Irrigation Levels and Fertilization Rates as Pre-Harvest Factors Affecting the Growth and Quality of Hippeastrum
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript title “Irrigation Levels and Fertilization Rates as Pre-harvest Factors Affecting the Growth and Quality of Hippeastrum” is interesting and reveals that levels of irrigation and fertilizers rate affect the plant performance. As authors are found in this study that the irrigation with 100% ETc combined with 2.5 or 5 g per pot, and irrigation with 75% ETc. The adopted methodology is up to the mark to achiote the objectives of the study. However, I suggest the authors please maintain uniformity during the use of abbreviations in the manuscript for example ETc or Etc?
Please check it “Fertilizer of the formula 15N:15P2O5:15K2O was supplied to the…”
# It would be better to write for the rate of fertilizers in g per kg soil for example (0, 2.5, and 5 g per kg soil)
# Better to use the abbreviation for photosynthesis rate (Pn or PN)
In conclusion, In experiment 1, Hippeastrum supplied with 2.5 g per pot per month of 15-15-15 (N- 305 P2O5-K2O) fertilizer under 100% ETc was suitable to enhance both plant growth and bulb 306 quality.
Better to write “In experiment 1, Hippeastrum supplied with 2.5 g 15-15-15 (N- 305 P2O5-K2O) fertilizer per pot per month under 100% ETc exhibited a suitable enhancement for both plant growth and bulb quality.
Authors are suggested to improve the language of this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall study is very good. However, no experimental design mention for the 1st experiment. The diurnal A and Gs are not recommend to put in as it does not shows any effect for the whole treatment exposed. Supposedly measure every two weeks to see the trend of A and Gs as affected by diff water level and fertilizer rate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and articulated. It's also clear and pleasant to read. Although not of fundamental importance, and if available, it would be interesting to know the composition of the "mixed soils" used as growing media (73). The parenthesis in "(Table 3." (250) I think it should be removed. Very appreciable also the pictures (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5) for the visual evaluation of treatments effects.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Materials and methods must be seriously replenished.
- What was the chemical composition (pH, EC, content of N-N-H4, N-NO3, P, K, Mg, Ca, Na, Cl, S-SO4) of the substrate used in the experiments.
- It is important how much N, P, K was introduced with the fertilizer, and not how many g of the fertilizer were used. These are two different points.
- Please also specify how much N, P and K mg of N, P and K were introduced per kg or dm3 of substrate with the fertilizer.
- What form of fertilizer was used: sulphate or chloride.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors and Editors,
The chosen research topic is interesting, however, there are fundamental shortcomings concerning the Methods. The description of the experimental conditions is inadequate.
In a fertilization experiment, it is essential that the parameters of the culture medium used, in this case “mixed soil”, be described in detail, especially its original nutrient content (indicating the name of the exact method). Otherwise, any fertilization treatment is incomprehensible.
Due to the irrigation treatment, the mechanical composition of the soil and the extent of the “field capacity” itself should be described, as soils with different particle compositions can have very different relative water contents, which also fundamentally affects the interpretability of the results.
“Field capacity” is clearly defined in lines 18-19 (“water contained in macropores by gravity action (FC)”) as a soil parameter (should be defined also in this way in Materials and Methods), but “field capacity point” is used in several places in the manuscript as a parameter referring to the plant (line 85 and 244), followed by the abbreviation (Etc), which elsewhere in the form of ETc is the abbreviation for Crop Evapotranspiration. This is very confusing.
For each concept, describe whether a parameter is measured or calculated. If measured, describe why, how and when it was measured, and if it was calculated, describe what parameters and formula were used to calculate it.
The concepts and method of measuring the “evapotranspiration rate”, the “estimated crop evapotranspiration”, and the “crop coefficient (Kc)” need to be described in much more detail.The exact method for determining the “evapotranspiration rate” is not clear from the cited paper [8]. The weighing method is described (“every 2 days for 16 days to determine the total amount of water loss”), but the manuscript must describe quite precisely what, when, how and why was measured in this present experiment.
A detailed description is also required to calculate the Penman modified evapotranspiration rate. It is not enough to “based on automatically recorded meteorological data”. What data were measured with what instrument, at what intervals, and what formula was used?
Determining the estimated crop evapotranspiration based on line 236 ETc = Kc × ETo, however, line 86 states that “crop coefficient (Kc) was estimated by dividing Etc by the FAO modified Penman Eto”. Now which parameter was calculated based on which and which was measured? The usual units for ETc and ETo are mm/day.
The fertilization rate needs to be clarified. 15N-15P2O5-15K2O presumably refers to 15% N, 15% P2O5 and 15% K2O in the fertilizer and should be clearly described. The exact applied doses of N, P and K per pot should be indicated.
Two experiments are described in the manuscript, but certain combinations of treatments in the second (two-factor) experiment are virtually identical to those used in the first experiment (100% field capacity; 0, 2.5, 5.0 g fertilizer). What justifies this?
Confusing concepts such as e.g. the “WUE hypothesis” should be clarified in the manuscript. The referred book ([7] Pereira, L.S.; Alves, I. Crop water requirements. In Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Elsevier. The Netherlands. 2005; pp. 322-334.) does not include the phrase “WUE hypothesis” or even the word “hypothesis” (on pages 322-334). So the authors should define exactly what they mean by that.
A 10-inch plastic pot may be common in cultivation practice, but the manuscript should describe exactly what height and diameter it was and what weight of dry soil it was filled with.
The above also affects the Results and Discussion sections, of course. Considering the more serious methodological shortcomings, I think a very major revision is needed including the thorough reflection and clarification of the concepts used.
A more thorough analysis of the results obtained in the experiment would also be needed in the Discussion. Overall, I feel that the current state of the manuscript is still far from being ready for publication, so for now, I recommend rejection.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Please see attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
