Review Reports
by
- Silvio Calcagno 1,
- Alessandra Piccitto 1 and
- Giorgio Testa 1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Jacek Kwiatkowski Reviewer 2: Doglas Bassegio Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Below are some comments and observations:
Page 2 line 84 –sowing density, or rather plant density – should be 0.58 plants per 1m2
Page 3, verse 141-142 – unclear description
Page 6 lines 225-226 – not including I100
Page 6 line 247 – the question is whether this was nitrogen available in the absence of irrigation?
Page 7 line 273 - is twice I100, should be "in I0 and I100"
Page 7 line 273-274 – is "but not I30 and I60" – this is not entirely true, because with I60 you can observe a tendency to increase the number of capsules
Page 10, row 245- 346 "No effect of N was highlighted at ANOVA" but the table indicates significance at p≤0.05 (“*”)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your suggestion. We greatly appreciate the time taken by yourself to assess our contribution. Below you can find a point by point response to your comments.
Below are some comments and observations:
Page 2 line 84 –sowing density, or rather plant density – should be 0.58 plants per 1m2
Author: It has been done.
Page 3, verse 141-142 – unclear description
Author: We modified the sentence as the follow: Harvest was carried out starting from the primary racemes as follows: 7 September 2021, 25 September 2021, 20 October 2021, 20 November 2021, for I100, I60, I30, I0, respectively.
Page 6 lines 225-226 – not including I100
Author: According to Editor suggestion the manuscript has been shortened and the data relative to plant height and length of raceme have been deleted.
Page 6 line 247 – the question is whether this was nitrogen available in the absence of irrigation?
Author: Plots in I0 were irrigated up to the seedling establishment with a total 237 m3 ha-1 of water and before of anthesis stage, when N fertilization was applied as top dressing, benefited from autumn rainfall (about 4000 m3).
Page 7 line 273 - is twice I100, should be "in I0 and I100"
Author: It has been done.
Page 7 line 273-274 – is "but not I30 and I60" – this is not entirely true, because with I60 you can observe a tendency to increase the number of capsules
Author: We modified the sentence as the follow: Nitrogen and irrigation significantly interacted on this trait in 2022, as well, and the effect of increasing N level was evident in I100 and I60, but not in I30 and I0.
Page 10, row 245- 346 "No effect of N was highlighted at ANOVA" but the table indicates significance at p≤0.05 (“*”)
Author: The table has been modified.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I reviewed the manuscript entitled " Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization and Soil Water Content on Seed and Oil Yield in Perennial Castor in a Mediterranean Environment". After analyzing the manuscript, I raised some questions that supported the recommendation on whether or not to publish the manuscript.
a) The novelty of the study was not clear.
b) Would regression analysis be more appropriate for these quantitative factors (irrigation)?This will change the entire discussion of the manuscript.
c) Figure 5 needs more quality. Increase the font of the axes.
d) Perform correlation analysis with the variables.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We greatly appreciate the time taken by yourself to assess our contribution. Below you can find a point by point response to your comments.
I reviewed the manuscript entitled " Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization and Soil Water Content on Seed and Oil Yield in Perennial Castor in a Mediterranean Environment". After analyzing the manuscript, I raised some questions that supported the recommendation on whether or not to publish the manuscript.
A) The novelty of the study was not clear.
Author: We investigated the capability of this species to grow as perennial in the Mediterranean environment, extending the growing season to a second year. In this way the crop may benefit from a suitable rainfall regime in fall-winter, thus reducing the irrigation requirements. Moreover, limited studies have been conducted on the combined effect of different levels of irrigation and nitrogen supply.
B) Would regression analysis be more appropriate for these quantitative factors (irrigation)? This will change the entire discussion of the manuscript.
Author: Taking into consideration that we studied two factors, the regression analysis would have been more confusing especially in the presence of interaction I x N.
C) Figure 5 needs more quality. Increase the font of the axes.
Author: It has been done.
D) Perform correlation analysis with the variables.
Author: Correlation analysis between total seed yield and number of racemes and capsules and seed weight was performed
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research provides good information about irrigation and nitrogen fertility requirements of castor in a Mediterranean environment but is too limited in scope. I am concerned about the following things in regards to the manuscript.
1. The experiment was performed at a single location over two years. The study should be repeated at the same or similar location to be ab;e to validate the results. There is inadequate replication over years and/or locations to support the publication of this study. At least one additional trial should be conducted at a minimum to make the study publishable.
2. There should be a more concise way to present the data collected than in eleven individual tables.
3. Data may be more appropriately analyzed as repeated measures since the trial is harvested more than once on the same plots.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We greatly appreciate the time taken by yourself to assess our contribution. Below you can find a point by point response to your comments.
The research provides good information about irrigation and nitrogen fertility requirements of castor in a Mediterranean environment but is too limited in scope. I am concerned about the following things in regards to the manuscript.
A. There should be a more concise way to present the data collected than in eleven individual tables.
Author: The manuscript has been shortened and the number of tables has been reduced to 6.
B. Data may be more appropriately analyzed as repeated measures since the trial is harvested more than once on the same plots.
Author: It has been done.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Corrections have been made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
the authors greatly appreciate the time taken by yours to assess our contribution.
Your suggestions helped us to improve the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Giorgio Testa