Effects of Various Potassium Fertilizer Dosages on Agronomic and Economic Assessment of Sweet Potato Fields
, Shutong Lei, Qingping Zhang, Hui Li, Ying Lang, Xianqi Huo and Qianjin LiuRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe article is not presented as required by the journal guidelines, starting with the abstract and ending with the references. I think this behaviour is disrespectful towards the reviewers. I will be happy to review the paper completely and thoroughly once the authors have sorted it out as per the guidelines. At the same time, the authors must try to improve their English in general because it is heavy and not very fluent.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate english required
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, “Effects of various potassium fertilizer dosages on agronomic and economic assessment of sweet potato fields”. The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provided important guidance to our research. We have carefully studied the comments and have made many corrections, which we hope will meet with your approval. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript, which had reviewed by an English editing. The primary corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Comment: the article is not presented as required by the journal guidelines, starting with the abstract and ending with the references. I think this behaviour is disrespectful towards the reviewers. I will be happy to review the paper completely and thoroughly once the authors have sorted it out as per the guidelines. At the same time, the authors must try to improve their English in general because it is heavy and not very fluent.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Firstly, we deeply apologize for our mistake and express our gratitude and respect. Secondly, we carefully represented the article in accordance with the requirements of the journal guidelines. Lastly, we have sent the revised manuscript to a colleague fluent in English writing and Home for Researchers editorial team (www.home-for-researchers.com) for English language editing. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: (1) organize the abstract following the guidelines of the journal
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have organized the abstract following the guidelines of the journal in lines 10-22: To explore the effects of various potassium fertilizer dosages on sweet potatoes, we conducted field experiments in 2018 and 2019 using a randomized block design. In the experiment, the control (completely blank, no fertilizer), KS0 (potassium blank, no potassium fertilizer), KS100 (100 kg K2O ha-1), KS200 (200 K2O ha-1), and KS300 (300 K2O ha-1) treatments were set up. The application of potassium fertilizer increased the potassium content of sweet potato plants, thereby increasing chlorophyll content, net photosynthetic rate, and the fluorescence chlorophyll parameters. It also increased the amylose content in tuber roots to increase the total starch content and yield of sweet potato. Specifically, the KS200 treatment significantly improved soil potassium content, potassium absorption, potassium agronomic efficiency, and potassium recovery efficiency. Compared with the other treatments, the yield and net profit of the KS200 treatment increased by 0.89–27.05% and 2.34–30%, respectively, on average, over two years. Based on factors such as sweet potato yield and starch content, the recommended amount of potassium fertilizer was 200 kg ha-1, which has significant economic benefits and theoretical value.
Comment: (2) use the format of the journal for the references, everywhere
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have used the format of the journal for the reference throughout the entire paper.
Comment: (3) add a refs, i suggest: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12061319
https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020266
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added these references in line 36 and lines 415-418:
6 Lamaro, G.P.; Tsehaye, Y.; Girma, A.; Vannini, A.; Fedeli, R.; Loppi, S. Evaluation of Yield and Nutraceutical Traits of Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato Storage Roots in Two Agro-Climatic Zones of Northern Ethiopia. Plants 2023, 12, 1319.
7 Lamaro, G.P.; Tsehaye, Y.; Girma, A.; Vannini, A.; Fedeli, R.; Loppi, S. Essential Mineral Elements and Potentially Toxic Elements in Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato Cultivated in Northern Ethiopia. Biology 2023, 12, 266.
Comment: (4) use the guidelines of the article
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have used the guidelines of the article and made revisions throughout the entire paper.
Comment: (5) what is this?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have made the changes in each table.
Comment: (6) follow the journal's guidlines
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have followed the journal's guidlines and made revisions throughout the references.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response: We have sent the revised manuscript to a colleague fluent in English writing and Home for Researchers editorial team (www.home-for-researchers.com) for English language editing.
We appreciate your valuable comments, which were helpful for improving the quality of our study.
The manuscript is also reviewed by our peers. If you require any other information, please contact us immediately.
With best regards,
Jibiao Geng, Xiuyi Yang
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is based on the well-known topic of fertilizing with potassium necessary for potato or sweet potato crops. It includes a description of a simple experiment, with variable fertilizer application rates confirmed in yield and properties.
The abstract is not treated as a single, coherent part of the article, but as a conglomeration of the most important information. In my opinion, the names of the individual 'chapters' are redundant.
There are many typos, missing or unnecessary spaces in the article. Article citation is not done properly. The article includes colloquial terms unacceptable in scientific publications, such as "potassium-loving". "luxury absorption of potassium".
There are many language errors in the text, various font sizes etc.
Some of the words used in the text shows the lack of professionalism of the authors, such as the description of the table: "This is a table. Part properties of tested soil before sweet potato planting."
The text of the article was not even subjected to a simple check, which makes it contain such errors as misspelled cm instead of m. "the plot area was 50.4 m2 (9 m long and 5.6 cm wide)" - Line 106, "corp" instead of crop - Line 116, etc.
Table 1, Table 3, Table 4 are not placed on a single page.
The article did not include any detailed data on weather conditions during the growing seasons, but only a summary description of conditions at the experimental site.
In its current form, the article is not suitable for publication as a scientific item.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, “Effects of various potassium fertilizer dosages on agronomic and economic assessment of sweet potato fields”. The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provided important guidance to our research. We have carefully studied the comments and have made many corrections, which we hope will meet with your approval. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript, which had reviewed by an English editing. The primary corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Comment: The article is based on the well-known topic of fertilizing with potassium necessary for potato or sweet potato crops. It includes a description of a simple experiment, with variable fertilizer application rates confirmed in yield and properties.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: (1) The abstract is not treated as a single, coherent part of the article, but as a conglomeration of the most important information. In my opinion, the names of the individual 'chapters' are redundant.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have organized the abstract following the guidelines of the journal in lines 10-22: To explore the effects of various potassium fertilizer dosages on sweet potatoes, we conducted field experiments in 2018 and 2019 using a randomized block design. In the experiment, the control (completely blank, no fertilizer), KS0 (potassium blank, no potassium fertilizer), KS100 (100 kg K2O ha-1), KS200 (200 K2O ha-1), and KS300 (300 K2O ha-1) treatments were set up. The application of potassium fertilizer increased the potassium content of sweet potato plants, thereby increasing chlorophyll content, net photosynthetic rate, and the fluorescence chlorophyll parameters. It also increased the amylose content in tuber roots to increase the total starch content and yield of sweet potato. Specifically, the KS200 treatment significantly improved soil potassium content, potassium absorption, potassium agronomic efficiency, and potassium recovery efficiency. Compared with the other treatments, the yield and net profit of the KS200 treatment increased by 0.89–27.05% and 2.34–30%, respectively, on average, over two years. Based on factors such as sweet potato yield and starch content, the recommended amount of potassium fertilizer was 200 kg ha-1, which has significant economic benefits and theoretical value.
Comment: (2) There are many typos, missing or unnecessary spaces in the article. Article citation is not done properly. The article includes colloquial terms unacceptable in scientific publications, such as "potassium-loving". "luxury absorption of potassium".
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We carefully revised the article in accordance with the requirements of the journal guidelines and avoided the colloquial terms unacceptable in scientific publications. For example, line 36: Sweet potato has a high demand for potassium [6,7] ; lines 348-350: Moreover, excessive application of potassium leads to extravagant absorption of potassium and decreases potassium use efficiency [26].
Comment: (3) There are many language errors in the text, various font sizes etc.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. Firstly, we deeply apologize for our mistake. Secondly, we have carefully made revisions throughout the entire paper. Lastly, we have sent the revised manuscript to a colleague fluent in English writing and Home for Researchers editorial team (www.home-for-researchers.com) for English language editing. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript.
Comment: (4) Some of the words used in the text shows the lack of professionalism of the authors, such as the description of the table: "This is a table. Part properties of tested soil before sweet potato planting."
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have made the changes in each table.
Comment: (5) The text of the article was not even subjected to a simple check, which makes it contain such errors as misspelled cm instead of m. "the plot area was 50.4 m2 (9 m long and 5.6 cm wide)" - Line 106, "corp" instead of crop - Line 116, etc.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have carefully checked and made revisions throughout the entire paper. For example, lines 122-124: In the experiment, the planting density was 50,000 plants ha-1, the plant spacing was 0.25 m, the ridge spacing was 0.8 m, and the plot area was 50.4 m2 (9 m long and 5.6 m wide).
Comment: (6) Table 1, Table 3, Table 4 are not placed on a single page.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have placed these tables on a single page.
Comment: (7) The article did not include any detailed data on weather conditions during the growing seasons, but only a summary description of conditions at the experimental site.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have added the detailed data on weather conditions during the growing seasons in Figure 1.
Comment: (8) In its current form, the article is not suitable for publication as a scientific item.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provided important guidance to our research. We have carefully studied the comments and have made many corrections, which we hope will meet with your approval. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript, which had reviewed by an English editing.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response: We have sent the revised manuscript to a colleague fluent in English writing and Home for Researchers editorial team (www.home-for-researchers.com) for English language editing.
We appreciate your valuable comments, which were helpful for improving the quality of our study.
The manuscript is also reviewed by our peers. If you require any other information, please contact us immediately.
With best regards,
Jibiao Geng, Xiuyi Yang
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper includes results of a two years field trial done with the main objective of identifying the effect of the application to the soil of different levels of K, on the yield and starch content of sweet potato. A brief economic study of the results obtained was also presented, which values the work.
The rationale and objectives are clearly stated, and the experimental design is appropriate to address the research questions posed. In my opinion, the study carried out constitutes a positive contribution to the valorization of an interesting crop, namely due to its potential to improve the economy of smaller farms. The topic is within the scope of “Horticulturae”.
Overall, the article is well-written and easy to understand.
In the Introduction, previous studies related to sweet potato fertilization, namely potassium fertilization, could be mentioned. This will aid interpretation
and discussion of the results.
Materials and methods are well describe. However I think that some information should be clarified. For example, on line 108 it is mentioned “…with four repetitions, and the fourth repetition was used as the rooting and seed testing area.” and on line 145 and line 157 it is referred “… five places were randomly selected for each treatment.”. After all, how many repetitions were actually considered?
On line 112 it is said “… according to the upper limit of potassium fertilizer for the actual production of sweet potato.”. What it is?
The results are adequately presented but, probably, I am misinterpreting some of them.
According the authors (Line 165), KAE and KRE were calculated using the following formulas:
KAE (kg K kg-1) = (the yield in K treatment - the yield in no K treatment) / the amount of K fertilizer
KRE (%) = ((K accumulative uptake of plant from K treatment - K accumulative uptake from no K treatment) X 100%) / the amount of K fertilizer applied
Considering the results presented in Table 6 for these parameters (e.g. results from Control and KS0, where no K was applied), it seems necessary to verify them. If I'm wrong, for better clarification on the calculation of KAE and KRE, I suggest the inclusion, in the material and methods, of the formulas used by the authors.
Discussion of results could be improved. For example, do you consider that the production values obtained in the field trial were usual? What about the values of KAE and KRE?
In the introduction (Line 49), to provide more context on the novelty of this work, the authors state that "Most cultivated soils are seriously deficient in potassium ...". This is not the case of the soil used in the trial (available K > 110 mg kg-1). However, any comments are made by the authors regarding this aspect, namely in the discussion of the results (e.g. discussion of starch content or sweet potato production). Could this aspect influence the results obtained?
The conclusions are supported by the results presented and highlight the practical implications of the findings and give recommendations, what values the manuscript.
Additional comments:
Line 130 – “…in some fresh soils …”. What do you mean? Only in some samples?
Line 173 – “Compared with the KS0 treatment, the SPAD and Pn of the leaves increased.”. With potassium fertilizer dosage?
Line 181, 203, 250, 225 ad 299 – Tables title. And 2018?
Page 6 - Table 4 – 0.81a, 0.81b – verify letters
Page 8 – Table 6 (K uptake; 100d) – 102.52b, 95.37a – verify letters
Line 282 – “ … , the starch yields of KS200 and 282 KS200 increased by …” - verify text.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, “Effects of various potassium fertilizer dosages on agronomic and economic assessment of sweet potato fields”. The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provided important guidance to our research. We have carefully studied the comments and have made many corrections, which we hope will meet with your approval. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript, which had reviewed by an English editing. The primary corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Comment: This paper includes results of a two years field trial done with the main objective of identifying the effect of the application to the soil of different levels of K, on the yield and starch content of sweet potato. A brief economic study of the results obtained was also presented, which values the work.
The rationale and objectives are clearly stated, and the experimental design is appropriate to address the research questions posed. In my opinion, the study carried out constitutes a positive contribution to the valorization of an interesting crop, namely due to its potential to improve the economy of smaller farms. The topic is within the scope of “Horticulturae”.
Overall, the article is well-written and easy to understand.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your affirmation of it.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: (1) In the Introduction, previous studies related to sweet potato fertilization, namely potassium fertilization, could be mentioned. This will aid interpretation and discussion of the results.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have mentioned these part in lines 38-49: A high yield was ensured by potassium fertilization of a reasonable quantity. Potassium acts as an activator throughout the whole life cycle of sweet potato [9]. Especially for various enzymes in sweet potatoes, potassium can improve the photosynthesis ability of sweet potato leaves, the transportation of light and products, the plant’s resistance to adversity, and the plant’s resistance and tolerance to adverse environments [10]. Potassium is also used as a lubricant for carbohydrate transfer and distribution between sink and source organs of crops. A proper potassium supply can regulate the T/R value of sweet potatoes and promote the transfer of photosynthetic products to root tubers [11]. Increasing the application of potassium fertilizer can improve the production capacity of sources that provide photosynthetic products, improve the distribution rate of dry matter in root tubers, and increase dry matter production and root tuber yield.
Comment: (2) Materials and methods are well describe. However I think that some information should be clarified. For example, on line 108 it is mentioned “…with four repetitions, and the fourth repetition was used as the rooting and seed testing area.” and on line 145 and line 157 it is referred “… five places were randomly selected for each treatment.”. After all, how many repetitions were actually considered?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. Firstly, we deeply apologize for our mistake, and four repetitions were actually considered. Secondly, we have carefully made revisions in line 147 and 159.
Comment: (3) On line 112 it is said “… according to the upper limit of potassium fertilizer for the actual production of sweet potato.”. What it is?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have deleted this sentence.
Comment: (4) The results are adequately presented but, probably, I am misinterpreting some of them.
According the authors (Line 165), KAE and KRE were calculated using the following formulas:
KAE (kg K kg-1) = (the yield in K treatment - the yield in no K treatment) / the amount of K fertilizer
KRE (%) = ((K accumulative uptake of plant from K treatment - K accumulative uptake from no K treatment) X 100%) / the amount of K fertilizer applied
Considering the results presented in Table 6 for these parameters (e.g. results from Control and KS0, where no K was applied), it seems necessary to verify them. If I'm wrong, for better clarification on the calculation of KAE and KRE, I suggest the inclusion, in the material and methods, of the formulas used by the authors.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have carefully made revisions in Table 6 and added the formulas in lines 170-175.
Comment: (5) Discussion of results could be improved. For example, do you consider that the production values obtained in the field trial were usual? What about the values of KAE and KRE?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have improved the discussion of results.
Comment: (6) In the introduction (Line 49), to provide more context on the novelty of this work, the authors state that "Most cultivated soils are seriously deficient in potassium ...". This is not the case of the soil used in the trial (available K > 110 mg kg-1). However, any comments are made by the authors regarding this aspect, namely in the discussion of the results (e.g. discussion of starch content or sweet potato production). Could this aspect influence the results obtained?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have rephrased this sentence in line 50: Potassium resources are extremely deficient in China.
Comment: (7) The conclusions are supported by the results presented and highlight the practical implications of the findings and give recommendations, what values the manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your affirmation of it.
Comment: (8) Line 130 – “…in some fresh soils …”. What do you mean? Only in some samples?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have deleted this sentence.
Comment: (9) Line 173 – “Compared with the KS0 treatment, the SPAD and Pn of the leaves increased.”. With potassium fertilizer dosage?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have rephrased this sentence in lines 180-181: Compared with the KS0 treatment, the SPAD and Pn of the leaves in each potassium fertilizer treatment increased.
Comment: (10) Line 181, 203, 250, 225 ad 299 – Tables title. And 2018?
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have made the changes in each table title.
Comment: (11) Page 6 - Table 4 – 0.81a, 0.81b – verify letters
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have verified letters in Table 4.
Comment: (12) Page 8 – Table 6 (K uptake; 100d) – 102.52b, 95.37a – verify letters
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have verified letters in Table 6.
Comment: (13) Line 282 – “ … , the starch yields of KS200 and 282 KS200 increased by …” - verify text.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. we have carefully made revisions in line 290.
We appreciate your valuable comments, which were helpful for improving the quality of our study.
The manuscript is also reviewed by our peers. If you require any other information, please contact us immediately.
With best regards,
Jibiao Geng, Xiuyi Yang
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have done a great and good job, making the manuscript suitable for publication in Horticulurae. I recommend the publication of the article.
Good luck
Author Response
Comment: The authors have done a great and good job, making the manuscript suitable for publication in Horticulurae. I recommend the publication of the article.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your affirmation of it.
We appreciate your valuable comments, which were helpful for improving the quality of our study.
The manuscript is also reviewed by our peers. If you require any other information, please contact us immediately.
With best regards,
Jibiao Geng, Xiuyi Yang
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the Authors for publishing a version with the changes highlighted.
I think that the abstract (first sentence) should be written in the passive side - line 11 "we conducted"
In my version of the file, the Figure 1 caption is on the next page. The same is true for Table 7, Table 8.
I did not find information about the forecrop for the experimental crop, this can be supplemented.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, “Effects of various potassium fertilizer dosages on agronomic and economic assessment of sweet potato fields”. The comments were all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provided important guidance to our research. We have carefully studied the comments and have made many corrections, which we hope will meet with your approval. We also marked all the changes in red in the revised manuscript, which had reviewed by an English editing. The primary corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Comment: I thank the Authors for publishing a version with the changes highlighted.
Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your affirmation of it.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: (1) I think that the abstract (first sentence) should be written in the passive side - line 11 "we conducted".
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have rephrased this sentence in lines 10-11: field experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 using a randomized block design.
Comment: (2) In my version of the file, the Figure 1 caption is on the next page. The same is true for Table 7, Table 8.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We have adjusted the title positions of these figures and tables.
Comment: (3) I did not find information about the forecrop for the experimental crop, this can be supplemented.
Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. The experimental site has only been planted with sweet potatoes in recent years, so there are no forecrops.
We appreciate your valuable comments, which were helpful for improving the quality of our study.
The manuscript is also reviewed by our peers. If you require any other information, please contact us immediately.
With best regards,
Jibiao Geng, Xiuyi Yang
