification, but organic matter reduces the intensity of the denitrification process. How would you explain this statement?
The content of this sentence “But Bisca Escanhoela et al. (2019) [43] found that organic management increased soil greenhouse gases emissions, primarily N2O emissions, whether CO2 flux is affected remains to be further observed. ” can be confusing, because our original intention is to mean that organic fertilizer intensified N2O emissions, but whether it affects the release of CO2 is debatable. Therefore we re-write the sentence as follows: However, Bisca Escanhoela et al. (2019) [43] found that organic management increased soil greenhouse gases emissions, with the main component being N2O, and whether CO2 flux was affected remains to be further observed.
9. Some questions about reference numbers and format, and the setting of heading numbers for natural paragraphs.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have used numbers instead of author names for references throughout text, standardized the format of each reference, and rearranged paragraph numbers. These modifications can be seen in the revised paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with high scientific and practical importance.
The introduction is presented correctly, in accordance with the subject. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.
Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.
The obtained results are important and have been analyzed and interpreted correctly, in accordance with the current methodology.
The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field.
The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.
Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.
The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.
1.
Abstract
The abstract is too long (over 450 words).
According to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal, it is recommended "Abstract: A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum."
Revision is recommended
2.
It is recommended to follow the structure and titles of the chapters, sub-chapters, in accordance with the Instructions for authors and the Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal.
Eg
Page 1
Chapter title "1. Introduction" is missing
It is recommended to renumber the following chapters and sub-chapters.
Eg.
Page 3
”2. Materials and methods” instead of ”1. Materials and methods”
”2.1. Test site and materials” instead of ”1.1. Test site and materials”
It is necessary to check and correct in the article, as appropriate, on each chapter.
3.
Citing bibliographic sources in the text
It is recommended to follow the Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal.
“References
References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.”
eg
Page 1
"[1]" instead of "(Deng and Guo, 2001)"
It is necessary to revise and correct the citation of bibliographic sources throughout the article.
4.
There is a need for space between the word and the parentheses that follows with the bibliographic source.
Eg
Page 2:
"functions [3]." instead of "functions(Wei et al, 2019)."
It is necessary to check and correct the entire article.
5.
References
The entire References chapter should be revised in accordance with the Instructions for Authors and Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal.
"References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.”
“Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.”
”Deng, X.X.; Guo, W.W. Introduction to the Ninth Academic Congress of the International Citrus Society. J. Fruit Sci. 2001, 02, 124. (In Chinese)”
Instead of
“Deng X X, W W Guo.(2001) Introduction to the Ninth Academic Congress of the International Citrus Society. Journal of Fruit Science, (02):124. (In Chinese)”
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- The abstract is too long (over 450 words). According to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Agronomy journal, it is recommended "Abstract: A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum."Revision is recommended
Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewritten this part using about 200 words in the revised paper.
- Some questions about reference numbers and format, and the setting of heading numbers for natural paragraphs.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have used numbers instead of author names for references throughout text, standardized the format of each reference, and rearranged paragraph numbers. These modifications can be seen in the revised paper.
- Some errors in punctuation and grammar.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have reread the whole article corrected them in the revised paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been corrected based on the reviewer's comments.
Author Response
- The abstract is too long ，Revision is recommended
Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewritten this part using about 200 words in the revised paper.
- Some questions about reference numbers and format, and the setting of heading numbers for natural paragraphs.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have used numbers instead of author names for references throughout text, standardized the format of each reference, and rearranged paragraph numbers. These modifications can be seen in the revised paper.
- Some errors in punctuation and grammar.
Thank you for your suggestion, we have reread the whole article corrected them in the revised paper.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
