Impact of Care and Nutrition Methods on the Content and Uptake of Selected Mineral Elements in Solanum tuberosum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors had as goal the evaluation of content and uptake of some macronutrients as well as the effect of weed infestation with biostimulants. My main concern is the applied metodology. The Authors evaluated the content of some macronutrients but some topics are missing:

- how do they evaluate the uptake?

- any control of weed is reported (which weeds?; how did you evalute it? biomass?....etc

- any yield data is reported, even if it is discussed by Authors

See below the specific comments:

L34: I suggest to include 10.3390/agronomy10030352, focused on mineral content

L35: check 'macroele-ments'

L48: the cultivation system is very important. See the reference 10.1017/S1742170511000640

L134: ...'while in the research.' I think something is missing

L137-142: the Authors discuss about the weed instation. Where are the data? Did you evaluate it?

L148: uptake: how did evaluate it?

L229: 'in growing seasons'. I think something is missing

L260: please deleate phosphorus, beceause you are talking about calcium.

Tables: For my opinion are unreadable. I suggest to revise it, including the statistical difference. For the significant interaction  provide a new table or figure. 

Figures 4 and 5: the statistical analysis is missing

Conclusions and title: I suggest to revise them, since the control weed was not reported.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. All comments have been corrected and highlighted in red. 
In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, information on how to assess weed infestation has been added to the publication (L158). The publication in which this trait was studied has been added. 
As suggested by L34, a proposed reference has been added and is now located at L49. 
A typo in L35 was corrected. 
L48 reviewed publication 10.1017/S1742170511000640 and added it to the reference (L63).
Thank you for pointing out in L134, the phrase has been removed.
Comment regarding L137-143 - discussed instenation of weeds in an earlier paper, whose references have been added. 
L148, the concept of mineral uptake by potato tubers has been defined. 
L229, thank you for your comment, the minor mistake has already been removed. 
L260, the mistaken word has been corrected. 
Tables, as suggested, have been revised taking into account statistical differences and Figure 6 has been made for interactions. 
In figure 4 and 5, statistical analysis was added. Thank you for your suggestion, the title and abstract have been revised as proposed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank you for your confidence in reviewing  this manuscript.

I send you here my comments for the manuscript review.

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Control of weed and nutrition on the content and uptake of selected mineral elements Solanum tuberosum.

Comments

Replace the title by “Control of weed and nutrition on the content and uptake of selected mineral elements in Solanum tuberosum

Abstract:

Line 19: Put in italics “Solanum tuberosum”. Same remark in all the main text.

The abstract needs to be clear: specify which herbicide, biostimulants and traits, which measured in terms of results.

Keywords: Which “treatment”? It is unclear to understand the keyword choice, like “field experimentation”, which did not appear in the abstract.

Introduction:

Lines 35-44: Need references to support these ideas.

Lines 58: Delete dot.

Lines 63-64: The types of herbicide and selected biostimulants need to be mentioned.

Materials and methods:

The Figure 1 needs to be more understandable. The location needs to be in the figure (region, city, country…..????).

Line 115: “Sielianinov’s coefficient”: this needs more information to explain easily what do present this coefficient???

Results and Discussion:

1)      Statistics letters are needed in all obtained results for a good comparison and discussion.

2)      It will be very interesting to change all tables in the Results section to Figures for a good comprehension.  

References:

Please check references (in text and list) in relation to the journal's recommendations. The reference list needs to be revised carefully.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. All comments have been corrected and highlighted in red. 
In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, information on how to assess weed infestation has been added to the publication (L158). The publication in which this trait was studied has been added. 
As suggested by L34, a proposed reference has been added and is now located at L49. 
A typo in L35 was corrected. 
L48 reviewed publication 10.1017/S1742170511000640 and added it to the reference (L63).
Thank you for pointing out in L134, the phrase has been removed.
Comment regarding L137-143 - discussed instenation of weeds in an earlier paper, whose references have been added. 
L148, the concept of mineral uptake by potato tubers has been defined. 
L229, thank you for your comment, the minor mistake has already been removed. 
L260, the mistaken word has been corrected. 
Tables, as suggested, have been revised taking into account statistical differences and Figure 6 has been made for interactions. 
Any minor errors and typos have been corrected. 
In figure 4 and 5, statistical analysis was added. Thank you for your suggestion, the title and abstract have been revised as proposed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf