Influence of Magnesium and Biostimulant on the Consumption Value and Harmful Nitrogen Compounds Content of Potato Tubers after Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addressed the impacts of fertilization by Magnesium and Biostimulant Fertilization on the Consumption Value and Safety of Potato Tubers After Long- Term Storage. The manuscript is generally good. however, the following points are needed to be considered before acceptance of manuscript for publication

1- the title should be reduced to accurately reflect the actual content of the manuscript.

2- A flowchart of the materials and methods used should be added for clarity.

3- Tables and figures should be reduced to clearly present the key findings of the study.

4- Unnecessary references should be removed

Minor changes are needed

Author Response

1. The title was modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
2. A flowchart of the materials and methods was added – figure 1.
3. The layout of the tables and figures reflects the field experience and the experimental factors used, so they cannot be reduced. To the greatest extent, this limitation could apply to Tables 4 and 7, which the authors had to present as separate tables anyway, since they relate to different test dates (Table 4 - after harvesting, Table 7 - after storage).
4. Unnecessary references were removed. Positions in old version: 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 18, 41, 55, 59, 64.

Please see the attachment with changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Thanks for your good work. My comments are in the attached file.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

It is OK.

Author Response

1. Please add recent related works about effect of fertilization of potato using Mg and biostimulants.

ANS: Recent related works about the effect of fertilization of potato using Mg and biostimulants were added under numbers 24 and 27 (line 59 and 62).

2. Sprayed?

ANS: Biostimulant was applied by spraying (line 103).

3. Use insert symbol menu.

ANS: Insert symbol menu was used (line 122).

4. What was the potato tuber size at harvest?

ANS: The average size of potato tubers was 4 cm x 7 cm (line 114).

5. Nitrate content in larger tubers is higher than small tubers.

ANS: Referring to the sizes of potatoes used in the study indicated by the authors, the results of nitrate content in tubers refer to their average content. On the other hand, it is known that if there is a higher yield of tubers ( and therefore the potatoes are of larger size) then there is a greater accumulation of nitrates in them (Abdo et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121108)

6. It was better to measure nitrogen, potassium and magnesium in treated and control tubers at harvest time and after storage. As they are significantly related with tuber sensory quality at harvest and after storage too.

ANS: The intention of the authors was not to determine the mineral composition of tubers, but to determine the consumption value in connection with the accumulation of harmful compounds in tubers depending on the innovative technology of potato production.

7. Long-term storage.

ANS: Changed to six months storage (line 249).

8. After harvest.

ANS: Changed to at harvest (line 283).

9. Line 297: Normally, after harvesting, the amount of minerals during storage had no significant change.

ANS: The authors explained that no significant change was obtained in the content of mineral compounds (nitrates and nitrites) in potato tubers after storage. They cited the literature in this regard (lines: 333-337).

 

Please see the attachment with changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did a lot of works on the mineral fertilization with Mg and biostimulant preparation on the consumption value and safety of potato tubers. The manuscript is quite interesting and well organized. I believe the topic is relevant in view of the economical and nutritional importance of tuber crops.

 

Here I would like to highlight my additional comments and suggestions,

(1)   According to the soil parameters before the field experiment, it can be concluded that the soil fertility is relatively poor. The author set the dosage of MgO at different levels, while also introducing different amounts of SO₄^2-. As a medium nutrient element, did the author consider the factor of sulfate ions?

 

(2)   This experiment is a three-year field experiment and lacks analysis of interannual variation. Strictly speaking, climate changes such as interannual rainfall and the "continuous cropping obstacle effect" brought about by continuous planting will all affect the experimental results. It is recommended to further discuss the part for objective analysis.

 

(3)   I would like to know why the author chose the time after six months of storage, and whether the author has conducted preliminary research to prove that this is the best time choice.

 

(4)   Lines 103-104: “Biostimulant was applied three times during the potato growing season: at plant growth of 15 cm, immediately after flowering and 2 weeks after flowering.” Which method (spray/drip fertilization) was used to apply Biostimulant? How to accurately determine the growth height and flowering period as field experiments and population studies?

 

Line 138, table 1 “H2O” Please change to subscript.

 

Best regards!

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

1. According to the soil parameters before the field experiment, it can be concluded that the soil fertility is relatively poor. The author set the dosage of MgO at different levels, while also introducing different amounts of SO₄^2-. As a medium nutrient element, did the author consider the factor of sulfate ions?

ANS: Authors didn’t consider the factor of sulfate ions on potato tubers’ quality features. Since the sulfate form (SO4^2-) is the standard carrier used in magnesium fertilizers (Mg SO₄).

2. This experiment is a three-year field experiment and lacks analysis of interannual variation. Strictly speaking, climate changes such as interannual rainfall and the "continuous cropping obstacle effect" brought about by continuous planting will all affect the experimental results. It is recommended to further discuss the part for objective analysis.

ANS: No significant differences were obtained for the results of the study from year to year. Therefore, the authors did not conduct an analysis of inter-annual variability. However, the meteorological conditions described by the authors (lines: 142-149) were stable during the duration of the 3-year field experiment.

3. I would like to know why the author chose the time after six months of storage, and whether the author has conducted preliminary research to prove that this is the best time choice.

ANS: Both the authors' previous research (Retmańska et al. 2023, DOI: 10.5601/jelem.2022.27.4.2359; Wszelaczyńska et al. 2023, DOI: 0.1038/s41598-023-35576-9;  Wszelaczyńska et al. 2020, DOI: 10.5601/jelem.2019.24.4.1880; Pobereżny et al. 2020, DOI:10.1002/star.202000019) and storage recommendations for edible potato (Trawczyński 2021, DOI: 10.24326/as.2021.4.1; Grudzińska and Mańkowski 2018, DOI: 10.1007/s12230-017-9617; Czerko 2011, DOI: 10.37317/biul-2011-0012) indicate that a storage period of 6 months is the most optimal.

4. Lines 103-104: “Biostimulant was applied three times during the potato growing season: at plant growth of 15 cm, immediately after flowering and 2 weeks after flowering.” Which method (spray/drip fertilization) was used to apply Biostimulant? How to accurately determine the growth height and flowering period as field experiments and population studies?

ANS: Biostimulant was applied by spraying method (line 103). In our own research for the application of biostimulant during potato cultivation, the height of growth and flowering of plants were determined based on the BBCH scale of potato contained in https://www.agrofagi.com.pl/plik,617,skala-bbch-ziemniak.pdf (line 103-104).

5. Line 138, table 1 “H2O” Please change to subscript.

ANS: H2O was changed to H₂O (line 141).

Please see the attachment with changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Thanks for the revised file.

Regards

It is OK.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been carefully revised and I believe it is suitable for publication in this journal.