Review Reports - Fertilizer Nitrogen Application for Short-Day Onion Production: From Field to Table

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should be revised to be more concise and objective, and the objectives of the study, described in the abstract, should be as they are at the end of the introduction, which are really the objectives of the study.

The conclusions should also be more objective and concise, not including any kind of discussion of results, because it is already in the chapter to which it refers.

Author Response

Authors appreciate the time and expertise of the reviewers and editors in reviewing our manuscript. We carefully incorporated all suggestion which have significantly improved the scientific merit and readability of the paper. For this submission, we have also included a response letter for the reviewers' comments, and if there is still a need for additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors and Editors, please see my comments attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article entitled “Fertilizer Nitrogen Application for Short-Day Onion Production: from Field to Table” is submitted to the journal Horticulture. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of fertilizer N rates on the yield and bulb quality of three short-day onion cultivars grown under the subtropical conditions of the southeastern U.S., and ii) to assess the impact of fertilizer N rate for short-day onions on consumers' preference.

This paper is a good fit for the journal’s audience and subject matter, specifically the N rates and various cultivars of short-day onion, and how N impacts the onion yield in two years.

I recommend this article for publication in the journal with minor revision, based on the comments and questions detailed below.

The data analysis was not presented clearly. 1^st of all, the study is a factorial design with factors N, Cultivar and years. The ANOVA in the table should be updated as below

Cultivar

Year

N x Cultivar

N x Year

Cultivar x Year

N x Cultivar x Year

Add SE/SD to all figures throughout the manuscript. Furthermore, if possible add the P value and Lsd at the top of the figures,

Add SE or SD values in the tables.

If possible, provide soil physiochemical properties of soil prior to the experiment.

Line 22. Enclose the cultivars in “()” like N rates.

Line 33. Rephrase to easily understandable.

Line 49, Is this area per square ha? or yield? Make it Clear

Figure 1. Difficult to read these figures, and also (A) and (B) to present easily like Figure 1A and Figure 1B.

Figure 2. Is All data were compared to the control? If yes then how is it possible that 25 kg ha^-1 was non-significant compared to 5 kg ha^-1? Add Standard Error/Deviation

Table 3. “†” What does it mean?

Figure 4. Quality is not good

The conclusion is too long,

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The Introduction sections does not provide sufficient information of the research background. More statements on the influence of N and onion quality should be including, such as the optional rate or mechanisms etc.

Adding a sentence of “the practical significance for carrying out the study” to last paragraph in the Introduction section might be helpful.

Line 123 (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-) superscript should be used

Line 133 sour skin (Caused by Pseudomonas cepacia) and center rot (Caused by Pantoea sp.)

Figure 4 is not clearly visible and the quality need to be improved

Line 397, the two sentences could be combined.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf