Deficit Irrigation and Nitrogen Application Rate Influence Growth and Yield of Four Potato Cultivars (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Line 33: ”Solanum tuberosum L.” Should be “Solanum tuberosum L.”
2.Line 88: The citation format of the thesis is chaotic.
3.Line 102-123: The format of the unit is incorrect. Please verify and correct it.
4.Table 1, What do the words in parentheses such as 36cm represent? Please add relevant explanations.
5.Line 141-143:The format of the unit is incorrect. Please verify and correct it.
6.Table 2, The format of the unit is incorrect. Please verify and correct it.
7.The format of the table is not uniform. It is suggested that it be modified.
8.Please add photos of the test scene. How is it irrigated? Please add explanations on how to ensure the application amount of nitrogen fertilizer during irrigation.
9.Discussion. The content and format of this part are very poor. It is recommended to rewrite it.
- References. It is suggested to cite the latest literature.
11.3.4. Stem and Tuber Number: The content of this chapter is relatively limited. I don't know why the relevant data was placed in the supplementary materials.
Author Response
1.Line 33: ”Solanum tuberosum L.” Should be “Solanum tuberosum L.”
Response 1. Corrected as noted. See line 35.
2.Line 88: The citation format of the thesis is chaotic.
Response 2. We rewrote this sentence to follow MDPI’s standard citation format (lines 89-92). We also rewrote the Discussion to align with MDPI’s in-text citation format.
3.Line 102-123: The format of the unit is incorrect. Please verify and correct it.
Response 3. We corrected the symbol for degrees latitude and longitude (line 108). Please clarify if other revisions are needed.
4.Table 1, What do the words in parentheses such as 36cm represent? Please add relevant explanations.
Response 4. A sentence was added to the Table 1 heading for clarification.
5.Line 141-143:The format of the unit is incorrect. Please verify and correct it.
Response 5. We fixed the superscripts signifying per hectare in this section (2.4).
6.Table 2, The format of the unit is incorrect. Please verify and correct it.
Response 6. We have moved the units below the table header in Table 2.
7.The format of the table is not uniform. It is suggested that it be modified.
Response 7. Table formats vary slightly depending on statistical significance. If the Water*Nitrogen interaction was statistically significant (p<0.05), then we included mean separation to illustrate those differences. If interactions were not significant, we only included the main effects in the tables. Otherwise, we have made every effort to assure table format uniformity.
8.Please add photos of the test scene. How is it irrigated? Please add explanations on how to ensure the application amount of nitrogen fertilizer during irrigation.
Response 8. We have added Figure 1 as requested to illustrate the irrigation system and treatments. In-season N fertilizer was applied using a boom sprayer and was immediately watered in after spraying (shown in lines 170-171).
9.Discussion. The content and format of this part are very poor. It is recommended to rewrite it.
Response 9. We have modified the Discussion section considerably to smooth the flow and have added three sections (lines 419-426 on Russet Norkotah3’s sensitivity to water stress, lines 495-505 regarding varietal traits and their relationship to LAI, and lines 548-554 on water and N savings) to provide greater depth and address reviewer concerns.
References. It is suggested to cite the latest literature.
Response 10. We have added 6 additional references from 2020-present, references 30, 31, 40, 42, 50, and 51.
11.3.4. Stem and Tuber Number: The content of this chapter is relatively limited. I don't know why the relevant data was placed in the supplementary materials.
Response 11. We have moved those two tables into the text as requested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a rigorous two-year field study evaluating the effects of deficit irrigation and reduced nitrogen on four potato cultivars in Colorado's San Luis Valley. The research addresses critical sustainability challenges and provides cultivar-specific management insights. The experimental design is robust, data analysis is appropriate, and conclusions are largely supported by results. However, minor revisions are needed to enhance clarity, contextualize findings, and address methodological limitations.
- The single-line source system prevented randomization. Acknowledge this limitation and discuss potential bias.
- Specify if precipitation/ET data were collected only from the on-site station or supplemented with regional data.
- In Table 1, clarify why Mesa Russet’s "moderate deficit" (IRRG2) was milder (6–10% reduction) vs. other cultivars (15–18%). Justify or discuss implications for cross-cultivar comparisons.
- In Table 15, highlight why LAI correlated strongly with yield in some cultivars but not others. Link to physiological traits.
- Emphasize that TB was a stronger yield predictor than LAI in most cultivars—a key practical finding.
- Reconcile inconsistent N impacts, e.g., reduced N lowered Yukon Gold yield in 2017 but increased it in 2016 under full irrigation.
- Compare reported yields with regional benchmarks.
- Quantify potential water/N savings.
- Hypothesize why Russet Norkotah3 is water-sensitive.
- For future research, include root architecture/soil moisture monitoring to deepen drought-tolerance insights.
- For language check, the text is generally clear but needs polishing such as the use past tense for methods/results, present tense for general facts.
- Break long sentences. Example, "Reducing irrigation by up to 18% did not result in yield losses... while greater reductions did reduce yield." to "Yield losses were absent with ≤18% irrigation reduction but occurred with larger deficits."
- Avoid phrases like "both water and N" → "water and N".
- For table/figure references, use consistent formatting (e.g., "Table 1" not "Table 1.").
- "Correlation of Tuber Bulking…….anf……Leaf Area..." → and.
- Mesa Russet received higher irrigation rates under deficit…….than….." → …..than those of…….
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough review.
This manuscript presents a rigorous two-year field study evaluating the effects of deficit irrigation and reduced nitrogen on four potato cultivars in Colorado's San Luis Valley. The research addresses critical sustainability challenges and provides cultivar-specific management insights. The experimental design is robust, data analysis is appropriate, and conclusions are largely supported by results. However, minor revisions are needed to enhance clarity, contextualize findings, and address methodological limitations.
Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We have made the revisions as requested.
The single-line source system prevented randomization. Acknowledge this limitation and discuss potential bias.
Response 2. We have addressed this issue in the Materials and Methods (lines 135-138).
Specify if precipitation/ET data were collected only from the on-site station or supplemented with regional data.
Response 3. As stated in lines 129-131, weather data was collected on-site at the research center. Weather is quite variable in the San Luis Valley, so local data is a better representation of on-the-ground conditions than regional data.
In Table 1, clarify why Mesa Russet’s "moderate deficit" (IRRG2) was milder (6–10% reduction) vs. other cultivars (15–18%). Justify or discuss implications for cross-cultivar comparisons.
Response 4. We have added text to address this comment. Please see lines 139-148 and 241-242.
In Table 15, highlight why LAI correlated strongly with yield in some cultivars but not others. Link to physiological traits.
Response 5. We have added text describing the physiological traits of the different cultivars and how that relates to LAI in lines 495-505. Thank you for the suggestion.
Emphasize that TB was a stronger yield predictor than LAI in most cultivars—a key practical finding.
Response 6. The correlation coefficients for TB were consistently greater than those for LAI only for Canela Russet. We added this information in lines 388-390.
Reconcile inconsistent N impacts, e.g., reduced N lowered Yukon Gold yield in 2017 but increased it in 2016 under full irrigation.
Response 7. Variability in weather parameters may have contributed to inconsistent impacts across years. We focused the paper on those findings which were consistent across years.
Compare reported yields with regional benchmarks.
Response 8. We have included comparisons of our yield data with regional benchmarks for each variety in the Discussion section. Please see lines 403-405, 409-413, 426-428, and 438-441.
Quantify potential water/N savings.
Response 9. We have calculated the potential water and N savings as requested and added this information in lines 548-554.
Hypothesize why Russet Norkotah3 is water-sensitive.
Response 10. This is an important topic. We added the following information in lines 420-426 and two references that support this finding.
“Russet Norkotah 3 is the earliest maturing variety of those evaluated in this study and is, therefore, less drought tolerant. Similar yield declines have previously been reported under drought stress [30]. Due to its earliness, it needs a large quantity of water to build its vegetative structure (photosynthetic apparatus) early in the season to support early TB and early tuber maturity. In addition, Russet Norkotah 3 has earlier canopy senescence and a shallower root system, leaving it more vulnerable to water stress during late season bulking [31].”
For future research, include root architecture/soil moisture monitoring to deepen drought-tolerance insights.
Response 11. Good suggestion. That would provide interesting and informative data to further elucidate our knowledge of drought tolerance in potato. Please see lines 561-566.
For language check, the text is generally clear but needs polishing such as the use past tense for methods/results, present tense for general facts.
Response 12. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to verify the proper text is used throughout the document. Changes in tense were made in lines 287, 335-336, and 361. Present tense was used for general facts, and thus, lines 109-111 were left unchanged.
Break long sentences. Example, "Reducing irrigation by up to 18% did not result in yield losses... while greater reductions did reduce yield." to "Yield losses were absent with ≤18% irrigation reduction but occurred with larger deficits."
Response 13. Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised this accordingly in lines 21-24.
Avoid phrases like "both water and N" → "water and N".
Response 14. We removed the word “both” in line 40 and 401.
For table/figure references, use consistent formatting (e.g., "Table 1" not "Table 1.").
Response 15. We corrected this in line 331. The others were carefully checked for consistency.
"Correlation of Tuber Bulking…….anf……Leaf Area..." → and.
Response 16. Thank you for pointing this out. We corrected this in line 382.
Mesa Russet received higher irrigation rates under deficit…….than….." → …..than those of…….
Response 17. We corrected this in line 416.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe problem has been solved.
Author Response
Response 1: This reviewer is satisfied with the revisions made in the previous round. Thank you for investing your time in our paper.
