Disentangling and Closing the Nutrient-Based Potato Yield Gap Using Integrated Nutrient Management Under Temperate Environments of Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Main drawbacks of the manuscript / Comments and suggestions for Author

Title does not reflect the content of the paper.

The Introduction does not provide sufficient background and does not contain appropriate references to the research. On the basis of a review of the subject literature, the current state of knowledge on the research topic should be briefly presented. The novelty and original contributions of this work should be presented.

There is no clear and testable (rejectable) hypothesis. The hypothesis put forward in the study should be clearly stated.

Materials and methods should be described in more detail, i.e. size of experimental unit (plot area, number of pant per plot), plant density, potato growth stages in BBCH scale (lines 166 ans 168), methodology of potato sample collection  to determine plant growth and fresh/dry shoots weight (number of plants, number of leaves).

Data analysis should be described in more detail. Are the results analyzed separately for each year and each potato cultivar?

An important drawback is the Results and Discussion section. The results and discussion are too generic and tendentious. I believe that that results of the studies are incomplete. Four potato cultivars were grown. Cultivars response to fertilization and soil mulching should be presented. All significant interactions of experimental factors should be presented. The relation between the potato growth traits and tuber yield should be determined.

The Authors should  objectively and critically interpret the study results on the basis of the current state of the knowledge about the research.

The Conclusion section should present the main findings of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to experimentally investigate and analyze the causes of the potato yield gap in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and to develop integrated nutrient management strategies designed to narrow this gap. The experimental design comprised three fertilizer application rates [no fertilizer (control); 50% and 100% of the recommended rates], soil cover levels (grass mulch applied and absent), and four potato cultivars (Mondial, Sababa, Panamera, and Tyson). The research ultimately demonstrated that combining the full recommended fertilizer rate, mulching, and a late-maturing cultivar closed up to 84% of this gap, achieving yields of 43 t/ha. It also found that a resource-efficient practice combining reduced fertilizer application with mulching and a late-maturing cultivar maintained high yields (35-41 t/ha). The experimental design is sound, and the article's structure and logic are coherent. The findings are beneficial for enhancing potato cultivation yields in SSA. However, some issues remain within the manuscript.

Revisions Required:

1. Figure 1.A and B: Are the intervals on the x-axis consistent between A and B? The titles for the dual y-axes appear significantly misaligned. Please correct.
2. Line 85: "2022/2023 and 2023/24"? (Should this be "2022/2023 and 2023/2024"? Please confirm/standardize the format).
3. Reference 24: "data2022", which does not correspond to the study period "2022-2024" mentioned in the article.
4. Lines 98, 120, and 152: Indent the first line of these paragraphs by 2 characters.
5. Table 2: Please reformat this table to correctly use the three-line table format.
6. Line 152: The specific soil sampling method is missing. By which method was the soil sampled? Please specify the reference method and the soil depth sampled (e.g., 0-30 cm).
7. Line 261: "9 t/ha and 5 t/ha"? Please verify consistency with the data presented in Table 3.
8. Table 3 and Figure 2: These express the same content. Please delete Table 3.
9. Figure 2, please annotate after the title which potato growing season "A" and "B" respectively represent.
10. Line 329: An important concept, "potential yield (50 t/ha)", is introduced here. Please provide a detailed description of how this value was derived from previous research to enhance the credibility of the cited data.
11. Line 339: "low uptake"? Please check if this is the appropriate term in context and revise if necessary.
12. Figures 4 and 5: Both figures lack significance analysis. It is impossible to directly observe significant differences between treatments. Please add significance indicators (e.g., letters) to the figures. Additionally, please add to the figure captions what the labels ABCDEFGH represent.
13. Line 425: Change "shoot biomass" to "shoot dry biomass".
14. Conclusion Section: Focus on revising this section. The conclusion should provide an independent and confident summary of the study's original contributions. Avoid frequent citation of literature, as is typical in the Introduction or Discussion sections."

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this publication with great appreciation. As someone who understands how demanding and time-consuming field experiments are, I really realise the considerable effort and dedication that the authors have invested in this study. This topic is very relevant, especially in the context of improving agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa, where limited resources and harsh environmental conditions are major obstacles. The results presented in this article provide valuable information on sustainable nutrient management strategies and have real potential to contribute to improving food security in the region. All contributions are on file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although I am not a specialist in English editing, I would like to address the issue of language use in the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript is comprehensible; however, there are areas where the clarity and precision of the English language could be improved. There are instances of repetition (e.g. “nutrient use efficiency” repeated at short intervals) and long-winded constructions that could be simplified. I recommend proofreading by a native English speaker or professional editor to refine the manuscript and ensure fluent writing throughout.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None