Impact of Reducing Fertilizers and Pesticides on Sunflower Production in Romania versus EU Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised work can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your appreciation!

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors significantly improved the article - it was shortened, the problem and purpose were highlighted. The references in the text of a paper were numbered.

The authors have improved the title: Impact of reducing the fertilisers and pesticides quantities regarding the sunflower production in the main EU producing countries, was changed to

Impact of reducing fertilizers and pesticides on sunflower production in Romania versus EU countries

The paper added with the aim:  to highlight the place where Romania is in the hierarchy of the EU countries, in terms of the amounts of fertilizers and pesticides used in sunflower cultivation considering the context of the strategy from Farm to Fork.

But I have a few remarks to make:

 

 Line 12 FARM TO FORK strategy (style)

 Line 31 Farm to Fork strategy (uniform the style)

Line 20 fertilizers, line 31 - fertilisers

 

1. The number of the pictures could be given in the text. Now it is not clear which data in the text is covered to the figure, although later from figure 12 it is already present. The style of figures could be reviewed and uniform, the title of the figures could be according to requirements.

Line 220 In Figure 3. B, but Line 420 follows: where? What figure?

Line 557– a link to the images appears later, only from figure 12: „In Romania, according to Figure 12 in which...“.

 Line 591 „In Figure 13 according to the linear... „

 Line 606 “For Romania, in Figure 14 …”

Line 637 „allocated: in 2018 - 0.56 kg/ha, respectively in 2019 – 0.57 kg/ha (Figure 16).

 

2. The year of results changed from 2010-2021 to 2010-2019, it is unclear why the authors were refused the two-year analysis.

3. The format of the graphs has been changed, but not the marking style, it could still be improved.

Some figures design is to be corrected, example in figure 3: which is a) and b)

b) do not contain the axis in graphic, axis name units “Production, 1,000 tons ,”  the  visualization of graphic is differed. I think the units in graphics could be clearer.

4. Conclusions may be numbered (uneven style of points).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Thank you for your appreciation!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in current form

Author Response

Thank you for your appreciation!

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

The MS (Impact of reducing the fertilisers and pesticides quantities regarding the sunflower production in the main EU producing countries) entails analysis of farming inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) utilization for sunflower production in European countries (Romania, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary and Poland) from the perspectives of envisaged farm-to-fork strategy for European Union. The study can be of interest to wide readers of the Sustainability-MDPI, however I have highlighted few pertinent deficiencies/ambiguities for authors consideration.

 TITLE: Perhaps better to be amended for imparting attractiveness along with briefness and comprehensiveness by omitting words like “regarding” “main” etc.

ABSTRACT:

--Too long starting phrase of four and half lines neither signifies the pertinence of the study nor elaborates problem statement.

-- “sunflower culture was the object of the analysis” but prime objectives description in explicit terms is missing.

--Response variables are also missing.

-- “productions obtained in Romania, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary and Poland were analysed” and “conclusions drawn were that in Romania these consumptions are below the average utilization of other European countries. Nevertheless, Romania ranks first in terms of cultivated areas, as well as in terms of total sunflower production. As an indicator of efficiency for the crop, the average sunflower production ranks Romania on the fourth place, after Hungary, Italy and France. The smaller quantities of fertilizers and pesticides used per hectare, the dependence on climatic factors, the technologies used (lack of irrigation, outdated machinery and equipment, precision agriculture etc), lead to a lower competitiveness of Romanian farmers for this crop even if an extension of the cultivated areas is recorded”. So why conclusions for Romania only????????

--It is highly suggested to add result findings before drawing conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

--“food system that is resilient” against what??????

--“Member States have established explicit national values” national values for which?????

--“Sunflower culture” may be replaced with more appropriate terminology like farming system etc.

-- Introduction section does not establish study rationale rather too generalized literature without critical assessment has been added.

-- A long paragraph on development of sunflower hybrid has been added without any due consideration, while authors need to retain their focus on pesticides and fertilizers aspects.

--Readers do expect study hypothesis and objectives in the last paragraph of introductions but those are missing??????

METHODOLOGY

--  “The conclusions highlighted that in order to follow the recommendations formulated 200 in the Farm to Fork strategy, the reduction of the quantities of fertilizers and pesticides in 201 the sunflower crop should be made by reference to the European average”. Why in methodology section?????

--Information on statistical analyses is lacking, like what sort of statistical packages were used? Appropriate citation missing for methodologies followed?

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

--Area-wise data in thousand hectares for countries in tabular form does not offer much privilege in a scientific article, while analytical findings based on statistical test (s) must be elaborated in this section. Most of these data are available online.

--Discussion has not been illustrated in line with recorded findings and aims of the study.

--It is perhaps better to add all study factors under one heading as country-wise, instead of repeating again and again.

CONCLUSIONS

--These depart from study aims and recorded findings.

--“Also, in the context of the war in Ukraine, we believe that there will be a shortage of oil on the modal market and here Romania and the other countries that cultivate sunflower can improve their trade situation by increasing the degree of processing of the production”. Again for Romania only? Why not for rest of countries under study?

 

General comments

-Language of the content needs thorough revision

--Too lengthy phrases must be split into brief ones.

--Smaller paragraphs (for instance in introduction section) may be merged to impart continuity to the content.

--Tables (in results and discussion section) need modification

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In an article by Stoicea Paula," Impact of reducing the fertilisers and pesticides quantities re- 1 garding the sunflower production in the main EU producing 2 countries. The article is fascinating and introduces new elements.

1- The abstract lacks the specified purpose of the work.

2- Introduction, Table 1, please add another Colum for the references.

3- Line 169  was extracted from statistical sites such as Faostat, Eurostat and OEC World and the Evo.  Please add proper referencing.

4- Line 217 Can you please explain what this is Source: and own processing?

5- Lines 492,493 and 494. In the specialty literature, it is specified that the application of manure before the establishment of the sunflower crop, has an impact in reducing the doses by 2 kg N/tons,1.5 kg P2O5/tons, and 2.5 kg K2O/tons, and if the manure is applied to the preceding plant, doses are reduced by 1 kg N/tons, 1 kg P2O5/tons and 1 kg K2O/tons [51], please interpret and highlight the reasons.

6- Lines 495, 496 and 497, Nitrogen doses are recommended for sunflower cultivation after wheat and other plants before autumn, spring cereals, early potatoes, but nitrogen doses are higher by 10 kg N/ha after corn, 15  kg/ha after late potatoes and sugar beet [33, 34].

Please interpret and highlight the reasons.

7- Lines 698,699,700 and 701, Romania is on the penultimate place in the consumption of fertilizers with phospho- rus (P2O5), with a multiannual average of 7.48 kg phosphorus (P2O5), consumed to obtain  one ton of sunflower (Figure 42.A). The dose of phosphorus (P2O5) per hectare for the conditions in Romania is between 60-125 kg/ha, and this quantity has a primordial influence on sunflower production but also on their oil content [25].

Please interpret and highlight the reasons.

8- Conclusion

What are the optimum methods from all these presented and why?

What are your suggestions to pass the challenge, difficulties, advantages, disadvantages, facilities that should be available, precautions that should be considered?

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research of paper has a good intention to reduce environmental pollution, to provide healthy food, examines important issues of humanity, reviewing the main European countries growing sunflowers.

Abstract is appropriate, a useful article is expected. However, I would like to make a few comments.

Line 25 “The smaller quantities of fertilizers and pesticides used per hectare, the dependence on climatic factors, the technologies used (lack of irrigation, outdated machinery and equipment, precision agriculture etc), lead to a lower competitiveness of Romanian farmers for this crop even if an extension of the cultivated areas is recorded.”  - The introduction refers to climatic factors, technologies, but I am missing that in the paper. I am missing the irrigation data, machinery and equipment technologies, the interpretation of competitiveness of farmers in the results below.

The references were numbered not according to the requirements.

The most frustrating thing is a very long article. If the authors would like to abbreviate, I suggest not repeating the same data in both tables and graphics. Notes and titles in the Graphics could be harmonized, with clear appearance. Tables 1,2,3 could be in one table.

 

The numbering of the sections must be corrected.

Introduction: only the requirement for fertilizers is described, there is not a review request of plant protection products.

“ Increase in requirements for food quality will automatically lead to an increase in the price of sunflower …[50]” (Line158-159) – the paper does not examine the food quality  and a price of sunflowers; such statements of reference should not be written.

Market of oilseeds looks like added part which begins from line 447;  about the marketing of sunflowers this is not discussed in the introduction. How the market relates to the EU on sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture strategy?

 What the purpose of the paper?

 

Materials and methods could be abbreviated without describing known statistical formulas.

Line 201 „the reduction of the quantities of fertilizers and pesticides in the sunflower crop should be made by reference to the European average.“ - such statements should not be written in materials section.

For Readers, I suggest presenting the growing conditions in the studied countries, it would provide the paper more scientific (temperature and precipitation, soil description).

 

European countries have very different climate zone, some Nordic countries do not grow sunflowers at all, and different latitudes have different requirements for fertilizers and pesticides for sunflower cultivation – has the authors an opinion that the requirement for pesticides and fertilizers depends on climatic conditions?

 

The section of results and discussion must be specifying the main findings of the study, discus with reference to previous research. It seems too broad an overview of Eurostat data, there is a lack of analysis of the reasons for the reduction of fertilizers and plant protection products. What proposals of research, options of reducing the consumption of fertilizers and plant protection products depending on the climate that these countries.

The unequal yield of crops expected each year,  due to the good or perhaps complicate the weather conditions.

Correct the title in Figure 3.

Due to Figure 24 and after the figures has different design, whether it is appropriate.

 Line 457: the war between the countries, as mine exporters of food, perhaps should not be mentioned as the point of investigation. The painful destiny of the people and the situation of farmers need to be expected to be brief. Perhaps a milder description of the war can be found, for example: the conflict.

With such a long article, I was surprised that the conclusions are very abstract and some of them are just general known statements. The conclusions claim that in Romania consumptions are below the  average utilization of other European countries, but why it remains, consequently unclear, perhaps the better soil, more favourable climate or etc., lack of reasons explanation.

In the conclusions, I suggest not mentioning the situation in Ukraine if the article did not contain research data from these countries.

I would like what the  authors formulate clearer conclusions - this would make the paper more scientific.

There are a lot of references, some without the publishing date, so little references from other countries, some references are manuals and presentations. The data presented in all 55 figures only from one “Faostat” source. If the reference is no scientific paper, and not so important and incomparable, I suggest shortening the list of references. Titles of references must be corrected according to the requirements of MDPI, some of references are unavailable.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript title: Impact of reducing the fertilizers and pesticides quantities regarding the sunflower production in the main EU producing countries

Recommendation: Accept

Abstract

A comprehensively written "Abstract" minutely explains the consequence of research focusing upon vital outcome of importance. Abstract is nicely presented. However, some errors have been detected in the forms of grammar, spell mistakes.

Introduction

Wonderfully consulted pertinent literature up to 2020, authors have planned research with scientifically sound hypotheses that consists of several appreciative objectives.

 

Material and Methods

The study was well planned and performed and it collects a series of measures. The experimental methodology was appropriate and scientific, and the analyses were done correctly.

 

Results and discussion

The language has no flaw and it is exceptional. Creditably, a very scientific description of results has been given followed by excellent discussion based on evidence up to the year 2020. Above all, the tables and figures are neatly presented and in conformity of the result description besides satisfactory figures.

 

Conclusion

Conclusions are extremely to the point elucidating the novel work and desirable findings

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for appreciating our article!

On behalf of the authors,

dr. Irina Chiurciu

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the revised version of the MS (Impact of reducing fertilizers and pesticides on sunflower production in Romania versus EU countries), unfortunately authors have not incorporated all suggestions forwarded previously despite those could have been addressed conveniently. For instance, “Too long starting phrase of four and half lines neither signifies the pertinence of the study nor elaborates problem statement” that has been left unaddressed.

Similarly, still no convincible information on recorded findings and future perspectives/conclusions have been added in the abstract. Even, readers will remain clueless what were the response variables after reading whole abstract and that is not acceptable. Previously, I had suggested adding result findings before drawing conclusions in the abstract.

Moreover, I had suggested in previous referee report that “Introduction section does not establish study rationale rather too generalized literature without critical assessment has been added” and revised version still lacks in this perspective.

I had suggested “Smaller paragraphs (for instance in introduction section) may be merged to impart continuity to the content” especially in introduction but authors have not responded in this context as well.

Information on statistical analyses like software used and citations for methodologies used still remain unaddressed in the revised version.

Authors still need to redress previous request of “Discussion has not been illustrated in line with recorded findings and aims of the study”.

Figures 1-8 depicting area and production in EU countries do not merit inclusion in scientific article, rather presentation these data in 1 figure or simply describing those in 2/3 phrases will suffice.

If the focus of the study is “Romania” as claimed by authors then emphasis needs to be remain intact on it rather presenting around two dozen figures pertaining to data of other EU countries are not making sense. Overall, article is not meeting the essence of scientific article and needs rigorous improvement while keeping focus on objective of the study and omitting too many unnecessary details and figures.

Conclusion of the MS is still confusing like rest of the paper, as too generalized statements that are already known and information on these is free available from different sources, like

• “in terms of the average multiannual area cultivated with sunflower, Romania is on

the first position, with 1,026.79 thousand ha, and Poland occupies the last position with 2.73 thousand ha”

“regarding the total multiannual production for the studied agricultural system, the country with the highest total multiannual production is Romania (2,214.46 thousand tons), and the lowest total multiannual production was recorded by Poland (4.60 thousand tons)”

I shall strongly re-suggest to rigorously improving the article by focussing write-up on defined objectives, results and omitting generalized details that have rendered article as that of a documentary report.

Again, the language of the content needs to be amended as required by scientific content.

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Thank you,

Irina Chiurciu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

 

 

The authors edited the covering parts for publication, Paper has been shortened, but it also remained very long. I submit same comments.

 

 

The references in the text of a paper must be corrected according to the requirements of MDPI – it must be numbered from 1 to 55 according to citation.  

 

  Figures of paper have different design, whether it is appropriate? Some figures do not contain the axis name (units, year), its graphic presentation is differed, I think the units marking in graphic could be clearer.

Author Response

I have attached the answers to your recommendations.

Thank you,

Dr. Irina Chiurciu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have immensely improved the article, however there are still vital points that must be redressed before publication consideration;

In Abstract, “Thus, Romania occupies the last positions among the countries taken into analysis, both for fertilizers and pesticides: nitrogen fertilizers: 19.2 kg N active nutrient used to obtain a ton of sunflower (negative deviation of -45.5 kg N active nutrient compared to Germany); phosphorus fertilizers P2O5: 7.48 kg active phosphorus nutrient (negative deviation -13.09 kg / ha compared to Spain); potassium fertilizers: 2.68 kg active potassium nutrient used to obtain a ton of sunflower (negative deviation -22.66 kg / ha compared to Poland); total pesticides: 0.35 kg total pesticides used per ton of sunflower (negative deviation -2.48 kg compared to Spain, the largest consumer)” too lengthy phrase is not making sense so it is better to split into smaller phrases and improve the overall language of the abstract.

Table 1 information may be presented in single phrase so need of adding this table.

Materials and Methods

“A number of statistical data taken from statistical sites” it may be rephrased.

“The period covered by the study was 2010-2019” previously I had suggested to at least add data of 2020? While some data of 2021 have also been added. This does not make sense so authors must ensure uniformity.

Citations are missing for statistical methods adopted????

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I have serious reservation on data management and presentation as number of figures are still beyond mandate, I have repeatedly requested the authors to consolidate data presentation as multiple figures showing cultivated area might be merged into 1 figure and in the same fashion, and other related figures might be merged. In this way, whole data can be presented in 6-8 figures instead of over 3 dozen figures.

Thousand hectares might be converted into million hectares.

Once again, I shall strongly suggest to combine and integrate date presentation instead of country-wise repetition which may confuse readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for your support!

Dr. Irina Chiurciu and the team

Author Response File: Author Response.docx