Organic Carrot (Daucus carota L.) Production Has an Advantage over Conventional in Quantity as Well as in Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I think it is well done and I only have some few comments/suggestions.

Chapter methodology

1. Crop rotation - I'm not sure about the explanation of the crop rotation. YOu describe the preceding crops before the experiment in ll 97-100, but it is not clear to me how these crop rotate with the carrot cultivation. Is it barley - carrot - Phacelia/mustard/clover mixture - carrot - red clover - carrot - red clover -carrot? Please try to clarify.

2. ll 127 please write "g" instead of "gram"

Chapter results

1. In my opinion the PCA is not necessary in this manuscript. All the results you are describing can also be confirmed with the ANOVA and the correlation table. I do not see the advantage to include it. YOu may decide depending on the pther authors feedback if you want to keep it or not. I'm fine with both.

2. ll 259 To which maximum residue levels are you refering? European Union?

Chapter discussion

ll 269 In my opinion you can delete the word "convicing

Chapter conclusion

In my opinion, you can shorten the conclusion as you are repeating results (ll 369-371 and 373-379), which is not necessary in a conclusion. Focus on the main message and the way forward.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer/Editor,

Please find attached our manuscript „Organic Carrot (Daucus carota L.) Production has an Advantage Over Conventional in Quantity as well as in Quality” that has been now revised. We thank the reviewers for constructive comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses to reviewer comments below.

We sincerely believe that the revised version of our manuscript represents a considerable improvement and can provide information that is of broad value to readers of Agronomy.

On behalf of the authors,

Ingrid Bender

Reviewer 1

1. Crop rotation - I'm not sure about the explanation of the crop rotation. You describe the preceding crops before the experiment in ll 97-100, but it is not clear to me how these crop rotate with the carrot cultivation. Is it barley - carrot - Phacelia/mustard/clover mixture - carrot - red clover - carrot - red clover -carrot? Please try to clarify.

Reply: We are sorry for the confusion about crop rotation. To clarify, the trial area was divided into four fields and carrot was grown in different field with different precrop each year. The preceding crops before the carrot experiments were as follows: barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in 2011; the mixture of phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.), mustard (Sinapis alba L.) and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) in 2012; red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in 2013 and 2014. We have now added this information to the Methods (L 97-99).

2. ll 127 please write "g" instead of "gram"

Reply: Corrected according to recommendation (L 129).

Chapter results

1. In my opinion the PCA is not necessary in this manuscript. All the results you are describing can also be confirmed with the ANOVA and the correlation table. I do not see the advantage to include it. You may decide depending on the other authors feedback if you want to keep it or not. I'm fine with both.

Reply: We agree that the PCA confirms the ANOVA results to a large part, however, we consider Figures 1 and 2 to be of great value as graphical illustration and visualization of our results, which cannot be achieved with Tables only. As other Reviewers have not suggested to remove PCA, we would prefer to keep also the figures.

2. ll 259 To which maximum residue levels are you refering? European Union?

Reply: The maximum residue levels of EU added to the Results (L 263-264).

Chapter discussion

ll 269 In my opinion you can delete the word "convicing

Reply: We agree with the recommendation.

Chapter conclusion

In my opinion, you can shorten the conclusion as you are repeating results (ll 369-371 and 373-379), which is not necessary in a conclusion. Focus on the main message and the way forward.

Reply: We agree with the propasal to shorten the Conclusions and removed the sentences on the lines 373-379.

Reviewer 2 Report

In recent years  the demand for organic products is increasing. There is a view among consumers that food produced using organic methods has a better taste as well as more nutrients, vitamins and minerals. This paper presents the effects of conventional farming system and organic farming system on yield and some quality parameters of carrot (Daucus carota L.). The authors showed that at the same level of N fertilization, organic management can have advantages over the conventional system in both yield and quality of carrot.

The manuscript is very clear and written in a very reader-friendly way. The research methodology was planned and carried out in the proper way. The Results nad Discussion chapters are detailed and insightful. The conclusions are correctly formulated. I have only minor comments to the manuscript.

1. In Table 3, please indicate the significant differences between the main factors, ie CON-AV and ORG.
2. I suggest to include Table S1 in the manuscript, because Authors often refer to it in the Results chapter.
3. In the Materials and Methods chapter, please explain why pesticide residues in organic carrots were tested?

Best regards 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer/Editor,

Please find attached our manuscript „Organic Carrot (Daucus carota L.) Production has an Advantage Over Conventional in Quantity as well as in Quality” that has been now revised. We thank the reviewers for constructive comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses to reviewer comments below.

We sincerely believe that the revised version of our manuscript represents a considerable improvement and can provide information that is of broad value to readers of Agronomy.

On behalf of the authors,

Ingrid Bender

Reviewer 2

1. In Table 3, please indicate the significant differences between the main factors, ie CON-AV and ORG.

Reply: we have clarified the Table caption that the significant differences are between CON-AV and ORG (significant p<0.05 are presented in bold) (L 191).

2. I suggest to include Table S1 in the manuscript, because Authors often refer to it in the Results chapter.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion; however, the analysis of individual variants of conventional treatment (CON1-CON5) was not the main focus of the article. The main aim of the article was to compare conventional (CON) and organic farming systems, and the differences were best reflected in the average results of the CON variants (CON-AV). Therefore, we would prefer to keep this table in the supplementary part of the article, thus also avoiding duplication of some data.

3. In the Materials and Methods chapter, please explain why pesticide residues in organic carrots were tested?

Reply: We tested for pesticide residues in the organic treatment in order to be completely sure that carrots in the organic treatment do not contain pesticide residues (L 146-147).

Reviewer 3 Report

This contribution presents and discusses the yields and content of some phytochemicals in carrots grow in an experimental organic and conventional field. Manuscript is good written, has a clear structure and the design, and brings interesting and valuable information.

In my opinion, minor revisions only are necessary:

1)  Information on the criteria used to select the Jõgeva Nantes cultivar of carrots should be provided. Is the cultivar recommended for organic/conventional production?

2) The addition of chromatograms of representative samples from pesticide residue determination of carrots is encouraged. As well as a more detailed description of the method for the determination of pesticide residues.

3) Please add the maximum levels for pesticides in carrots. Plese add also comments about not detected ones. The aclonifen, chlorothalonil, cypermethrin and propaquizafop are only pesticides you determined? If yes, plese explain why?

Nevertheless, I consider the work to be solid.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer/Editor,

Please find attached our manuscript „Organic Carrot (Daucus carota L.) Production has an Advantage Over Conventional in Quantity as well as in Quality” that has been now revised. We thank the reviewers for constructive comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses to reviewer comments below.

We sincerely believe that the revised version of our manuscript represents a considerable improvement and can provide information that is of broad value to readers of Agronomy.

On behalf of the authors,

Ingrid Bender

Reviewer 3

1. Information on the criteria used to select the Jõgeva Nantes cultivar of carrots should be provided. Is the cultivar recommended for organic/conventional production?

Reply: We used Jõgeva Nantes as it is the only carrot variety of Estonian origin, well adapted to local conditions and popular among organic growers. The variety is included to the list of recommended varieties in Estonia. We have added this explanation to the Methods (L 118-121).

2. The addition of chromatograms of representative samples from pesticide residue determination of carrots is encouraged. As well as a more detailed description of the method for the determination of pesticide residues.

Reply: We outsourced the analyses of pesticide residues from an accredited laboratory, but unfortunately chromatograms were not provided along with the results. The Methods has been supplemented with additional information (L 140-145).

3. Please add the maximum levels for pesticides in carrots. Please add also comments about not detected ones. The aclonifen, chlorothalonil, cypermethrin and propaquizafop are only pesticides you determined? If yes, please explain why?

Reply: We added the maximum allowed pesticide residue levels according to EC Regulation No 396/2005 to the Results. We tested only those pesticide residues which were applied (L 263-264).