Effect of Mineral Fertilisation on Tuber Yield and Quality in Yams (Dioscorea alata and Dioscorea rotundata)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please find the attachment and follow the suggestions.
The manuscript proposed by Afolabi et al.,‘’ Effect of Mineral Fertilisation on Tuber Yield and Quality in Yams (Dioscorea alata and Dioscorea rotundata)’’ is interesting. Research work is simple (a smaller number of treatments) but may be considered for publication. Researchers from countries like Nigeria do not have excellent research facilities, therefore, space should be given to them in good-quality journals. At the same time, I want to see good-quality papers in the Journal. So, before final publication, the following suggestions would be considered to improve the paperwork presentation. Overall, my recommendation is ‘’Minor revision’’.
Line 28. Please write a reason of Danacha and TDa0200012 genotypes for maximizing fertiliser productivity? How they improved fertiliser productivity? Which special underlaying mechanism involved?
Line 27-27. Please re-write the abstract, add some main results in percentage, For example Danacha and TDa0200012 genotypes increased yield by 00% to 00% and dry tuber weight by 00% to 00% compared to xyz genotypes.
Formulae for this calculation
Yield change (%)= Yield (non-fertilized plot)-yield (fertilized plot)/ yield (non-fertilizer plot)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378377421002985
Please add a graph of weather data.
In methodology, please some equations which are used for calculations.
In conclusion, please clearly write: Tuber productivity can be significantly enhanced using combination of xyz genotype and fertilizer rate of 00000 NPK.
Please add 3rd paragraph in introduction section.
In results, please add a correlation graph for observed parameters and genotypes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please improve.
Author Response
Dear Respected reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read through the manuscript and for the constructive comments. Please see the comprehensive responses in the attached file and the relevant corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. We have also improved on our English as pointed out.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled "Effect of Mineral Fertilisation on Tuber Yield and Quality in Yams (Dioscorea alata and Dioscorea rotundata)" submitted to a MDPI journal Agriculture. This study provides many useful data and these data can advance the understanding of boosting Yam productivity through reasonable fertilization management in sub-Saharan Africa. Field experimental design is correct and the manuscript is well-written. The author's analysis of experimental results is very relevant, and also clearly points out the shortcomings of the article and the next research direction. Overall, this manuscript can reach the level of an MDPI journal, therefore I suggest accepting it. I just have a question as the following:
1. The authors compared a total of eight Yam genotypes to determine which genotype performs best under fertilization condition. However, which one can be recommended for large-scale cultivation in the local area. In other words, the author should give you a clear conclusion in the manuscript. Which genotype is better?
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read through the manuscript and for the constructive comments. Please see the comprehensive responses below, as well as the relevant corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Line 80-81: provide geographical coordinates for the research location.
2. Line 90-95: information must be completed. What type of soil is it (according to the WRB classification)? What methods were used to determine soil properties, such as pH, total nitrogen content, organic carbon, available phosphorus and exchangeable potassium (provide literature references); the content of total nitrogen and organic carbon in the soil should be in g kg-1, not in %
3. Table 2. Descriptors – not understandable to a wide range of readers (e.g. Lafun, Amala, Eba, Fufu).
4. Line 271 (Tables 3 and 4) – remove "and 4".
5. The discussion on the impact of fertilization on the yield of Yams covers only three works by the co-authors of the reviewed article and should be extended.
6. Conclusions: Based on the research conducted, can it be indicated which genotype can be recommended for cultivation in the analyzed soil and fertilizer conditions?
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to read through the manuscript and for the constructive comments. Please see the comprehensive responses below, as well as the relevant corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
