Effects of Different Irrigation Regimes and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Physicochemical and Bioactive Characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.)
, Ángel Manuel Suárez-Hernández 2, Ricardo Iván González-Vega 3, Jairo Díaz-Ramírez 4, Alejandro Manelik García-López 1, Roberto Soto-Ortiz 1, Daniel González-Mendoza 1, Rey David Iturralde-García 5, Ramón Francisco Dórame-Miranda 5 and Carmen Lizette Del-Toro-Sánchez 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS title “Effects of the Different Irrigation Regimes and Nitrogen Fertilization in the Physical-chemical and Bioactive Characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.)” is conducted well and require minor revisions. My comments for authors are as follows:
Minor comments for authors:
1- Don’t directly start abstract with objective, please add some background (such as what was the scientific problem or gap that needs to be filled) of this study in first 2-3 lines of the abstract.
2- Line 25: do italics all the scientific names in the MS.
3- Line 28-29: “The treatments caused the onion to have an acid pH level (5.7 to 5.9) and a bulb coloration in bright white/yellowish tones”. This statement is confusing, which treatment caused this?? Hydric stress?? Or nitrogen stress?? Or both??
4- Similar confusion is present in the next sentences lines 29-31. The authors should mention clearly which treatment caused changes???
5- Less nitrogen and hydric stress also reduces the yield, it should be mentioned in the abstract.
6- As, this study was conducted in the field environment, I suggest authors to provide the weather data in the MS (as a supplementary file).
7- Line 90: What is AOAC?? Whenever authors mention any abbreviations in the MS first time than explain it fully.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for all his comments to increase the quality of our manuscript.
REVIEWER 1
The MS title “Effects of the Different Irrigation Regimes and Nitrogen Fertilization in the Physical-chemical and Bioactive Characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.)” is conducted well and require minor revisions. My comments for authors are as follows:
Minor comments for authors:
1- Don’t directly start abstract with objective, please add some background (such as what was the scientific problem or gap that needs to be filled) of this study in first 2-3 lines of the abstract.
Response 1. The abstract was hanged as suggested. Lines 25-28.
2- Line 25: do italics all the scientific names in the MS.
Response 2. Suggestion attended.
3- Line 28-29: “The treatments caused the onion to have an acid pH level (5.7 to 5.9) and a bulb coloration in bright white/yellowish tones”. This statement is confusing, which treatment caused this?? Hydric stress?? Or nitrogen stress?? Or both??
Renspose 3. The treatments low in irrigation and nitrogen fertilization increased pH level (5.7 to 5.9) and bulb coloration in bright white/yellowish tones.
4- Similar confusion is present in the next sentences lines 29-31. The authors should mention clearly which treatment caused changes???
Respnse 4. In this case is “just in the nitrogen content “. Lines 34-35.
5- Less nitrogen and hydric stress also reduces the yield; it should be mentioned in the abstract.
Response 5. It was not stated because it was not a response variable for the purposes of this paper.
6- As, this study was conducted in the field environment, I suggest authors to provide the weather data in the MS (as a supplementary file).
Response 6. The data (Table 1) was put in the document for better information. Lines 102- 105.
7- Line 90: What is AOAC?? Whenever authors mention any abbreviations in the MS first time than explain it fully.
Response 7. AOAC (Association of Official Agricultural Chemists). Line 125.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment on horticulturae-2156441
MS in title “Effects of the Different Irrigation Regimes and Nitrogen Fertilization in the Physical-chemical and Bioactive Characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.)”
The MS highlighted some physical-chemical and bioactive compounds that propose a link between water deficiency and nitrogen.
Major notes;
1) The MS was claimed in the experimental design to generate conditions in 16 treatments. Please modify and insert the results of those 16 (N, water-deficit) combinations with mean standard deviation.
2) Following the rearrangement (1), the results may find some interesting combinations among the 16 treatments; these combination-treatments should be discussed in detail. At least, some potential treatment should be mentioned in the Abstract and Conclusion.
3) By also in the Introduction section, the physical-chemical and bioactive compounds evaluated in the MS should provide a reason that involved in N and water deficits. As well, why did the MS focus on N and water deficiency in onions, which may have already been announced in another report? Please supplement the Introduction.
4) According to the MS title, the red blood cell (?) was found in the investigation (in section 2.8, line168). As a result, the experimental design and story were not sufficiently clear. Please take into account the preparation in the Material section and other so on.
Other notes;
5) The MS claimed about extreme temperature and salt in the summarized paragraph of the Introduction (lines 71-177). This appeared to be unrelated to the main MS story. Please keep the consistency in fact necessary.
6) In the side, the control treatment appears to be more effective than the others [as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2 (total phenols and some antioxidant compounds)]. Please think about the process experiment and provide information.
7) As a result, the onion photographs should be inserted in part of the color.
8) Please rewrite the English (wording, italicization, etc.) in several places throughout the MS content and figures.
……………………………………………………………..
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for all his comments to increase the quality of our manuscript.
REVIEWER 2
MS in title “Effects of the Different Irrigation Regimes and Nitrogen Fertilization in the Physical-chemical and Bioactive Characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.)”
The MS highlighted some physical-chemical and bioactive compounds that propose a link between water deficiency and nitrogen.
Major notes;
1) The MS was claimed in the experimental design to generate conditions in 16 treatments. Please modify and insert the results of those 16 (N, water-deficit) combinations with mean standard deviation.
Response 1. Interactions were not discussed in pH, SST and Firmness because they were not significant. In color, the significance was barely perceptible at the 25% moisture level. Therefore, and to avoid confusion, mentions with interactions were removed from the text.
2) Following the rearrangement (1), the results may find some interesting combinations among the 16 treatments; these combination-treatments should be discussed in detail. At least, some potential treatment should be mentioned in the Abstract and Conclusion.
Renponse 2. Interactions were not discussed because they were not significant.
3) By also in the Introduction section, the physical-chemical and bioactive compounds evaluated in the MS should provide a reason that involved in N and water deficits. As well, why did the MS focus on N and water deficiency in onions, which may have already been announced in another report? Please supplement the Introduction.
Response 3. The introduction was complemented with the information suggested.
4) According to the MS title, the red blood cell (?) was found in the investigation (in section 2.8, line168). As a result, the experimental design and story were not sufficiently clear. Please take into account the preparation in the Material section and other so on.
Response 4. The section of material and methods was complemented as suggested. Line 115-123.
Other notes;
5) The MS claimed about extreme temperature and salt in the summarized paragraph of the Introduction (lines 71-177). This appeared to be unrelated to the main MS story. Please keep the consistency in fact necessary.
Response 5. The sentence was removed due to confusion.
6) In the side, the control treatment appears to be more effective than the others [as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2 (total phenols and some antioxidant compounds)]. Please think about the process experiment and provide information.
Response 6. It is true that certain parameters the control has better results, however in others there are differences such as antioxidant capacity measured by DPPH and ABTS. This depends on the composition and the type of stress applied.
7) As a result, the onion photographs should be inserted in part of the color.
Response 7. Suggestion attended.
8) Please rewrite the English (wording, italicization, etc.) in several places throughout the MS content and figures.
Response 8. Suggestion attended.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Barrales-Heredia and coworkers investigated the influence of irrigation regime and fertilization on the physical-chemical and bioactive characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.) cultivated. The work is interesting and within the scope of the horticulturae journal. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed by the authors, which are listed below:
Abstract: What is the implication of the study? Like a take-home for the readers.
Line 41: Replace “99,968,016 tons” by “of about 100 million tons”
Line 60: some of the factors
Line 71-72: “Technological packages used to grow crop onions…” This sentence does not seem to fit well. Kindly check and revise.
How were the soil moisture levels obtained?
The authors stated 4 irrigation regimes were considered one of the influencing factors they investigated. However, there was no information about irrigation in the methodology, especially on the type of irrigated water and the source.
The discussion should also be enhanced.
Is there any specific reason for considering the selected fertilization dosages?
Line 372: The opening sentence of the discussion is not well presented and should be revised.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for all his comments to increase the quality of our manuscript.
REVIEWER 3
Barrales-Heredia and coworkers investigated the influence of irrigation regime and fertilization on the physical-chemical and bioactive characteristics of onion (Allium cepa L.) cultivated. The work is interesting and within the scope of the horticulturae journal. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed by the authors, which are listed below:
- Abstract: What is the implication of the study? Like a take-home for the readers.
Response 1. The abstract was modified as suggested.
- Line 41: Replace “99,968,016 tons” by “of about 100 million tons”.
Response 2. Suggestion attended.
- Line 60: some of the factors
Response 3. Rsuggestion attended.
- Line 71-72: “Technological packages used to grow crop onions…” This sentence does not seem to fit well. Kindly check and revise.
Response 4. The sentence was removed to avoid confusion.
- How were the soil moisture levels obtained?
Response 5. It's calculated by weighing the wet soil sampled from the field, drying it in an oven, and then weighing the dry soil.
- The authors stated 4 irrigation regimes were considered one of the influencing factors they investigated. However, there was no information about irrigation in the methodology, especially on the type of irrigated water and the source.
Response 6. The information suggested was added in the methology section.
- The discussion should also be enhanced.
Response 7. Some discussion was added to complement the resultd.
- Is there any specific reason for considering the selected fertilization dosages?
Response 8. In the selected fertilization doses, low doses were considered in order to save nutrients and with this also save money, taking care of the quality of the onion.
- Line 372: The opening sentence of the discussion is not well presented and should be revised. Response 9. Suggestion attended.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript presents the methodology and the results of a study on soil moisture content and nitrogen fertilization of onion. I recommend this article to be rejected, because of the following mistakes:
- the authors did not present enough details on the irrigation system and soil water monitoring;
- the authors mentioned that they had 16 treatments, with the combination of 4 soil moisture levels and 4 N fertilization levels. However, the authors did not present the interactions between soil moisture content and N fertilization level;
- the results could be analyzed through principal components analysis (PCA), to obtain an overall look of the results from the study;
- the conclusions are just a repetition of some of the results, with no overall conclusion about the combined effect of soil moisture content and N fertilization levels.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for all his comments to increase the quality of our manuscript.
REVIEWER 4
The manuscript presents the methodology and the results of a study on soil moisture content and nitrogen fertilization of onion. I recommend this article to be rejected, because of the following mistakes:
- the authors did not present enough details on the irrigation system and soil water monitoring;
Response 1. This information was added in methodology section.
- the authors mentioned that they had 16 treatments, with the combination of 4 soil moisture levels and 4 N fertilization levels. However, the authors did not present the interactions between soil moisture content and N fertilization level.
Renponse 2. Interactions were not discussed because they were not significant.
- the results could be analyzed through principal components analysis (PCA), to obtain an overall look of the results from the study;
Response 3. The design of experiments is explained in the methodology section, the authors suggest the method is correct for this study.
- the conclusions are just a repetition of some of the results, with no overall conclusion about the combined effect of soil moisture content and N fertilization levels.
Response 4. Conclusion was complemented. However, the authors consider that it is essential to mention part of the results to explain the final part of the conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please clarify this sentence in the Abstract (line 25-26; The 25 syntheses of metabolites and bioactive compounds are the most affected and in quality of the bubo).
Based on the results and conclusions, suggest a remarkable combination of soil moisture and N application dose to improve Onion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for the excellent comments.
Dear Authors,
- Please clarify this sentence in the Abstract (line 25-26; The 25 syntheses of metabolites and bioactive compounds are the most affected and in quality of the bubo).
Response 1. Suggestion attended: “The synthesis of metabolites and bioactive compounds are the most affected in quality of the bulbs” (Lines 25-26)
2. Based on the results and conclusions, suggest a remarkable combination of soil moisture and N application dose to improve Onion.
Response 2. This was added to the conclusions: “The treatments with 25% usable humidity and nitrogen fertilization of 150 and 250 kg ha-1, favored the physical, chemical and bioactive quality of the onion bulb. ”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer's concerns have been addressed.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments that helped us increase the quality of the article.
Reviewer 4 Report
I am glad for the invitation to review this manuscript after some considerations from the reviewers.
I still think that the statistical approach could be improved by applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The PCA can be applied to most of the experimental designs, for parametric and non-parametric data.
Additionaly, I would like to invite the authors to test the data for normal distribution and for homogeneity of variances, which are two precepts for Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and mention the results in the text.
I consider that the statistical analysis is the main aspect to be improved by the authors, and which could harshly change the outcomes of the study.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I am glad for the invitation to review this manuscript after some considerations from the reviewers.
I still think that the statistical approach could be improved by applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The PCA can be applied to most of the experimental designs, for parametric and non-parametric data.
I consider that the statistical analysis is the main aspect to be improved by the authors, and which could harshly change the outcomes of the study.
Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the excellent comments.
Based on the reviewer's suggestions, the following information was added to the document:
- Table 2. Description of treatments
- This section in results and discussions: 3.7. Combined variable analysis with principal components.
- Figure 5. Principal component analysis (PCA) of physical, chemical and bioactive characteristics of the onion bulb.
- Integration of principal component analysis results into summary and conclusions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
