Yield and Antioxidant Quality of Habanero Chili Pepper by Supplementing Potassium with Organic Products
, Valentín Robledo-Torres 1,*, Laura Raquel Luna-García 1, Rosalinda Mendoza-Villarreal 1 and Miguel Ángel Pérez-Rodríguez 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors analyzed the combined effects of organic amendments and K fertilizer on growth and quality of chili pepper. The objectives of the study are good enough for the journal readership. However, I have some concerns over abstract, equation writing and some parts of discussion. Therefore, I suggest major revision.
Specific comments:
L 21-25: It should be some specific results, highlighting the importance of best treatment for K fertilizer application. Only listing analyzed variables are not enough.
L 50-52: Use superscript kg/ha
L 57: present the numbers in thousand tons.
L 112-115: What does it mean?
L 136: use superscript.
L 151: they?????
L 165, 177, 179: Equations should contain multiply sign “×”. Not “x”.
L 209: superscript.
L 220: Figure 1: write “yield (t)”
L 231: use superscript.
L 259: Write “fruit wt. (g)”.
L 291-292: change the sign of Celsius.
L 388: Use subscript.
L 400: gr? International unit is “g”
L 439-..: Font size is not consistent with the previous one.
L 467: Some discussion parts need revision and scientific logics in parallel to results.
L 491: Conclusions section need improvements. Specifically, prominent results of chili with their applied treatments. Implementation strategies and future research directions.
The English language must be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The conservation of agricultural systems through the use of sustainable agriculture, which is based on natural non- polluting products such as composts, earthworm humus and seaweeds. Such agriculture represents a way to achieve food safety。Therefore, I recommend it accepted for publication after minor revisions. The detailed comments are as following:
1. The citation of references is chaotic, arranged in the order of their first occurrenced
2. Less than one-third of the literature cited in the past 10 years.
3. Is there no unit in Table 1?
4. The correct expression of PH should be pH
5. 2. Materials and Methods: Set three replicates for each treatment, one for each plant, and measure the yield based on the average of the three plants. It is not appropriate to express the final yield using per hectare. It is recommended to express the yield using each plant instead.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Yield and antioxidant quality of habanero chili pepper by supplementing potassium with organic products" by Areli González-Cortés et al. is characterized by a high level of novelty and adding value. The Introduction provides a good theoretical background to the research and the research hypotheses are sufficiently developed. The Material and methods are described with minor reserves. The results are comprehensive and clear, however, modifications of the tables are required. The discussion is well developed and the conclusions are supported by the results. I have some well-meaning comments on the manuscript:
1. I recommend a thorough formal check, such as the use of superscripts and similar.
2. The experimental design must be supported by citations, as well as any other methods used.
3. All material used must be specified in detail (commercial name/type designation, manufacturer's name, city, state).
4. In these types of research, no plant nutrition is usually applied to the control variants. If they do, the experimental variants include basic fertilisation and other forms of extra nutrition are added to this. The experiment lacks an explanation as to why “T5) 240-200-240 (control, 100% chemical nutrition)” can be considered a control variant.
5. In Table 2, the units of the monitored parameters need to be added. Based on the type of research, it would also be useful to add the standard deviations for the individual values. Please consider the above for the other tables as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewed manuscript concerns the response of three varieties of peppers grown in a greenhouse to various forms of fertilizers - mineral and organic, delivered by fertigation. The authors describe plant responses regarding growth, yield and some qualitative features, such as the content of capsaicin, vitamin C, carotenoids, β-carotenes and xanthophylls in fruits. The obtained results are valuable and important for the practical production of vegetables. The chapter "Materials and Methods" requires far-reaching changes and explanations. Depending on the explanations, changes in the “Introduction”, “Discussion” and “References” (the role of the form of nutrients for their uptake and use) chapters are also possible. l. 74-75. Regarding the statement “For thousands of years, chilies have been selected based on their spiciness, color, flavor and vitamin content”. Vitamins were discovered between 1913 and 1948. The importance of the content of vitamins in fruits was noticed much later than the other listed features. The description of the fertilizers is unclear. Were mineral fertilizers used as a special, ready to use product for fertigation (if so, what was the product?). In what form was K (K2SO4, KCl, other) found in fertilizers? Are earthworm humus and vermicompost two different products? Were they standardized products available on the market under a specific trade name? What about the role of Na+ ions that were present in one product. Was the concentration of Cl− ions in the solution tested? In the case of vermicompost, did "solid" mean "instant"? Regarding table 1. Does the data in row 122 refer to mineral fertilizers used as standard, i.e. they were enriched with microelements? Were the doses of macro and micronutrients carefully balanced, and did the plants receive the same amount of all nutrients in each treatment? Were the differences in plant growth, yield and fruit quality caused by the form of potassium supply, or by other factors related to the mineral and organic form of fertilization, e.g. differences in the availability of nutrients? After providing detailed answers to the question posed, it is necessary to consider whether the names for individual treatments are appropriate. From the statistical point of view, the results were compiled and presented as correctly as possible. Tables 3-4 and 6-7 show the roles of factor A (nutrition), B (cultivar) and AxB (interaction). However, the authors dealt with agricultural research of application importance. Wouldn't it be better if the data for the individual assessed features were presented in a different way. In the rows of the table, you can put the nutrient treatment, and in the columns, the size of the parameters, separately for each variety. In this way, it is easier for the reader to find information on the response of the tested varieties to fertilization. This comment is a suggestion. Minor editorial notes: Table 6, l. 431; Table 7, pp. 486-489 explanations are in Spanish.Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the manuscript "Yield and antioxidant quality of habanero chili pepper by supplementing potassium with organic products" incorporated several of my recommendations well. Nevertheless, the manuscript needs to be checked thoroughly once again, as there are formal flaws, such as extra word spacing, etc. I also note that the authors should kindly consider supplying standard deviations to the recorded values in the tables, which is characteristic for these types of studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
We thank you for your interest in our paper. Our point-by-point responses regarding comments are detailed on the following pages.
Comment 1. The manuscript needs to be checked thoroughly once again, as there are formal flaws, such as extra word spacing, etc.
Answer to Comment 1. Thank you very much for your wise observation, the manuscript has been meticulously revised and formal flaws have been corrected, such as spacing between words, etc.
Comment 2. I also note that the authors should kindly consider supplying standard deviations to the recorded values in the tables, which is characteristic for these types of studies.
Answer to Comment 2. Thank you for your observation, the standard deviation has been included in the tables with individual values.
Reviewer 4 Report
Changes and additions made to the text after the review of the 1st stage of the review process took into account the reviewer's comments to a satisfactory degree and improved the quality of the article. In its current form, according to the reviewer, it meets the requirements for scientific publications and can be further processed until the final version. The English language of the manuscript is correct and understandable to the reader.Author Response
Estimado revisor 4
Le agradecemos su interés en nuestro artículo.
Comentario 1. Los cambios y adiciones realizados al texto después de la revisión de la primera etapa del proceso de revisión tomaron en cuenta los comentarios del revisor en un grado satisfactorio y mejoraron la calidad del artículo. En su forma actual, según el revisor, cumple con los requisitos para publicaciones científicas y puede ser procesado hasta la versión final.
El idioma inglés del manuscrito es correcto y comprensible para el lector.
Respuesta al comentario 1. Le agradecemos infinitamente por ayudarnos a mejorar este manuscrito, sus comentarios fueron invaluables.
