Eco-Physiological Responses of Black Chokeberries as Affected by Applications of Oil Cake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made all the changes that I suggested in the first review

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has now been significantly improved, I do recommend the manuscript to be be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments...

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

Line 3, My suggestion to replace the “organic fertilizer” with “oil cake”

Line 8, if the author was examining the optimum amount of oil cake that necessary for black chokeberry, why he used 0%? Which treatment (0% or the recommendation) was his control?

Line 29 to 32 can author breaks up the long sentences to few short sentences. It is long!

Line 45 to 46 why author bridged to the Western USA and Northern Europe? The experiment was in S. Korea.

Line 89 to 93 at what time of day SPAD and FluorPen were taken?

Line 119 What is the experiment design that used?

Line 143 Table 1 Please, fix the table align (left, right, or center).

Line 163 What did the author mean by “fewer leaves sampled in the bush might have caused inaccurate analysis of some mineral nutrients”? since he provided numbers and did analysis that showed a significant and non-significant effect, it is an importing to explain why that happen. It is unacceptable to report that his samples were few and that might be the problem.

Line 172 Table 2 Please, fix the table align (left, right, or center).

Line 181 Figure 1 can author explain why in June 2018 was not significant different among the treatments for the PSII; however, there were a significant different among the treatments in term of SPAD.

Line 200 figure 2 where those data point come from?

Line 223 figure 4 Please, fix the shape of the figure by matching the a and b parts.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study author studied the effect of application of oil cake to black chokeberry plantation. Based on ecophysiological studies authors recommend 75% of recommended amount (13.1 kg per ha) to obtain maximum fruit productivity. There are some issues including language issue, and experimental irregularities as no significant changes in organic matter content and total nitrogen application even with the application of oil cake compared with control treatment (0 kg/ha application). Here are some comments.

-OM and T-N is higher in plots applied with 0 kg per ha compared with the plots treated with 8.8 kg and 17.5 kg per ha.

-MgO concentration in the soil increased in 13.1 kg/ha-treated plots in 2019 but decreased in the 8.8 kg/ha- and 17.5 kg/ha-treated plots. Please discuss the reason for these discrepancies.

 Please rephrase the following sentences.

“The soil pH received with 8.8 kg/ha, 13.1 kg/ha, and 17.5 kg/ha resulted in lower ranges (between 7.0 and 7.3) than those values observed on the plots with 0.0 kg/ha and 4.4 kg/ha in 2018 and 2019 (Table 1)”.

“Foliar nutrient analysis rapidly offers for approaching present nutritional status, diagnosing deficient, optimum, and excessive for the trees, with little information available for black chokeberry [24].”

Line 162, “Unlikely in other deciduous fruit trees, black chokeberry develops a small bush canopy and lower leaf numbers [2,3,5,6],”

-Abbreviations should be defined at their first appearance in the text (eg, T-N, SPAD)

-Line 15, “13.1 kg and 17.5 kg per “: Unit of expression should be consistently used throughout the manuscript.

-Line 67, “comprising 57.2% of sand, 34.0% of silt, and 8.9% of silt.”

-Line 124, “determine where or not there”.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached manuscript review for comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf