Growth and Yield of Strawberry Cultivars under Low Nitrogen Supply in Italy
, Valeria Pergolotti 1, Francesca Balducci 1, Mirco Marcellini 2, Franco Capocasa 1, Bruno Mezzetti 1,3 and Luca Mazzoni 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research presented in this paper is solid and worthy of publishing. It was obvious that the authors conducted a very thorough and carefully analyzed research study. Over-application of N is a timely topic and their results showing that these cultivars can perform well as 40% reduction in N is very relevant to strawberry producers.
The title should include something about the paper’s emphasis on analysis of irrigation water
Line 20 – what does “protected crop” mean? – be specific – under tunnel?
Line 22 - 113-90-68 Unit N/ha – this is an unfamiliar unit – should be kg/ha. Also, this format makes it look like a fertilizer formulation, which it is not. It’s supposed to be the treatment levels of N. Change to 113, 90, 68. Do the same for other instances.
Lines 75-76 The plant material comprised 75 “cold stored plant”, category A+. – I have no idea what this means
Line 93 – please include details about the type and manufacturer of fertilizer used for fertigation. Also, details on soil medium and irrigation system.
Figure 1 – I don’t find these diagrams very helpful at all and suggest you stick with a table
Results and Discussion – Water Analysis – needs to be shorter and more focused.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 need to be combined into one for easier comparisons by the reader –symbolize with something other than color – very difficult to see which line is which
Figures 5 and 6 should be combined, and should add N60, same with Figures 7 and 8
3.3. Productive parameters - shorten this section and add more paragraph breaks.
3.4. Qualitative Parameters - shorten this section and add more paragraph breaks.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds a lot of work.
Author Response
The research presented in this paper is solid and worthy of publishing. It was obvious that the authors conducted a very thorough and carefully analyzed research study. Over-application of N is a timely topic and their results showing that these cultivars can perform well as 40% reduction in N is very relevant to strawberry producers.
We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback
The title should include something about the paper’s emphasis on analysis of irrigation water
The title has been changed according to the Editor’s suggestion. We hope it is now satisfactory.
Line 20 – what does “protected crop” mean? – be specific – under tunnel?
We corrected the sentence in the abstract.
Line 22 - 113-90-68 Unit N/ha – this is an unfamiliar unit – should be kg/ha. Also, this format makes it look like a fertilizer formulation, which it is not. It’s supposed to be the treatment levels of N. Change to 113, 90, 68. Do the same for other instances.
We changed the sentence in the abstract and we corrected the expression “Unit/ha” into “kg/ha” in all the manuscript.
Lines 75-76 The plant material comprised 75 “cold stored plant”, category A+. – I have no idea what this means
We added a reference explaining what a cold stored strawberry plant A+ category is (Lieten, P.; Evenhuis, B.; Baruzzi, G. Cold Storage of Strawberry Plants. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2005, 5(1), 75-82. DOI: 10.1300/J492v05n01_07)
Line 93 – please include details about the type and manufacturer of fertilizer used for fertigation. Also, details on soil medium and irrigation system.
We thank the reviewer for the comment. More information is now indicated regarding the type and manufacturer of fertilizer, details on soil medium, and on irrigation system.
Figure 1 – I don’t find these diagrams very helpful at all and suggest you stick with a table
As suggested also by the Editor, the Figure 1 has been deleted
Results and Discussion – Water Analysis – needs to be shorter and more focused.
This chapter has been shortened.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 need to be combined into one for easier comparisons by the reader –symbolize with something other than color – very difficult to see which line is which
The figures have been combined into the new Figure 1 (A, B, C). Unfortunately, it was not possible to symbolize in other ways than colors, because there are too many series. We kept the color, but we increased the thickness of the lines in the graph.
Figures 5 and 6 should be combined, and should add N60, same with Figures 7 and 8
Figures 5 and 6 have been combined in the new Figure 2, adding also N60. Figures 7 and have been combined in the new Figure 3, adding also N60.
3.3. Productive parameters - shorten this section and add more paragraph breaks.
This section has been shortened and more paragraph breaks were put.
3.4. Qualitative Parameters - shorten this section and add more paragraph breaks.
This section has been shortened and more paragraph breaks were put.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, your research is very good, but my major concern has to do with your English writing skills. I suggest to ask for assistance to improve this issue. The second aspect to be improved is related to the bibliography. You have very few references from the last five years, being necessary to incorporate more recent stuff. Please, check the attached file for other suggestions and comments.
Best wishes
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Major concerns on English language quality.
Author Response
Dear authors, your research is very good, but my major concern has to do with your English writing skills. I suggest to ask for assistance to improve this issue. The second aspect to be improved is related to the bibliography. You have very few references from the last five years, being necessary to incorporate more recent stuff. Please, check the attached file for other suggestions and comments.
Best wishes
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comment. The manuscript has been reviewed by the English Service of MDPI. The references have been updated with more recent studies in the bibliography. All the other suggestions and comments have been incorporated in the last version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) In the peer-reviewed version of the manuscript, most of the text of the Abstract is marked as deleted.
2) The purpose of the study stated 'in an open field', but the authors did not indicate that it was a cultivation covered with a plastic tunnel. In my opinion, this is important information for strawberry growers.
3) Units of measurement should be given in accordance with the SI system, e.g. meq/l, mg/l, μS/cm, g/kg, kg N/ha and others.
4) In subsection 2.4.4 Qualitative parameters, a more detailed methodology for assessing the parameters under study should be provided.
5) Explanations for the tables (e.g. Table 1 "** significant interaction with p<0.01; * significant interaction for p<0.05; NS no significant interaction") should be placed under the tables, not in the title of the tables.
6) L 535: 118 N/ha – needs improvement.
7) Table 12. „Chroma” – I suggest specifying as „Chroma index”.
8) Units/ha – I suggest giving as kgÛ°ha-1.
9) In References, adjust the literature citation according to the requirements of the journal.
10) Please check that the title in reference 14 (L 731) is correct.
Author Response
- In the peer-reviewed version of the manuscript, most of the text of the Abstract is marked as deleted.
Dear Reviewer, we are sorry for this, but the track changes function is required to underline the changes that we made in respect to the old version. We hope that the new version is more easy to read.
- The purpose of the study stated 'in an open field', but the authors did not indicate that it was a cultivation covered with a plastic tunnel. In my opinion, this is important information for strawberry growers.
We thank the reviewer for the comment. The sentences regarding the “open field” conditions have been integrated with the information regarding the covering with the plastic tunnel.
- Units of measurement should be given in accordance with the SI system, e.g. meq/l, mg/l, μS/cm, g/kg, kg N/ha and others.
We thank the reviewer for the comment. We checked the manuscript, and we believe that now all the units of measurement are in accordance with the SI.
- In subsection 2.4.4 Qualitative parameters, a more detailed methodology for assessing the parameters under study should be provided.
The required information has been added in the chapter 2.4.4.
- Explanations for the tables (e.g. Table 1 "** significant interaction with p<0.01; * significant interaction for p<0.05; NS no significant interaction") should be placed under the tables, not in the title of the tables.
All the table explanations have been placed in the table footer.
- L 535: 118 N/ha – needs improvement.
We thank the reviewer for the comment. That part has been deleted in the new version of the manuscript.
- Table 12. „Chroma” – I suggest specifying as „Chroma index”.
We thank the reviewer for the useful comment. We corrected the term “Chroma” with “Chroma index” in the old Table 12 (now Table 9) and in the rest of the text.
- Units/ha – I suggest giving as kgÛ°ha-1.
We thank the reviewer for the comment. We change Units/ha in kg/ha in the whole manuscript.
- In References, adjust the literature citation according to the requirements of the journal.
The references have been formatted according to the Journal guidelines.
- Please check that the title in reference 14 (L 731) is correct.
We have checked and corrected the title of this reference.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing the issues I had with the original paper. This version is much improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language is much improved over the original draft. It was much easier to do the second review.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors responded to all my comments and made appropriate corrections to the manuscript, thanks to which its scientific value increased. In my opinion, the work can be published in Horticulturae journal.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour manuscript with the Title: " Identifying strawberry cultivars with reduced nitrogen uptake" proposes some of possible sustainable fertilizer management strategies in the crop field. This research provides a basis for improving the application of the effect of different nitrogen regimes on the vegetative, productive, and qualitative responses of three strawberry cultivars grown in open field with the standard early-spring cultivation cycle. The sustainable food systems is at the heart of the European Green Deal (The Farm to Fork Strategy) aiming to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly. So, your work is very interesting to the readers. Your manuscript adequately reviews recent progresses in the role of appropriate rates of nitrogen on strawberry plant yield and quality. Your methods are adequately described. The presentation of your results is good.
After applying nitrogen rates 113-90-68 Unit N/ha for the first year and 118-97-76 Unit N/ha for the second experimental year, you concluded that there is not a marked negative impact of nitrogen reduction in the three tested cultivars for any of the analyzed parameters. However, there are some differences in the response of the tested cultivars to nitrogen reduction for the vegetative, productive, and qualitative parameters but, in general, all of them are suitable for cultivation with a reduced input of nitrogen, reducing the environmental impact and saving inputs from the growers
Corrections:
Line 164 Please correct: Ternary Diagram, on the lower right, that represent anions (Cl, SO4, HCO3 + CO3)
Line 166-173 Please correct: full alignment
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the manuscript. We have applied the corrections suggested by the reviewers, as it possible to see by the change-tracker instrument of MS word. in particular:
Line 164 Please correct: Ternary Diagram, on the lower right, that represent anions (Cl, SO4, HCO3 + CO3)
- We correct the subscript numbers of the anions
Line 166-173 Please correct: full alignment
- We provide full alignment for this paragraph
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am happy to see that this is a paper that is addressing the big problem of excessive fertilization and is therefore an answer for the problem of unnecessary fertilization that is often used by the producers, with the aim to increase the yield. It also contains results that are not gain through expensive and complicated chemical analyses, but present a good source of useful information’s.
I think that the paper is well written, can be easily understood and is a great source of information for further research on strawberry.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation, and we are glad that our message on the issue of nitrogen over-fertilization has been clearly received.
