Impact of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Early Potato Yield Components

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the front there is a manuscript with title Impact of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Early Potato Yield Components the manuscript has a good idea but there are some defects

Title:

Abstract: line 22  while ANOVA and LSD tests (p<0.01) were used to analyze the data   author don’t need this sentence in the abstract move it to the material part.

Authors should use numbers of parentage decrees or increase between different treatments

Introduction: is well but need some more information about how all these treatments will growing well and how the plant will response?

Material: authors should add all metrological data for the experiment site not like they add temperature only not enough

Authors should  explain  more about treatments which colour they used for mulch and when they applied low tunnel for night only or all times and when they remove .

Results well but table should self-explain

Discussion

Authors should divided the discussion for two part

Growth measurements then yield measurements and explain all discussion for those. Also, discussion need more information about how these treatments will help the plants to grow faster and produce more yield

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract: line 22 while ANOVA and LSD tests (p<0.01) were used to analyze the data author don’t need this sentence in the abstract move it to the material part.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed this sentence from the Abstract, as it is already included in the Materials and Methods section (lines 261-262).

Comment 2: Authors should use numbers of parentage decrease or increase between different treatments

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated percentage increases and decreases between different treatments in the Results section to enhance the clarity of our findings.

Comment 3: Introduction: is well but need some more information about how all these treatments will growing well and how the plant will response?

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful question regarding the impact of different covering methods on early potato growth. We have added relevant information in the Introduction section to better explain how these treatments support plant growth and influence plant responses (lines 116-127).

Comment 4: Material: authors should add all metrological data for the experiment site not like they add temperature only not enough

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript includes climatic data such as temperature and precipitation (lines 143-167), as well as soil quality data. These parameters are considered sufficient for agronomic experiments, as they provide essential information on the environmental conditions affecting plant growth and development.

Comment 5: Authors should explain more about treatments which color they used for mulch and when they applied low tunnel for night only or all times and when they remove.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. The low tunnels were applied 24 hours a day until the risk of low temperatures had passed, specifically until the temperature reached 20°C. We have added this clarification to the Materials and Methods section and which color we used for mulch (lines 218-220).

Comment 6: Results well but table should self-explain

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the tables. We appreciate you pointing out the need for them to be self-explanatory. We recognize that clarity is essential for effective data presentation, and we have revised the table titles to ensure they provide sufficient context and information for readers to fully understand the data presented.

Comment 7: Authors should divided the discussion for two part

Growth measurements then yield measurements and explain all discussion for those. Also, discussion needs more information about how these treatments will help the plants to grow faster and produce more yield.

Response 7: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We carefully considered dividing the Discussion into separate sections for growth and yield. However, given that our research primarily centers on yield and its related components, both direct and indirect, we believe a single, integrated discussion will provide a more cohesive and comprehensive presentation of our findings. In this particular study, we focused on only one trait that indirectly influences yield, which further supports our decision to maintain a unified discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article review by Zorana Srečkov et al.: Impact of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Early Potato Yield Components.

 Theworkinvestigated the effect of variousmethods of covering the soilandplants of twopotatovarieties,includingplasticmulch,agrotextiles,lowtunnelsandtheircombinationson the number of stemsandtubersperplant,average tuber weight and tuberyield. The resultsobtainedindicateapositiveeffect of sheltermethodson the yield of earlypotatoes. The greatestpositiveeffect was notedwhenusingagrotextilesandlowtunnelsdue to an increase in the number of tubersandplantweight. The methods of shelterhad a positiveeffectregardlessof the potatovariety. It isconcludedthatearlypotatoproductioncan be optimizedtoincreaseyieldandquality.

In the methodology, I would liketoseehow many degreeshigher the airtemperature was indifferentversionscomparedto the control.Inconclusion, it is important to emphasize the possibilityofearlierharvestingand, consequently, highereconomicbenefits.

The article is undoubtedly interesting and important in terms of evaluating the effect of various covering materials on potato plants. I recommend it for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the methodology, I would like to see how many degrees higher the air temperature was in different versions compared to the control.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a paragraph in the Methodology section detailing the air temperature differences between the treatments and the control (lines 221-239).

Comment 2: In conclusion, it is important to emphasize the possibility of earlier harvesting and, consequently, higher economic benefits.

Response 2: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. We have added a paragraph at the end of the Discussion emphasizing the potential for earlier harvesting and the associated economic benefits (line 539-543).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

     The article describes a classic field experiment with testing varieties of agricultural crops. The methodology of work and the tasks to be solved are not new. But they are relevant. Field testing of varieties will always be relevant as long as we are engaged in the development of plant growing.

     The study compares two potato varieties. Several characteristics (stem number, number of tubers per plant (including per stem), average tuber mass, tuber mass per plant, and tuber yield) and the influence of the surface covering method (plastic mulch, agrotextile, low tunnels, and their combinations) are studied. The experiment lasted for three years. The authors describe in detail the meteorological conditions during the study period, soil characteristics (including agrochemical indicators), and the agricultural technologies used.

      It would be logical to include information about the potato varieties tested (Cleopatra and Riviera) in the materials and methods section. However, such information is not provided there. Of course, readers can find it on their own. But they would be interested in learning it directly from this article.

      The design of the experiment is described in sufficient detail. The description allows other researchers to repeat it. Only some nuances of using the LSD method for comparing groups remain unclear. Namely, was correction for multiple values ​​performed during such a comparison? If it was performed, then by what method (Bonferroni's method, Holm's method, etc.)?

        The use of the LSD method may seem questionable to many readers. Many would prefer paired comparisons by Student's or Wilcoxan's t-tests with correction of p-values ​​for multiple comparisons. But such doubts will arise for readers not from the field of agricultural sciences. And in agricultural sciences, as far as I know, the LSD method is very popular.

       The authors presented the results in a table. These are the average values ​​of the measured characteristics of two potato varieties in comparison groups (with the designation of the statistical significance of the differences). This method of presenting the results fully reflects the data obtained during the experiments. But still, in addition to the average values, the variation is no less interesting. It could be reflected in a graphical form - using boxplots. This is a very popular and widespread graphical method. And such graphics would only benefit the article.

      Overall, the described experiment seems reproducible. The results obtained seem reliable. The authors' conclusions are supported by their empirical data. Therefore, the article is worthy of publication in its current form. Although the possibilities for its improvement have not yet been exhausted.

Author Response

Comments 1: It would be logical to include information about the potato varieties tested (Cleopatra and Riviera) in the materials and methods section. However, such information is not provided there. Of course, readers can find it on their own. But they would be interested in learning it directly from this article.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the inclusion of potato variety information in the Materials and Methods section.  We have revised the Materials and Methods section and included descriptions of the Cleopatra and Riviera potato varieties, including their key characteristics relevant to the study (lines 192-206). This will ensure readers have all necessary information within the document, enhancing the clarity and completeness of our research.

Comment 2: The design of the experiment is described in sufficient detail. The description allows other researchers to repeat it. Only some nuances of using the LSD method for comparing groups remain unclear. Namely, was correction for multiple values ​​performed during such a comparison? If it was performed, then by what method (Bonferroni's method, Holm's method, etc.)? The use of the LSD method may seem questionable to many readers. Many would prefer paired comparisons by Student's or Wilcoxan's t-tests with correction of p-values ​​for multiple comparisons. But such doubts will arise for readers not from the field of agricultural sciences. And in agricultural sciences, as far as I know, the LSD method is very popular.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the clarity of our statistical analysis, specifically the use of the Least Significant Difference (LSD) method. We acknowledge that our description did not explicitly state whether a correction for multiple comparisons was performed.

In this study, we did not apply a correction for multiple comparisons when using the LSD method. The LSD test, as implemented in our analysis, is a post-hoc test conducted only after a significant F-test in the ANOVA. However, we recognize that this approach may be considered less conservative than methods that explicitly adjust p-values for multiple comparisons.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point, which will improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We have revised the Materials and Methods section and included explanation in the Statistical analysis section (lines 261-262).

Comment 3: The authors presented the results in a table. These are the average values ​​of the measured characteristics of two potato varieties in comparison groups (with the designation of the statistical significance of the differences). This method of presenting the results fully reflects the data obtained during the experiments. But still, in addition to the average values, the variation is no less interesting. It could be reflected in a graphical form - using boxplots. This is a very popular and widespread graphical method. And such graphics would only benefit the article.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added boxplots below each table in the Results section to illustrate the variation in the measured characteristics, enhancing the clarity and visual representation of the data.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript study the current problem of increasing the yield of early potatoes using sustainable agricultural methods. The study is aimed at assessing the effect of various methods of covering the soil and plants (mulching, agrotextiles, low tunnels and their combinations) on the yield and its components (the number of stems, the number of tubers, the weight of tubers). Although the article is of some interest, it requires significant revision, especially in terms of explaining the results

The manuscript contains agricultural methods, but does not present results of fundamental importance.
The hypothesis is not indicated in the manuscript.

The experimental design must be presented, the number of plants in the plot must be indicated. The article lacks figures that could confirm the research results.

I consider it incorrect to provide the "Average" indicator (tables 2-7). And there is no particular point. Different types of treatments, different genotypes cannot be averaged.

It is proposed to conduct additional analysis of the influence of weather conditions (temperature and precipitation) on the results of the experiment. It is possible that weather conditions in individual years could have affected the effectiveness of different shelter methods. Temperature and precipitation graphs are presented but not discussed (Fig. 1, 2).

The discussion of the results does not pay enough attention to the interaction between potato cultivar and covering method. A more detailed analysis is needed of which combinations were most effective for each c, as well as which characteristics of cultivars could have affected the results.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript contains agricultural methods, but does not present results of fundamental importance.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have ensured that the manuscript thoroughly presents the core data crucial in agronomic research, specifically yield, the morphological traits influencing yield formation (yield components), and the agronomic practices designed to optimize the genetic yield potential of the studied variety. We believe these elements constitute fundamental data and are comprehensively addressed within the manuscript.

Comment 2: The hypothesis is not indicated in the manuscript.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point, which will improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We have added the hypothesis in the Introduction part (lines 128-134)

Comment 3: The experimental design must be presented, the number of plants in the plot must be indicated.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the number of plants in the plot in the Materials and Methods part (line 249).

Comment 4: The article lacks figures that could confirm the research results.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added boxplots below each table in the Results section to illustrate the variation in the measured characteristics, enhancing the clarity and visual representation of the data.

Comment 5: I consider it incorrect to provide the "Average" indicator (tables 2-7). And there is no particular point. Different types of treatments, different genotypes cannot be averaged.

Response 5: We appreciate your feedback regarding the 'Average' indicator. We recognize that averaging across different treatments and genotypes might appear counterintuitive. However, in our study, we employed a split-plot design where the different varieties (genotypes) were considered a main treatment factor (Treatment A). This analytical approach requires averaging across treatments to comprehensively assess the main and interaction effects. The 'Average' indicator was included to facilitate this analysis and provide a clearer understanding of the overall treatment impacts

Comment 6: It is proposed to conduct additional analysis of the influence of weather conditions (temperature and precipitation) on the results of the experiment. It is possible that weather conditions in individual years could have affected the effectiveness of different shelter methods. Temperature and precipitation graphs are presented but not discussed (Fig. 1, 2).

Response 6: While we acknowledge the impact of varying temperature and precipitation patterns across the three years of our study, as evidenced by the significant deviations from the long-term average, it's important to emphasize that the primary aim of this research was to assess the effect of different agrotechnical measures, specifically various covering methods, on early potato growth and yield factors. The precipitation data, highlighting the fluctuations in rainfall during the vegetation period, particularly the excess in 2019 and the deficit in 2021, serve as contextual information. However, our focus remained on evaluating how mulching, agrotextile, low tunnels, and their combinations influenced stem number, tuber development, and overall yield in the Cleopatra and Riviera potato varieties.

 Comment 7: The discussion of the results does not pay enough attention to the interaction between potato cultivar and covering method. A more detailed analysis is needed of which combinations were most effective for each c, as well as which characteristics of cultivars could have affected the results.

Response 7: For yield, as the most important agronomic trait, all treatment variants resulted in higher yields compared to the control in both studied cultivars. In the Cleopatra variety, the highest yield was achieved with the FAT treatment (simultaneous application of plastic mulch, agrotextile, and low tunnels), while in the Riviera variety, the highest yield was obtained with the AT treatment (simultaneous application of agrotextile and low tunnels). The observed yield increases were statistically highly significant compared to the control variant. This is well addressed in the discussion part (line 453-456).

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is not improved enough.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the fundamentality of our results. We understand your comment and appreciate the opportunity to clarify the significance of our findings.

While our study focuses on evaluating various covering techniques (mulching, agrotextile, low tunnels, and their combinations) on early potato yield components, we believe our findings provide valuable insights into optimizing early potato production, offering a basis for potential broader applicability in similar agricultural contexts.

Our outcomes demonstrate significant improvements in both yield and quality, while simultaneously considering environmental and economic sustainability. Specifically, we observed a substantial increase in early potato yield through the application of various covering methods, with yields ranging from 35.98 t/ha to 40.07 t/ha compared to 32.14 t/ha in the control. This increase is crucial for enhancing the economic viability of early potato production. Furthermore, the employed covering techniques significantly enhanced tuber mass and the proportion of marketable tubers, key determinants of market access and profitability. Given that the primary objectives in early potato cultivation are early market entry and profit maximization, our study offers data on techniques that directly address these fundamental needs.

We trust that this more detailed explanation clarifies the fundamental significance and potential impact of our research.

We acknowledge the reviewer's point that averaging across different treatments and cultivars might seem confusing, and we understand the potential for misinterpretation. However, we would like to elaborate on the statistical design employed in our study to explain the necessity of this indicator and the approach taken for mean comparisons. The experiment was set up as a two-factorial split-plot design with a randomized treatment arrangement in five replications. The inter-row spacing during planting was 65 cm, while the spacing between plants within a row was 30 cm. The dimensions of the main plots were 10 m × 22 m (20 rows). Recognizing that a split-plot design involves two distinct sources of experimental error, we paid special attention to the comparison of means during data analysis. However, in a split-plot design, given that we have two error terms, attention must be paid when comparing the means, of which there can be 4 types: the means of factor a, the means of factor b, the means of the treatments of factor b for a given treatment of factor a, and the means of the treatments of factor a for a given treatment of factor b. Specifically, we have calculated standard errors of the difference (SED) separately for the four main types of comparisons inherent in this design: comparing levels of the main factor, comparing levels of the sub-factor within the same main plot level, comparing levels of the sub-factor across different main plot levels, and assessing interactions. This approach ensures accurate statistical inference when evaluating the effects of treatments and cultivars (Jones, B., & Nachtsheim, C. J. (2009). Split-plot designs: What, why, and how. Journal of quality technology, 41(4), 340-361.).

Connecting to our previous response, the inclusion of averages is integral to a comprehensive analysis of a split-plot design. They facilitate the assessment of the main effects of both the covering treatments and the potato varieties. The subsequent statistical analysis, including the application of the appropriate Least Significant Difference (LSD) values for comparing these averaged means, allows for more detailed conclusions regarding the impact of both factors on stem number. In this specific setup, the different potato varieties (cultivars) were indeed considered a main treatment factor (factor A), and the covering techniques were the sub-plot treatments (factor B). Within this split-plot framework, the statistical analysis necessitates averaging across the levels of one factor to assess the main effects of the other factor and to examine any potential interactions between the factors. The inclusion of the "Average" indicator in Tables 2-7 was specifically intended to present the overall impact of the covering techniques (factor B), averaged across the different potato varieties (factor A). This approach allows us to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how each covering method performs across the range of genotypes included in our study.

By presenting these averages, we aimed to facilitate the interpretation of the main effects of the covering techniques, independent of the specific varietal response, and to provide a broader perspective on their efficacy. We believe this is a standard analytical procedure within split-plot designs to isolate and evaluate the effects of the main and sub-plot factors.

Comment 1: There are no captions on the abscissa and ordinate axes for figures 1, 2.

Response 1: We appreciate your comment concerning the axis labels in Figures 1 and 2. Upon reviewing the original submission, we can confirm that the figures were prepared with the necessary labels. It appears that these labels may have been altered during the technical workflow. To clarify this, we have attached the original figures with the correct labels and kindly ask the editorial team to ensure that these versions are used in the final publication.

Comment 2: There are not enough photos of the external appearance of potato plants grown

using different growing methods.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge the importance of visual representation and have included a photo showcasing the applied treatments in the Materials and Methods section to provide a clearer illustration of the different growing methods used in the experiment.

 

Comment 3: What is the duration of plant growing? How much earlier do tubers ripen using

optimal growing methods?

Response 3: To monitor tuber growth dynamics, samples were collected 10 times at 5-day intervals, starting from day 40 after planting. For the Cleopatra variety, in all three years of the study, the first marketable tubers (larger than 28 mm) in the control treatment appeared only after the third harvest date (50 days after planting). In all applied treatments, during the first year, marketable tubers appeared by the second harvest date, 45 days after planting—5 days earlier than in the control. The proportion of marketable tubers in the total tuber mass ranged from 5% (F treatment) to 9% (FA treatment). In the second year, marketable tubers also formed by the second harvest date (45 days), but their proportion was lower, ranging from 1% (A and AT treatments) to 5% (FA treatment). Unlike the first two years, in the third year, the first marketable tubers appeared as early as the first harvest date (40 days after planting) in all applied treatments except the control. Their proportion ranged from 5% (AT treatment) to 12% (FA treatment).

For the Riviera variety, in all three years, the first marketable tubers appeared as early as the first harvest date (40 days after planting) in almost all applied treatments, except for the control treatment in all three years and the agrotextile treatment (A) in the first year. In the agrotextile treatment, marketable tubers were obtained after 45 days. In the control treatment, the first marketable tubers appeared 50 days after planting, which is 10 days later than in almost all covering treatments across all three years (except for A treatment in the first year). The proportion of marketable tubers in the total tuber mass at the first harvest date in the first year ranged from 7% (F, T, FT, AT, and FAT treatments) to 15% (FA treatment). In the second year, this proportion ranged from 2% (F treatment) to 13% (FAT treatment), while in the third year, it ranged from 12% (AT treatment) to 20% (FA treatment).

We have included this in the Discussion (lines 569-573):

For both studied varieties, when considering earliness and yield together, the most favorable treatment was the combination of plastic mulch and agrotextile. The only exception was the second year of the study for the Riviera variety, where the highest percentage of marketable tubers relative to total tuber mass was observed in the FAT treatment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, you have not answered clearly to comment 5 ("Comment 5: I consider it incorrect to provide the "Average" indicator (tables 2-7). And there is no particular point. Different types of treatments, different genotypes cannot be averaged.")

I repeat, how can one compare different types of treatments, different genotypes? How this characteristics can be averaged? Then you need to use another statistical method.

Comment 6 also received no response. Why include weather data in the manuscript and not discuss it?

("Comment 6: It is proposed to conduct additional analysis of the influence of weather conditions (temperature and precipitation) on the results of the experiment. It is possible that weather conditions in individual years could have affected the effectiveness of different shelter methods. Temperature and precipitation graphs are presented but not discussed (Fig. 1, 2).")

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Dear authors, you have not answered clearly to comment 5 ("Comment 5: I consider it incorrect to provide the "Average" indicator (tables 2-7). And there is no particular point. Different types of treatments, different genotypes cannot be averaged.")

I repeat, how can one compare different types of treatments, different genotypes? How this characteristics can be averaged? Then you need to use another statistical method.

Response: According to your suggestions, we applied another method of statistical analysis that included individual years and interactions of all examined effects. Consequently, we have also changed the Methods and Discussion section.

Comment 2: Why include weather data in the manuscript and not discuss it?

Response 2: We have excluded the part Growing conditions from the Materials and Methods section.