Assessing Nitrogen Fertilization in Processing Pepper: Critical Nitrogen Curve, Yield Response, and Crop Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper is interesting, but manuscript requires careful correction. In paper there is no information about N, P, K, Ca fertilizers were applied in experiment, how often was fertigation used and in what quantity. There are no results of soil analysis on total N and NH4 and NO3, both before and after experiment, although soil samples were taken from two levels. The notation of units, coefficients and formulas should be corrected. Mental abbreviations are used, e.g. '%N' instead of 'N content (%)', 'reaction to N' instead of 'reaction to N fertilization', 'aerial dry matter' instead of 'aerial parts dry matter', and many others. All remarks are written in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
All remarks are written in the attached manuscript.
Author Response
José Maria Vadillo
Badajoz, 18/10/2024
Firstly I would like to thank you for your dedication and time in correcting the article. Thanks to the suggestions you have indicated, we are sure that the level of this article will improve.
Please find attached the final corrected file and the file you sent me with the response to each of your comments.
I repeat my thanks for the correction of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a comprehensive and good piece of work. Please take into account the comments in the attached file.
It is particularly important to state the initial mineral N values in the soil in the abstract. If these are only 40 or 50 kg, fertilization with 120 kg is probably not enough. These relationships are well described in the discussion.
Please describe the experimental design in more detail.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Sorry for the inconvenience, I mistook the review letter for another reviewer's. The one I have attached below is yours.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report
General
The manuscript studied the critical nitrogen curve of processed pepper and the response of yield to nitrogen application. The results showed that applying more than 200 kg N/ha did not significantly increase yield. The study concludes that outdoor pepper crops in this region can achieve optimal yields with lower N rates (around 120 kg N/ha) compared to current practices, thereby reducing environmental risks and fertilizer costs. The manuscript also established relationships between biomass, canopy cover, and N uptake to improve fertilization strategies. I believe that the study is relevant to the aims and scope of the “Horticulturae”. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it can be accepted for publication in this journal.
Firstly, the description of the entry point of the manuscript in the abstract is not clear enough, and it is not enough to take "especially considering variety and site influences are lacking" as the entry point, and only 1 variety is involved in the manuscript. Secondly, There are too many pictures involved in the manuscript to consider putting some of the mutations in the supplementary material. Thirdly, why does Figure 8 only have data for 2020 and 2021, but not for 2022?
Specific comments will follow below.
Title: The topic needs to be considered.
Abstract: Abstract is all descriptive language, there is no data to support the conclusion, need to supplement.
L11-13, Entry points need to be further defined.
L14-15, “with the aim of reducing environmental impacts such as nitrate leaching while maintaining crop yields”, However, only 0-40 cm of soil nitrogen was measured in the manuscript. How can such a shallow soil layer characterize nitrate leaching?
L20-22, This is all the basics. Why is it in the abstract?
Keywords: Keywords need to be re-condensed, the test material is processed pepper, and the keywords do not appear, the main keywords of condensation.
Materials and Methods:
L123, Why the N3 treatment was removed in 2022 needs to be explained.
L135, Pay attention to the problem of upper and lower scripts. There are many non-standard use of upper and lower scripts in the whole manuscript.
L154, fCC or fCC, there needs to be unity in the manuscript.
L228, 0-40 cm of soil nitrogen was measured in the manuscript. How can such a shallow soil layer characterize nitrate leaching?
Results:
L248, The title needs to be considered, why no limiting nitrogen conditions?
L252, “The warmest year was 2022”, what are the defining criteria?
L258, There are 5 pictures in this part, can you integrate them?
L346, P is italics. Why is there no data for 2022?
Table 2, note the format of the three-wire watch.
Discussion:
L523, Figure 15, These two parts may be more appropriate in the introduction.
Conclusion:
Embellish and refine the conclusion to ensure clear and accurate expression.
L619-621, This is not the conclusion of this study.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study provides a methodology for optimizing the fertilization strategy of pepper. By managing nitrogen fertilizer use more precisely, it not only enhances the growth quality and yield of the crops but also mitigates the adverse environmental impact. Moreover, adjusting the amount of fertilizer to meet the actual needs of the crops can save costs for growers and improve economic efficiency, which is of significant importance for promoting sustainable agriculture development.
Nevertheless, there are still some problems in this paper, and the specific recommendations are briefly described below:
1. In line 9, the research question is not prominently articulated. It is not immediately evident how the 'groundwater pollution issue' is directly related to your study of nitrogen (N). The problem statement should directly identify the research question, highlighting the urgency and significance of the study, enabling readers to quickly grasp the main theme and value of the research.
2. In lines 11-13, the statement should directly support your research question and logically follow after line 9. Then, provide a concise overview of the relevant research. We recommend revising this section to enhance the clarity and logical flow of the manuscript.
3. In line 16 of the abstract, the specific experimental design of this study should be clearly outlined, rather than providing a vague range such as 'ranging from no N fertilizer to 300 kg N/ha.' Additionally, a summary of some of the research results should be included to support your final conclusion, avoiding general and vague statements.
4. It is recommended to include 'N' or 'critical nitrogen curve' in the keywords.
5. The literature on research progress in the introduction is outdated. It is recommended to replace or add some of the most recent literature to highlight the innovation and significance of this study.
6. Lines 128-130 state that irrigation was conducted using ETo and Kc. What is the daily ETo during the growth period? Additionally, what is the irrigation regime? Please provide the relevant data and materials.
7. In line 170, this method is introduced and cited in the main text. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the citation in the figure caption.
8. In the Soil nitrogen sampling section, did the sampling locations account for irrigation and plant growth? Specific sampling points should be provided, such as the distance from the plant in centimeters.
9. In Figure 2, since each point represents the average of four measurements, please include error bars for each point to display the distribution of the sampling data.
10. In Figure 10 and Table 2, the single-factor analysis results are marked , but the labels 'a' and 'b' are reversed. Please correct this and re-label all letters in both the figure and table.
11. In Figure 12, please include the fitted equations and R² values for each graph.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe conclusion is still too long and needs to be further condensed.
Author Response
Coment 1: (The conclusion is still too long and needs to be further condensed.)
Response 1: (Thank you for your comment and for reviewing it again. We have summarized and clarified the conclusions.)
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Table and Figure in the manuscript hope to be further enhanced for better aesthetics.
Author Response
Coment 1: (The Table and Figure in the manuscript hope to be further enhanced for better aesthetics.)
Response 1: (Thank you very much for your comment and for reviewing it again. We have revised the tables and figures and tried to improve their aesthetics.)
