Nutrient Balance in Hass Avocado Trees as a Tool to Optimize Crop Fertilization Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research is interesting and needs tweaking before publication. The authors sought to determine the nutritional standards of avocado trees planted in soils with Andean characteristics and to determine the nutritional management of the crop based on the methodology of Kenworthy's balanced indices (BIK).

In the Abstract detail the results in more detail. Select the most important results and describe them in this section.

In the Introduction it would be interesting to add some hypotheses for the research.

In the legends of the figures put the meaning of PPT and ET0.

What is the explanation for finding high CVs?

See the possibility of testing a multivariate analysis (PCA) with nutritional data.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our manuscript titled Nutritional standards for Hass avocado trees as a tool for the management of crop fertilization. We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on we manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided for you. We are going to answer one by one the suggestion provided for you.

 Reviewer 1

In the Abstract detail the results in more detail. Select the most important results and describe them in this section.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in this section.

In the Introduction it would be interesting to add some hypotheses for the research.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in lines 54 - 57

In the legends of the figures put the meaning of PPT and ET0.

R// In the figure 1: ET0; reference evapotranspiration FAO Penman-Monteith. PPT; monthly accumulated precipitation. The description is included in the figure legend.

What is the explanation for finding high CVs?

R// The high coefficients of variation (CV) reported in Table 3 for the nutritional standards used in BIK are attributed to typical behavior in avocado orchards. Previous studies on nutrient extraction in orchards have shown high variability in extraction, primarily attributed to population variability. However, in the results obtained in this study, most nutrients (except Mn) exhibited a CV below 30%, which is considered an acceptable value for in vivo data.

In Table 6, high coefficients of variation (CV) are observed in the treatment means. This behavior is primarily attributed to the characteristic alternate bearing of avocado orchards. During each productive cycle, it is common to find trees with high productivity and others with low productivity, resulting in high variability when analyzing average production per tree. To provide additional support to the analysis of variance presented in the table, modifications were made, including the F-values and the standard error (SE) in Table 6.

See the possibility of testing a multivariate analysis (PCA) with nutritional data.

R// A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted to assess the nutrients. The PCA analysis revealed the formation of three principal components that explain at least 70% of the cumulative variance. These three components encompass all the evaluated nutrients, implying that analyzing each nutrient individually would be equivalent. The tables present the values obtained in the analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The whole fertilization program was based on trees producing >85 kg fruit. Then, you did not have this amount at your data. You also had an unknown fertilizer efficiency in an equation. How did you find the proper nutrient quantities finally for those farms?

You started the abstract with the comparison of soil nutrients to plant nutrient levels. Then it went to BIK nutrient application based on leaf analyses (nothing else on soil analyses except the initial soil status) and fruit analyses. Confusion. I am afraid that you cannot show us what the scope of the work was and how you went towards getting your findings.

I am trying to understand the experimental setup. There were two treatments. The BIK treatments was developed based on the calculations of inorganics in the fruit that would be harvested. When were the inorganics on the fruit measured? How fertilizer efficiency was measured? What is SC? The BIK index was calculated for leaf or fruit inorganics? Which standards were used as optimal (L99, standard interval)?

The title and abstract are unclear. The reader cannot understand what the manuscript is all about.

L9-10 ‘but there is little information for avocado areas under Colombian tropical conditions’ internationally this phrase is of no meaning

L19 remove Hass avocado, put avocado latin name

L9 and L23, L52 and L66: are these avocado finally in tropical or temperate climate?

L25-26: are departments or regions?

L39-40 what do you mean?

L126 What do you mean ‘and the number of fruits was reduced with the advance in its development’? Are there replications? You removed some (how many) of the fruit you were measuring the diameter?

L155 and what about SC?

L129-130 Why did you measure fruit inorganics during the course of fruit growth? The fruit inorganics outputs are only when fruit are harvested. What was the scope of all measurements? What is the meaning of Figure 3 for your work?

L214 what is ‘uncovered soil conditions’?

L225 why ‘could be maintained’? Was maintained or not?

L230 ‘a sigmoid curve with a gradual increase at first until 88 DDA and a higher linear growth rate’ is unclear sentence. It could be written clearly: accumulation of dry matter was minor until day 88 and started increasing steadily until day 245. There is nothing to show sigmoidal curve.

L236-237 the phrase ‘the nutrient uptake for N, P, Ca, S, Fe, Mn and Cu showed a reduction in the accumulation rate from 170 to 204 DDA’ is not true in some cases

L254 ‘no significant differences’ from farmer treatment?

L258-260 ‘There was an increase in the fruit fresh weight for the two localities evaluated but with a significant difference only for the M locality’ is meaningless. There is no clear comparison.

L79 and Table 6: you chose high yield trees (>85 kg) and you finally harvested much less. How did this happen? When did these trees produce >85 kg?

L295-296 actually BIK fertilization decreased fruit size! Why did this have no effect?

Fig. 4 legend: there must be clearer the year per graph

The S (supplementary?) tables or figures are not available

L317 Why do you call Al and Fe organic minerals such?

L306-320 What is the meaning of this discussion for your manuscript’s subject? You should connect it to your fertilization program, your target inorganics, something …

L353-355 unclear sentence

L363-364 Finally, you did not describe how you applied the nutrients constantly?

L379 the way you write this, it seems that you measured soil inorganics in both treatments and found them to increase in BIK treatment. This is not true.

L384-387 again unclear sentence and is the end of the conclusions.

English must be improved. Many points are unclear. Many scientific terminology is not presented as it is usually presented.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

We respectfully receive your comments, and we are sure that your focus is oriented to help improve the quality of this manuscript. We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on we manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided for you. We are going to answer one by one the suggestion provided for you.

.

The whole fertilization program was based on trees producing >85 kg fruit. Then, you did not have this amount at your data. You also had an unknown fertilizer efficiency in an equation. How did you find the proper nutrient quantities finally for those farms?

R/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging the information were described in detail in numeral 2.4.1. (lines 144 – 153). We had a mistake writing the number of trees. I am attachment a file with database of all trees selected in this section.

You started the abstract with the comparison of soil nutrients to plant nutrient levels. Then it went to BIK nutrient application based on leaf analyses (nothing else on soil analyses except the initial soil status) and fruit analyses. Confusion. I am afraid that you cannot show us what the scope of the work was and how you went towards getting your findings.

R// The methodological section was organized sequentially to show how the standard values were obtained, the extraction of each element was performed, and each nutrient was determined according to the BIK-based treatments. Then, the crop response in terms of fruit weight and yield was evaluated.

I am trying to understand the experimental setup. There were two treatments. The BIK treatments was developed based on the calculations of inorganics in the fruit that would be harvested. When were the inorganics on the fruit measured? How fertilizer efficiency was measured? What is SC?

R/ A table (Table 2) has been included specifying the sampling moments for plant tissue, indicating the dates based on the BBCH phenological scale. The methodological section has been organized in such a way that the step-by-step process of obtaining each value using mathematical formulas can be observed.

The BIK index was calculated for leaf or fruit inorganics? Which standards were used as optimal (L99, standard interval)?

R// The BIK formulas were used for the nutrient balance index to determine the nutritional status of the plant based on the samples described in section 2.4.1. This method allowed for considering the physiological variations among high-yielding trees, using the foliar standard range for each mineral element as reference, as reported by Salazar-García and Lazcano-Ferrat [6] (L207).

The title and abstract are unclear. The reader cannot understand what the manuscript is all about.

L9-10 ‘but there is little information for avocado areas under Colombian tropical conditions’ internationally this phrase is of no meaning.

R//Both the abstract and introduction have been reviewed. The abstract presents the most relevant results of the experiment. In the introduction, starting from line 56, some hypotheses related to the crop's response to fertilization have been incorporated.

L19 remove Hass avocado, put avocado latin name

R// It was replaced in the Keywords: Persea americana

L9 and L23, L52 and L66: are these avocado finally in tropical or temperate climate?

R// It has been clarified that the study was conducted in a tropical Andean climate (L27), and a description of the region's characteristic climate (L82) has been provided, classified as a tropical rainforest (Af) according to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification [15] [16].

L25-26: are departments or regions?

R// L25-L28, it is clarified that it is a region composed of several departments.   

L39-40 what do you mean?

R// The existence of globally reported levels is explained and a relationship is established with optimal standard values for increasing production. It is suggested to refer to previous studies in the introduction that address these optimal values.

L126 What do you mean ‘and the number of fruits was reduced with the advance in its development’? Are there replications? You removed some (how many) of the fruit you were measuring the diameter?

R//The fruit growth was considered as an indicator of nutrient uptake during its development. However, based on the methodological approach of this document, it was decided to omit this section.

L129-130 Why did you measure fruit inorganics during the course of fruit growth? The fruit inorganics outputs are only when fruit are harvested. What was the scope of all measurements? What is the meaning of Figure 3 for your work?

R//The fruit growth was considered as an indicator of nutrient uptake during its development. However, based on the methodological approach of this document, it was decided to omit this section.

L225 why ‘could be maintained’? Was maintained or not?

R//Se Cambio la redacción del texto diciendo que los nutrientes se mantuvieron en el rango de concentración normal del BIK L358-L361

L230 ‘a sigmoid curve with a gradual increase at first until 88 DDA and a higher linear growth rate’ is unclear sentence. It could be written clearly: accumulation of dry matter was minor until day 88 and started increasing steadily until day 245. There is nothing to show sigmoidal curve.

R//The fruit growth was considered as an indicator of nutrient uptake during its development. However, based on the methodological approach of this document, it was decided to omit this section.

L236-237 the phrase ‘the nutrient uptake for N, P, Ca, S, Fe, Mn and Cu showed a reduction in the accumulation rate from 170 to 204 DDA’ is not true in some cases

R77The fruit growth was considered as an indicator of nutrient uptake during its development. However, based on the methodological approach of this document, it was decided to omit this section.

L254 ‘no significant differences’ from farmer treatment?

R//The wording of the relevant results in Table 5 has been corrected. An error in the reported p-values in the text, specifically in lines 370-378, has been identified and rectified.

L258-260 ‘There was an increase in the fruit fresh weight for the two localities evaluated but with a significant difference only for the M locality’ is meaningless. There is no clear comparison.

R// The wording of the results related to Table 5 has been corrected, as an error in the reported p-values in the text has been identified and rectified. Furthermore, the description of the findings regarding fruit diameter in the second year has been clarified, specifically in lines 370-378.

L79 and Table 6: you chose high yield trees (>85 kg) and you finally harvested much less. How did this happen? When did these trees produce >85 kg?

L295-296 actually BIK fertilization decreased fruit size! Why did this have no effect?

R// It has been clarified that no improvement in fruit size according to the Codex Alimentarius classification was observed during the first year in the ET locality. However, a clear improvement is evident in the second year. It is important to note that, as explained in the section on statistical analysis, each year was considered an individual experiment, so no comparisons were made between years. Regarding the M locality, it is reported that there were improvements in fruit size in both year 1 and year 2. This is described in more detail in lines 440-487.

Fig. 4 legend: there must be clearer the year per graph

R// The legend in Figure 4 has been modified to include the year and locality to which each figure (a, b, c, and d) belongs.

L317 Why do you call Al and Fe organic minerals such?

The discussion section has been completely revised, and therefore, that particular sentence is no longer referenced.

L306-320 What is the meaning of this discussion for your manuscript’s subject? You should connect it to your fertilization program, your target inorganics, something …

R// The discussion section has been completely revised, and therefore, that particular sentence is no longer referenced.

L353-355 unclear sentence

R// The discussion section has been completely revised, and therefore, that particular sentence is no longer referenced.

L363-364 Finally, you did not describe how you applied the nutrients constantly?

R// It is specified in section "2.3. Fertilization treatments" (L139-141) that monthly application of fertilizers was carried out.

L379 the way you write this, it seems that you measured soil inorganics in both treatments and found them to increase in BIK treatment. This is not true.

R// It has been clarified that nutrient imbalance in the foliar tissues of Hass avocado affected parameters such as yield per tree and fruit growth at harvest. This imbalance was detected through the diagnosis of the tree's nutritional status using the BIK methodology (L638-641).

L384-387 again unclear sentence and is the end of the conclusions.

R// The mentioned final sentence has been removed as nutrient extraction curves for fruits were not considered in this document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Comments are provided within the submitted zip file.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our manuscript titled Nutritional standards for Hass avocado trees as a tool for the management of crop fertilization. We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on we manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided for you. We are going to answer one by one the suggestion provided for you.

1. Terms adopted within the manuscript

I would recommend to reconsider the terms “nutrimental standards”, “nutritional content”, and “nutrient extraction”.  The term nutrimental standards is correct if we consider the meaning of nutriment; however, this term is uncommon. In addition, this term is present in different variations within the manuscript, which are, in my opinion, more accepted. The term nutritional content is more common to describe nutritional composition in foods for human consumption. The terms such as nutrient content, nutrient composition or others should be preferred. The uptake and distribution of nutrients from soil or leaves to other organs are significant in plant fertilization. The application of different macro- and microelements should be based on nutrient removal, among others. In this article, the preferred term nutrient extraction could be confusing. Revision of these terms could contribute to the article's clarity and visibility.

R/ We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion in the tittle and all components of the manuscript

2. Materials and methods.

The presented form of materials and methods should be revised. I would propose the next order: Field conditions, Soil analysis (if conducted prior fertilization treatments), Plant fertilization treatments, Foliar standard nutrimental (nutrient content) analysis, Pattern of nutrient extraction (nutrient removal) by the fruit, Fruit growth and yield variables, Statistical analysis. This arrangements is just a suggestion; however, the described procedures within the materials and methods section should be clear. The content of this section should be revised as well.

R/ We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion in this section of the manuscript.

Field conditions

- Köppen and Geiger climatic classifications are not equal, and it is common to select one of the two (lines 64 – 66). It is unclear if the classification is referred to the Köppen-Geiger system, also the classification should be checked for accuracy.

R/ We agree with this comment. Therefore, we revised and modified the reference of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Also, an additional reference was included (line xx - xx).

- Soil description should comprise soil taxonomy classification for both sites (for example lines 61 – 64).

R/ We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion in line 87 - 100.

- Daily wind speed, relative humidity, solar radiation, sunshine (unclear measurement), temperatures are not reported in manuscript’s. Even if the authors report those measurements for ET0 calculation, with the exception of sunshine, as stated within the reference number 18 (lines 73 – 75), those are suggested to include within the supplements, for example as Figures.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we eliminated the variable sunshine. However, in the previous file upload for the evaluation processes we attached the file with supplementary materials that included the Figures of the climatic variables. Taking in consideration your suggestion we also incorporated the Figure for solar radiation as supplementary materials and we are sending you as attachment file.

- Two climatic stations were reported, I would recommend to select the one which was used to obtain the data (lines 68 – 73). If two different stations were required due to distance, than data for both sites should be provided. Model description and station location should be included.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we eliminated the reference climatic station that only we used as a second source of information to validate data.

Sampling – soil, leaf, inflorescences, fruits

- When possible, BBCH or other scale and sampling date or frequency should be provided, if needed within a Table (lines 120 – 121; 129 – 130). Date could be provided in order to easily correlate sampling and other procedures or analyses.

R/ We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion in Tables 2 and 3.

- Leaf sampling was conducted in June (line 82), but it is unclear in which year.

- It is unclear when soil, leaf, and fruit sampling/measurements were conducted (lines 78 – 79, 89 – 92, 129 – 131, 152 – 153)?

Re/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging all unclear information were described in detail in numeral 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5.

- Harvest time and fruit maturity index were not reported (lines 162 – 168).

R/ We incorporated the information in line 162 – 164.

- Leaf, fruit, and soil nutrient analysis methods were not described with substantial detail (lines 85 – 94, 129 – 137, etc.). Sample (soil, leaf, fruit) nutrient analysis is lacking significant information and should be revised – instruments, conditions of analysis, chemicals, standards, method reference, etc.

R/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging all unclear information were described in detail in numeral 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5.

- Selection of trees with yield higher than 85 kg/tree for leaf and inflorescence sampling is rather unclear (for example lines 78 – 79, 151, etc.) as the yield should be recorded at the end of the experiment.

R/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging information were described in detail in numeral 2.4.1. (lines 144 – 153). We had a mistake writing the number of trees. I am attachment a file with database of all trees selected in this section.

- The sampling procedures should be revised:

1. a) How many trees/replicate were sampled for leaf, inflorescence, and fruit analysis and how many replicates were included were included for each fertilization program;
2. b) Soil sampling is unclear (number of sampled soil depths, number of samples/orchard and fertilization type, periods of sampling). How many soil samples/fertilization treatment or orchard were collected and how many replicates were included (lines 89 – 94, 151 – 154)
3. c) It is rather unclear how trees were selected according to yield if the leaves and inflorescences were collected prior this event (line 79, etc.).
4. d) Until when was the fruit diameter recorded is not reported (line 124);
5. e) The diameter was measured on how many fruits/tree, how many trees/replicate and how many replicates were included for each fertilization program (lines 122 – 124)?

R/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging all unclear information were described in detail in numeral 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5.

Balance index of Kenworthy

- Balance index of Kenworthy is used for nutrient content description in accordance with plant requirements. While this method may be dated (Kenworthy, A. L. Leaf analysis as an aid in fertilizing orchards. Soil testing and plant analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Madison WI, 1973, 381-392) it has some later applications. However, even if this method is described in greater detail (lines 95 – 118) it is somehow unclear its application in fertilization management decisions within this research. Herewith are proposed some additional improvements:

1. a) How was fertilization adjusted for avocado trees with different and variable nutrient concentrations within different orchards should be described in greater detail;

Re/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in section 2.5. (lines 214 – 231) the application of BIK methodology in fertilization management. In section 2.4.1 (lines 144 – 153) we described the sampling procedures and in table 1 of section 2.3. we described in details information for each treatment.

1. b) If the fertilization was equal for both orchards, as presented in Table 1, it should be stated (line 160);

R/ Your suggestion was incorporated in lines 123 - 125

1. c) The reference number 11 (Kenworthy, 1973) was not available for further reading; however, the reference number 20 (Fonseca et al., 2018) reports different BIK range values from the ones stated in this article (lines 112 – 118).

R/ Ranges for deficiency and below normal were adjusted (lines 209 – 210).

Fertilization treatments

- Treatment application is unclear and it is overlapping (lines 139 – 140). The exact periods of applications should be provided for all types of fertilizations, years, and orchards.

Re/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging all unclear information were described in detail in numeral 2.3. Plan fertilization treatment. The periods of application were described in lines 102 – 104. We respectfully clarify that the treatments are not overlapping, they correspond to the phenological stages from anthesis to harvest. Under conditions of this work, these phases appear overlapping as a common characteristic in Hass avocado crops.

- It is unclear if the treatments are conducted all at once or during a longer period of time with different application interventions.

Re/ We agree with your suggestion and incorporated details in line 129 - 131

- It is unclear if the first year had just one type of fertilization, while the second experimental year had two types of fertilizations (lines 139 – 140). If this is the case, the experimental design can’t be described as year one and year two. In addition, sampling years cannot be compared and considered as an independent variable for the statistical analysis.

- Fertilization is reported to be designed according to soil supply capacity (lines 152 – 153). If this is the case, soil sampling and analysis should be included in a different chapter. Otherwise, it seems as the soil sampling is conducted at the same time as foliar sampling.

- The soil chemical analysis was conducted to calculate nutrient supply capacity; however it is unclear when it was conducted and how it was applied if the two fertilization treatments (FT and BT) overlap.

- All fertilizers (formulation, type of application – soil or foliar) and applied doses should be listed for each fertilization event, type and orchard.

- The Equation 3 lacks a reference and its application is not clear (lines 153 – 157). How the formula was calculated if the removal of nutrients was evaluated at the end of the experiment? How was the fertilizer efficiency established?

Re/ We agree with your suggestion and once the order of materials and methods were rearranging all unclear information were described in detail in numeral 2.3.

Statistical analysis

- The number of samples or plants included within a replicate are important for sampling quality and data analysis (please see previous comments for sampling). This is clearer if we consider the meaning of power analysis, even if it is not requested for this article: A power analysis is the calculation used to estimate the smallest sample size needed for an experiment, given a required significance level, statistical power, and effect size. The replicate number and experimental design for all samples included in each fertilization treatment, year (depending upon if there was one or there were two independent experimental years), and orchard are fundamental for statistical analysis.

R// It has been detailed that: the experimental design used consisted of randomized complete blocks, where each block was comprised of 5 trees. Each of these trees was treated as an individual experimental unit. Additionally, the evaluation years (1 and 2) and the locations ET and M were considered as independent variables

- The number of replicates, p and/or F values, standard errors or standard deviations, and type of statistical analysis should be included for each Table and Figure.

R// In the results section, the standard error (SE) was included in the corresponding tables, as well as the F-value in the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Additionally, the figure and table captions specified the sample size used in the study Fertilization treatments.

- The information that ANOVA was conducted is incomplete. There are different types of ANOVA and groups (factors or independent variables) should be clearly stated for each all-reported result.

R// In the Statistical Analysis section, it was added that a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. The response variables considered were fruit diameter (mm), fruit weight (g), and yield (kg/tree). The years and locations were treated as independent variables, while treatments and blocks were treated as fixed factors.

- Statistical analysis should be provided for all results. In my opinion, the statistical analysis of climatic variables is not necessary. If the samples of soil were collected jointly for each orchard, as they were sampled prior to the experimental setup, their statistical analysis is not required. As previously stated, sampling years cannot be compared and considered as an independent variable.

R// Although soil samples were taken before applying the treatments, a comparison of the available elements was made among different locations. This comparison was important to determine the homogeneity of the areas.

- Two different errors, namely standard error, and standard deviation, are reported. In the materials and methods authors report standard deviation, while in the Results standard error is reported.

R// The values presented in the text and tables are standardized as the standard error (SE). The coefficient of variation (CV) is maintained in the ANOVA tables and in the standard values of nutrient extraction as they are necessary for application in the IBK formulas.

Results and discussion

- Supplementary materials were not provided even if listed within the manuscript (for example line 181).

R/  We agree with your suggestion and we are sending you information as attachment file.

- Nutrients were reported in different units. If the same type of analysis was conducted, this should be corrected (Table 2, Table 3). Nutrient concentrations provided for N are usually reported as % (Kjeldahl), whereas other macro- and micronutrients are reported as mg/kg or g/kg of fresh or dry weight (ICP-AES or other).

R/ The suggestion were incorporated in table 7

- No significant differences were found for soil chemical characteristics (lines 180 – 181), yet Table 2 is missing standard errors, n number. The p value and type of statistical analysis should be reported along with Table 2.

R/We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in table 4.

- Climatic conditions were reported only for precipitation (line 191 – 200). Please see previous comments (Field conditions).

- It is not clear if the foliar standard index refers to BIK (line 205 – 207).

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in section 2.5.

- Examined avocado trees were not classified in deficient/sufficient/toxic groups and BIK index interpretation in that context is missing.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in lines 288 – 293 and 304 – 314.

- Leaf nutrient concentrations were not reported for different experimental years, orchards, and fertilization treatments.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in lines 288 – 293 and 304 – 314.

- The variability of leaf nutrient content between different avocado trees within the two orchards, different fertilization practices, and two investigated years is unclear (Table 3 reports results for year 2023, and there is no indication of orchards);

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in section 3.2.

- Even if dry weight was reported for different parts of avocado fruit (lines 230 – 241), this was not stated in the materials and methods.

- Nutrients were not reported for each orchard (Figure 3). The calculation of nutrient per fruit should be reported within materials and methods.

- Nutrient extraction calculation was not reported within materials and methods (Table 4). Nutrient extraction is not reported for each orchard separately.

- Figure 3 reports dry weights, while Table 5 reports fresh weights. Those measurements can be both presented, but equally.

R/ The section of pattern of nutrient removal by the fruit were eliminated of the manuscript because we want to expand the data collection for this topic in other research.

- All described analyses should be provided with data (main text or supplementary).

- Statistical analysis is missing for most of the reported data. This should be corrected. Please see previous comments.

R/ We agree with your suggestion, and we incorporated in section 3.3

- Discussion should present all the results and it should be based on statistical analysis. It is not correct to comment difference between experimental years, fertilization treatments, and orchards without adequate experimental design and analysis.

R/ We agree with your suggestion and we redirect the discussion

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made the corrections. The PCA was missing within the manuscript and discussed. But as it stands, it's acceptable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you again for the time that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript in this second round. In the attachment file is the English Editing Certificate, with the aim that you can check that the manuscript was edited for proper English language. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

You had a manuscript with many flaws. you have done a major revision of the manuscript, but, at least, the English is still relatively poor.

English language must be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you again for the time that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript in this second round. In the attachment file is the English Editing Certificate, with the aim that you can check that the manuscript was edited for proper English language. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Herewith I provide the main comments and concerns. The attached PDF file has some minor comments.

Statistical analysis and experimental design

Two treatments were conducted over two consecutive crop years in each orchard from anthesis to fruit harvest, the first between August 2020 and April 2021 and the second between March and November of 2021. The first treatment corresponded to the standard management of the farmer (FT), and the second was the plan fertilization management based on the BIK (BT). Lines 101 – 105.

Table 1. Details of Fertilizer Treatments and Fertilizer Sources. Line 132

The orchards received different fertilizations, this is expected and fertilization was adjusted according to the production requirements. However, this indicates that orchards could be a separate factor.

Experimental design stated within the manuscript:

Factor 1: Year 1 – Treatment 1 (FT); Year 2 – Treatment 2 (BT)      

Factor 2: Treatment 1, Treatment 2

Possible factor 3: Orchard 1 - Treatment 2a; Orchard 2 - Treatment 2b

If the goal of the study is to investigate the main effects of both fertilization type and year on the dependent variable (for example fruit diameter), it is common practice to include all possible combinations of the levels of the two factors. In this scenario, the two fertilizer types would be applied in both years.

For example, you would have four treatment groups: Fertilizer Type A in Year 1, Fertilizer Type A in Year 2, Fertilizer Type B in Year 1, and Fertilizer Type B in Year 2. Each treatment group would represent a unique combination of the two factors, allowing you to assess the main effects of fertilizer type and year, as well as their interaction.

If we accept those statements, then it should be considered that Year is not a valid factor in the reported research. Orchard could be considered a factor, as environmental conditions and fertilization differed among the two orchards. In addition, interaction of two factors was not provided within the submitted article. While it is not mandatory to present the interaction effect in a two-way ANOVA, it is generally advisable to report it if it is statistically significant or relevant to the research question (otherwise a separate one-way ANOVA could be adopted). Please consider these statements and explain them if necessary.

Statistical analysis is still lacking for most of the reported results.

As the statistical analysis affects results and discussion, those should be corrected/revised when this step is corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you again for the time that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript in this second round. In the attachment file is the answer to your suggestions. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf