Optimizing Fertilization Rate to Achieve High Onion Bulb Yield and High Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity in Dry-Hot Valley Region of Southwest China
Nobuhiko Fueki
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSe the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer of Agronomy:
I am writing this letter to provide an illustration regarding the revisions made to Agronomy-3732129.
The manuscript agronomy-3732129-v1-done “Optimizing fertilization rate to enhance onion bulb yield and nitrogen fertilizer productivity by improving post-bulbing aboveground dry matter accumulation and partitioning in dry-hot valley region of southwest of China” highlights the importance of optimizing the use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture in order to avoid environmental damage and fertilizer waste, a very interesting subject.
I have no major issues with the manuscript, although some corrections must be made as pointed out below prior to its acceptance for the Agronomy journal. Although the manuscript is well written, it is necessary to make some corrections in the text before it is suitable for publication. See below.
TITLE: It is too long. Try to make it shorter.
Reply: The revision was highlighted in purple and presented on the page 1.
“Optimizing fertilization rate to achieve high onion bulb yield and high nitrogen fertilizer productivity in dry-hot valley region of southwest of China”
ABSTRACT: According to the instructions, the maximum words is 200.
Reply:The revision has made the abstract more concise .
“Before onset of bulbing, the proportion of leaf was consistently higher than that of stem across all treatments and decreased with a reducing in fertilization rates. Concurrently, the dry matter translocation, translocation efficiency and contribution of dry matter translocation to bulb exhibited a gradual decline as fertilizer supply diminished.”and “treatment F2 significantly enhanced aboveground dry matter and the rate of dry matter accumulation. ” were deleted.
The revision was highlighted in purple and presented on the page 1.
KEY WORDS: The word onion is already in the title. The words optimizing and above ground can be removed.
Reply: The revision has removed the words "onion," "optimizing," and "aboveground" from the list of keywords and was marked in purple and presented on the page 2.
INDRODUCTION: Second paragraph - The scientific name should be italicized.
Reply: The revision was highlighted in purple and presented in introduction and reference sections.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
2.2. Experimental layout - What was the degree of shading?
It is unclear whether the second experiment was conducted in the same area as the previous year. If so, was a soil analysis performed in the second experiment before planting?
Reply:The revision was highlighted in purple and presented on the page 3
“The seedbeds were completely covered with shading netting for 7 days until the seeds had germinated and emerged through the soil surface”.
The second experiment was conducted in the same area as the previous year. The soil analysis was not performed in the second experiment before planting
“All experimental treatments were carried out by splitting fertilization for six times using drip irrigation under plastic film (Table 2)”. Five or six times?
Reply: The revision was marked in purple and displayed at the bottom of page 3.
“All experimental treatments were carried out by splitting fertilization for five times using drip irrigation under plastic film (Table 2)”
Table 2. The table caption needs more details. The way the values are presented makes the table difficult to read.
Reply: The revision was marked in purple and displayed upper page 4.
2.3.1. Aboveground dry matter –
“The plants were harvested at 150 days after transplanting”. Do you mean the rest of the plants?
Reply: Yes.“The rest of plants were harvested at 150 days after transplanting”
The revision was marked in purple and displayed on page 4.
RESULTS: The authors sometimes report results as significant when it is not actually statistically significant.
Reply:The revision was marked in purple .
3.1. Dry matter accumulation
Page 6 first line - correct the text.
“There was no difference under F1, F2 and F3 in aboveground dry matter of onion.” Year 2023- 2024?
Reply:“There was no significant difference of aboveground dry matter among F1, F2 and F3 during period â…£ of 2023-2024 growing season.”
Figure 1- year 2023-2024: growth period IV - Reposition the letters in the histograms.
In all the caption of figures and tables must be added this information: Values are the mean ± Standard Error ou Standard deviation?
Reply:Figure 1- year 2023-2024: growth period IV - The letters in the histograms were repositioned.
Values are the mean ± Standard Error (Table 3 )
Figure 2: See the Y legend and check the letters in the year 2022-2023 period IV.
Reply: The revision was marked in purple and displayed in figure 2.
3.2 Dry matter partitioning – page 7
The figure 3 must be cited in the text.
Reply:The revision was marked in purple and displayed on page7.
“The proportion of leaf were higher under treatments F1, F2 and F3 and F4 compared to those under treatments F4, F5 and F0, but the pro-portion of stem were lower under treatments F1, F2 and F3 and F4 than under treatments F4, F5 and F0 during 2022–2023 growing season.” It seems that F4 is similar to F1, F2 and F3.
Reply:Yes.The revision was marked in purple and displayed on page7.
“The proportion of bulb under treatment F2 was greatest among all treatments during 2022–2024 growing season.” (But statistically significant only whit F5 and F0).
Reply:“The proportion of bulb under treatment F2 was greatest among all treatments during 2023–2024 growing season.”has been deleted.
“Compared to treatment F1, F2 increased the proportion of stem by 0.23% and 5.65% at 120 days after transplanting, however, the proportion of bulb was increased by -0.28% and 1.88% at maturity during 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 growing season, respectively.” .. was increased by -0.28% is not correct. Change to: However, the bulb proportion changed by - 0.28% and increased by 1.88% at maturity in the same respective seasons.
Reply:Yes.The revision was marked in purple and displayed on page7.
3.3 Dry matter translocation (DMT)
–2024(Figure 4). Correct.
In the figure 4, move the letters so they are visible. The Y legend: Move (Kg.hm-2 ) as a second line.
Reply:Yes.The revision was marked in purple and displayed in Figure 4.
“The differences in the dry matter translocation, dry matter translocation efficiency and contribution of dry matter translocation to bulb development were not significant under F1, F2 and F3.” âž”Among them? And with the other treatments?
Reply:Among them.
Correct 2024(Figure 5) in the text.
“The differences of contribution of post-bulbing dry matter accumulation to bulb development
were not significant between treatments F2 and F3.” And the others? Revise the statistic results.
Reply: This sentence was modified to“The difference of contribution of post-bulbing dry matter accumulation to bulb development was not significant between treatments F2 and F3.”
3.4. Bulb yield and partial factor productivity of nitrogen fertilizer
Add (PFPN) at the end of subsection title.
Reply: I apologize for not being able to find out the answer. Please help me revise this section. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Table 3. In the note it is cited F0, but this data are not presented in the table.
Reply:Yes. F0 was removed from the note in Table 3.
In the first and second paragraphs it is cited Figure 7. Change to Figure 6.
Reply:Yes.Figure 7 was changed to Figure 6.
In the figure caption it is cited F0, but it is not in the figure.
Reply:Yes. F0 was removed from the caption in Table 3.
3.5. Correlation analysis
Move the following sentence to the Discussion. “These results suggested that optimizing
fertilization rates to enhance aboveground dry matter production, dry matter translocation, and partitioning can effectively improve onion marketable bulb yield.”
Reply:Yes. This sentence was removed from the correlation analysis section.
In the figure 7 caption add the information about (I, II, III and IV).
Reply:Yes. The information about growing period was added in the Figure 7.
- Conclusions
A more striking and concise conclusion is needed.
Reply:Yes. A more striking and concise conclusion has been formulated.
Reference
Italicize all the scientific names.
Reply:Yes.The revision was marked in purple and displayed in the reference.
Thank you for your valuable time.
Sincerely,
Jiancha Li!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer of Agronomy:
I am writing this letter to provide an illustration regarding the revisions made to Agronomy-3732129.
This manuscript can be a pragmatic agronomical paper because the reaction of onion to the
varied fertilization rate was precisely analyzed by a detail horticultural method. However, there still so many problems to be solved as shown below. Please revise it carefully with referring to the following comments.
Abstract: PFPN has to be explained: reader cannot understand what PFPN is.
Reply: The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 1.
Abstract: “35.20%, 32.01%, 8.35%, 5.79%”, two decimal points are too much. They should be revised to “35.2 %, 32.0 %, 8.4 %, 5.8 %”.
Reply: The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 1.
Abstract: “these correlation coefficients increased during the second growing season”, this
sentence could not be confirmed whether is true or not because Figure 7 is low resolution,
unable to be discerned.
Reply: This sentence was removed o the abstract.
- Introduction 1st paragraph: crucially → crucial
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 2.
- Introduction 1st paragraph: high grain yields → high yields
Reply: Yes. “high grain yields” was changed to “high yields”. The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 2.
2.1 Study Site: There is not any description about soil studied. Imaginably, the soil seems very poor, so give more detailed explanation about the soil.
Reply: Yes. The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 3.
“The soil quality is poor, characterized by low organic matter content and degraded structural properties.”
Table 1: “1.44 (gï½¥cm-3), 6.10 (gï½¥kg-1), 39.00 (mgï½¥kg-1), 30.38 (mgï½¥kg-1), 129.00 (mgï½¥kg-1)”, two decimal points are too much. They should be revised to “1.4 (g cm-3), 6.1 (g kg-1), 39.0 (mg kg-1), 30.4 (mg kg-1), 129.0 (mg kg-1)”. Moreover, Analytical methods of available nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium have to be shown.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 3.
Analytical methods of available nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium have been replenished.
“Soil texture was determined by soil densitometer method. Soil bulk density was detected by cutting ring method. Soil pH was determined using an automatic acid–base titrator based on 1:2.5 (soil:water, w/v) suspensions. Soil organic matter was determined using the potassium dichromate volumetric method, and total nitrogen was analyzed by the Kjeldahl method. Soil available nitrogen was determined using the micro-diffusion method following alkaline hydrolysis. Soil available phosphorus was determined using the Olsen method, and soil available potassium was quantified from 1 M NHâ‚„OAc extracts by flame photometry.
” was replenished.
2.2 Experimental layout: There is no description about the cultivar studied. Especially, the
difference of post-harvested perishability among cultivars is likely affected by nitrogen
management, write more about that.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented on the page 3.
“This cultivar adapts to lower latitudes and shorter daylengths, however, high temperatures and long daylengths are required to promote dry matter accumulation and bulb development after bulb initiation.” was replenished.
Table 2: The unit of “kgï½¥667m-2” is inappropriate as scientific paper, revise it to “kg ha-1”
Reply: The unit was revised to “kg.ha-1” .
Table 2: Two decimal points are too much, reduce it to one decimal point.
Reply: The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the table 2.
2.3.2 Aboveground dry matter partitioning and translocation
In terms of the equation of “Dry matter translocation”, it seems skeptical. You defined “Dry
matter translocation” is “subtraction of aboveground dry matter at onset of bulbing and (leaves + stem) dry matter at maturity”. However, the aboveground dry matter is supposed to be increasing still after onset of bulbing, so the “dry matter translocation” has to be “subtraction of aboveground dry matter at maximum growth date and (leaves + stem) dry matter at maturity”. You have to make “major revision” about this issue. Then, About equations (6)-(8), elaborate reconsideration is necessary.
Reply: Dry matter translocation is defined as the movement of dry matter from non-harvested organs to harvested organs. In onions, the non-harvested organs are the leaves and stem, while the harvested organ is the bulb. At the onset of bulbing, onion plants possess only non-harvested organs such as the leaves and stem. Although total of aboveground dry matter continues to increase after the onset of bulbing, the dry matter quantity in the leaves and stem decreases.
3.1 Dry matter accumulation
@In terms of the sentence “The aboveground dry matter of onion initially exhibited an
increasing trend, followed by a decline as the fertilization rate was reduced.”, its meaning is not clear and not understandable, consider revision or deletion.
Reply: Yes. This sentence has been revised to “The aboveground dry matter of onion exhibited a trend of initial increase and followed by a decline as the fertilization rate was reduced.”
The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 5.
@In terms of “The aboveground dry matter of onions was significantly higher under treatments F1, F2, and F3 compared to the other treatments throughout the entire growth period during the first growing season during 2022–2023 growing season.”, make revision. This sentence is also weird.
Reply: Yes. “during the first growing season” has been deleted.
The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 5.
@Two decimal points were too much, such as “17.44%, 9.83%, 8.36%, 60.77%, 33.30%,
69.45%, 22.95%”. Reduce to one decimal point.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 5.
@” There was no difference under F1, F2 and F3 in aboveground dry matter of onion.”, it is
impossible to understand what you want to describe. Perhaps, what you want to mention is likely as, “There was no significant difference of aboveground dry matter among F1, F2 and F3, in period â…£, 2023-2024.”?
Reply: Yes.“There was no significant difference of aboveground dry matter among F1, F2 and F3 during period â…£ of 2023-2024 growing season.”
The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 5.
@You said,” Notably, compared with other treatments, treatment F2 significantly enhanced the above-ground dry matter accumulation rate of onion during maturity period. Specifically, compared to F1, aboveground dry matter accumulation rate under treatment F2 increased by 60.77% and 33.30% at maturity during 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 growing seasons, respectively. In comparison with treatment F3, dry matter accumulation rate under treatment F2 increased by 69.45% and 22.95% at maturity during 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 growing seasons, respectively.” I can understand what you want to say, but the difference among F1,F2 and F3 is NOT SIGNIFICANT, the problem must be solved.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 6.
3.2. Dry matter partitioning
@” The the proportion of bulb under F2 and F4 were greatest among all treatments…”, one
“the” must be deleted.
Reply: Yes.one “the” has been deleted.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 7.
@Two decimal points were too much, such as “5.65%, 6.51%, 3.64%”. Reduce to one decimal point.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 7.
@Separate the paragraph at the following points:
“At 60 days and 90 days after transplanting, the proportion…”,
“At 120 days after transplanting, conversely, the proportion of stem…”,
“At 150 days after transplanting, most of stems have transformed…”,
“Compared to treatment F1, F2 increased the proportion of stem…”.
Reply: Yes. The section on dry matter partitioning was divided into four distinct paragraphs.“Generally, the proportion of leaf was higher than stem under all of treatments before onset of bulbing, however, post-bulbing, the proportion of stem (stem + bulb) exceeded that of leaf under all of treatments.”was deleted.
@ “While there were no significant difference…” → “On the other hand, there were no
significant difference…”
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 7.
@”Compared to treatment F1, F2 increased the proportion of stem … the proportion of bulb by 0.47% and 3.64% at maturity during 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 growing season, respectively.”, this sentence is too hard to understand. Consider about revision carefully.
Reply: Yes.
3.3. Dry matter translocation (DMT)
@Two decimal points were too much, such as “24.96%, 12.78%, 15.75%, 10.26%”. Reduce to one decimal point.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 8.
@Separate the paragraph at the following points:
“Post-bulbing dry matter accumulation initially increased but subsequently decreased…”
Reply: Yes.
Table 3:
@The unit of “Bulb fresh weight” is just “g”, but correctly, “g m-2” or something like that, is
right?
Reply: The unit of “Bulb fresh weight” is just “g.plant-1”The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the table 3.
@Two decimal points were too much. Reduce to one decimal point.
For example, “780.06±50.50 → 780±50”, “1.19±0.53 → 1.2±0.5”, “15.34±1.82 →
15.3±1.8”.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the table 3.
@Insert a line between 2022-2023 and 2023-2024.
Reply: Yes.The revision was presented in the table 3.
3.4. Bulb yield and partial factor productivity of nitrogen fertilizer
@Two decimal points were too much, such as “8.35%, 5.79%, 24.05%, 4.97%, 35.20%,
32.01%”. Reduce to one decimal point.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the page 11.
Figure 6: Show “marketable bulb yield” clearly and consistently.
Reply:Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the Figure 6.
Figure 7: Low resolution, figures and letters are too small to be read.
Reply:Yes. Figure7 was rearranged.
3.5. Correlation analysis
Readers cannot understand what is drown in Figure 7, So this paragraph is too redundant. What you want to mention would be only “optimizing fertilization rates to enhance aboveground dry matter production, dry matter translocation, and partitioning can effectively improve onion marketable bulb yield.” So, to say that, you should show only the necessary data in Figure 7 (or changing into a table). Anyway, reduce the amount of information in Figure 7.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the correlation analysis section.
“Furthermore, Onion marketable bulb yield showed significantly positive correlations with bulb index and the dry matter content of bulb at maturity in both growing season. During the 90 days after transplanting, these correlation coefficients between bulb yield and dry matter traits distinctly decreased from the first growing season to the second growing season. Conversely, from 120 to 150 days after transplanting, these correlation coefficients between bulb yield and dry matter traits obviously increased from the first to the second growing season. ” have been deleted.
- Conclusions
@Two decimal points were too much, such as “32.01%, 35.20%, 5.79%, 8.35%”. Reduce to one decimal point.
Reply: Yes.The revision was highlighted in orange and presented in the conclusion section.
Thank you for your valuable time.
Sincerely,
Jiancha Li!
