Innovative Tools for Nitrogen Fertilization Traceability in Organic Farming Products: A Fennel Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Dr. Fabroni,

Please find the attachment, where I have addressed how the Authors can improve the manuscript.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has lots of editing stuffs and language structure problems. Some sentences have to be written in a better scientific language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled "Innovative tools for nitrogen fertilization traceability in organic farming products: a fennel case study" is interesting and falls within the scope of the journal. Overall the manuscript is well structures and the findings are worth to the journal's audience, however there are some points that need further clarification:

Abstract

1. Line 17-21: The background is too detailed. It should be more focused.
2. The description of the results is too simple. Throughout abstract no data for various parameters was given.

Introduction

1. Arrange your introduction section in a systematic scientific way with citations of recent studies and identify the study gap and provide a robust hypothesis. Try to avoid stating general information and be specific.
2. Line 65-69: References should be supplemented.

Materials and Methods

1. Line128-132: Please provide WRB soil classification
2. Line128-132: Please supplement the data of soil basic fertility.
3. Please supplement the meteorological data during the experimental field trial carried out.
4. Line 133: Are the plots isolated from each other?
5. Line 159-163: Please provide a detailed description of sampling method of soil sample.
6. Line 174: Please change “parameters. .” to “parameters. ”
7. Line 187-199: References should be supplemented.
8. The materials and method section need extensive improvement. The crop husbandry section may be included to make the agronomic practices clear to the readers.

Results and Discussion

1. In many cases, the authors have only mentioned their own results and compared them with some consistent findings. The authors should have not only addressed the issues mentioned above but also discussed the potential mechanisms on the observed changes.
2. This sections are too lengthy. Please make streamline as per manuscript objectives. No need to add unrelated discussion.

Conclusions

This section should be streamlined according to the research objectives.

 References

The list of references should be written in a uniform style. Such as 13, 33, 36, 40, and 41.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The response categories of the physical-chemical parameters, antioxidant activity, total and inorganic nitrogen are widely discussed based on the treatments through the use of animal manure pellets (3% N), mixed with synthetic fertilization until it is 100% mineral, and also includes an intercrop that fixes nitrogen (alfalfa); They highlight the distinctive characteristics of organic agriculture in the quality of the fennel bulb (in addition to the redistribution, slowing down and absorption of N), as well as the risks of the high nitrate content resulting from conventional fertilization. In these response categories there is an abundance of quotes about fennel in specific cultivars that, rather than supporting the work (consistency in the response, in this section it would be convenient to calculate the sugar-acidity ratio since it is a defining characteristic of the quality and characteristic flavor of each cultivar), create the preamble to address the results of the stable isotope proportions in the fennel bulb, preceded by the analysis of 15N/14N of urea.
It would also be important since an experimental unit of 57.6 m2 was used, and the amount of nitrogen extrapolated to hectare was 120 kg N, in the case of organic pellets (3% N), which was the amount used extrapolated to hectare.

Also, since organic fertilization over time may have performance limitations, it would be convenient to present the 2018 and 2019 results separately as information and to support them in the analysis of the average of the two years. Since it is emphasized that there are no statistical differences in the pomological parameters, it is assumed that the organic treatments are on par with conventional fertilization, the treatment of long-term agroecological practices stands out, so it is important to include a multiple range test to separate treatment means (4 repetitions of each), which was done in table 2, and in the figures presented.
Regulatory standards are cited (reference 9), as well as reference values ​​in research work, it would be advisable to update these citations since they date back to 1990, in general around 39% of the citations are prior to 2008.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for improving the manuscript. Unfortunately, based on the revised version forwarded to me, the manuscript is not addressed the knowledge gap and the additional data required to support the result. Here I would comment on some points that the authors will consider for further inquiries:

1. The article titled "Innovative tools for nitrogen fertilization traceability in organic farming product: a fennel case study". However, the authors are discussing about current European Regulation (EU) and policymakers in organic farming in several part of introduction. They may reduce or delete this parts and instead focus on how fertilizers (organic and mineral) and agricultural practices enhance fennel yield and yield quality parameters.
2. The manuscript lack of the soil fertility data, and there is no clear indication on this. In the method chapter there is no values for total N content of the soil or Nmin values to show the soil condition but it is very relevant when one is considering innovative tools for N fertilization and management. Data regarding climate condition and soil micro-climate is not available.
3. Chapter 3, lines 336 to 343 "..... No significant differences were found among treatments for all the parameters, being not affected by climate conditions which were comparable in the two cropping cycles.,,,," Table 1 presented no statistics on climatic condition on result. No statistics on climatic condition have been done on recent version.
4. The title for figures should be transfer down to the graph and not above.
5. In method section lines 148 and 149 the average monthly temperatures and long-term mean presented in two decimals. Air temperature mainly and mostly are available only with one decimal. However, during the calculation and statistics it comes with two decimals. This can be improved in the future.

I hope this review do not frustrate the authors. The aim is only to improve the quality of the scientific work.

 

Warm regards

 

 

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your great efforts in improving the manuscript. It is improved dramatically. Now, the paper should be accepted for the publication.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf