All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors improved the article. The article is now acceptable.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript is acceptable only after professional proofreading (english language editing).
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). #]
The manuscript will; be acceptable after minor corrections:
Please revise the ungrammatical sentence:
"The soils in Artova Most of mineral nutrients (except K and Cu) in potato clones were higher in Artova location due to lower soil pH, calcium carbonate and clay content compared to the other two locations."
Note: In the abstract, you only recommend the Artova location, in the Conclusions, also Kazova location to cultivate potatoes with high potassium content. Consider adding this information to the abstract.
The authors have provided satisfactory response to my queries and explained the limitations of their work. I do not have further questions.
If the editor and other reviewers are satisfied, I am of opinion that this manuscript can be considered for publication in PeerJ.
No comment
No comment
It is an interesting study having a sufficient research data and well explained results in an effective way. The authors resolved all the suggested changes that have been mentioned previously and added new valuable data related to the present study. I appreciate to the authors that they did a lot of hard work for this study. In present form the paper is according to the standard of PeerJ for publication.
Abstract
N/A
Introduction
N/A
Discussion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dear Editor, I have keenly reviewed the manuscript and try my best to fulfil the general requirements of the journal. It is an interesting study having all the essential requirements of a good paper. I am in a favour to accept this paper.
Authors need to see each comments given by all three reviewers, they need to revise the manuscript based on reviewers suggestions. Besides this, include below information
Abstract: Add exact amount (numerical values) of mineral nutrients present in potato instead of saying only higher amount
Introduction: Add information why this study is important?, what is the existing problems and how your study address that. Provide clear objective of the study
Materials and Methods: This section needs to be revised. How you perform the statistical analysis, add name of statistical test, level of significance, statistical software with its version
Results: Add Mean, SEm, CV(%) and LSD(0.05) values in table from table 3 to table 9. Write clearly what does the star signs and alphabets indicates for what information, mention them in footnote of each tables. Use multiplication sign instead of star sign to indicate interaction effects.
Conclusion: write clearly which nutrients (name of nutrients) were higher in which genotypes of potato.
References: All references should follow the journal rules.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
Authors need to check comments given by reviewers in every section of article. See comments on attached manuscript PDF (see highlighted -see comments). Authors need to include all suggestions in their revised manuscript.
See comments given by reviewer
The findings is valid
The sentences need to be improved.
This part must be improved.
1. The Introduction is too long and lacked of focus. The excessive information on nutrients and malnutrition could have been avoided, and more focus should be given to previous works on the factors that affect nutrients content in crops.
2. Citations in the Results section should be avoided. This section should contain only description of the main findings. Some tables were merely presented without any elaborations, such as Table 9.
3. The data can be presented in either 1 or 2 tables with proper columns. The current presentation (Tables 3-9) unnecessarily increased the number of tables, contains duplication of data, and makes comparison difficult.
4. Data presentation and analysis can be improved. All symbols/numbers used in the tables e.g. Table 4 must be explained.
Some parts required clarification especially the experimental design.
1. The exact number of each type of potatoes should be clarified and tabulated.
2. Line 135: please provide more information on the type of pesticides and the frequency of application
3. Line 137: how many samples were analysed per treatment.
4. The results for each type of potatoes should be presented separately. Single mean for each treatment is not acceptable. Refer to above.
5. Results should be presented as mean +/- SD/SE. It is unclear how many replicates are available for each treatment.
The Discussion section, in my opinion, contains too much speculations that are not supported by the presented data. The authors compared the mineral composition of the potatoes and try to deduce the possible reasons for the differences. While some of the factors like soil condition, altitudes probably influenced the composition, it is rather difficult to confirm the influence of these factors on the variation of the nutrients content, if limited treatments were considered (2 lowland sites and 1 highland site). What conclusions can be drawn for growing seasons? Some postulations, e.g. adaptation mechanisms (lines 249-250), are not supported by data. In addition, the excessive mention of the mineral requirements/recommended daily allowance has nothing to do with the focus of this study.
This study aimed to compare the effects of a number of factors on mineral composition in potatoes but the experimental design may not be appropriate for one to conclude on the effect of altitude (2 lowland locations and only 1 highland locations) and soil characteristics (pH, CaCO3, clay) on the mineral composition due to the limited number of treatments. More locations or a range of selected parameters, in my opinion, are necessary in order to confirm the effect of the aforementioned parameters on nutrient composition. Data presentation and analysis are confusing. The same set of data are being duplicated in many different versions of tables - I think this is unnecessary. The current presentation of the data makes it difficult to make valid conclusions on the factors that might have influenced the mineral composition of the potatoes.
This paper studies the Mineral nutrient variability of potato tubers with different colors grown in three different locations. I am concerned that the paper should be improved with a revision. The manuscript in its current form cannot be considered. There are some issues with the English language and structure of sentences. For instance, mistakes with repeated words throughout the paper. Issues has been discussed below.
Abstract
Abstract needs more addition of methodology, results, and future prospects. Specially keywords are absent in abstract, authors must add keywords after abstract.
Introduction
Introduction data is not sufficient to discuss the background of the designed study. Authors should improve introduction with recent data. I can’t see up-to-date references and text in the introduction part. Add 2022 text and references. The objective of the study should be clearly highlighted in the manuscript at the end of the introduction section. Please add more relevant text to improve the reading context of the title studied.
Discussion
The discussion should be improved with recent data and must be inclined with the findings of the study. Current text doesn’t reach the standard of factual discussion.
Methodology of this paper has queries to answer and their incorporation in the main manuscript.
L122. Methods heading must be changed with "Experiment Layout"
L99. remove "and" before mean
Line 152: What is meant by normal distribution? here? Did you find the normality of the data?
What are the variables and factors of the experiment?
Authors did not detailed the replications? Without this the post hoc test is not applicable. It can be said that the statistical analysis portion should be revised with the complete detail of software’s, analysis tools and methods.
The results need the detailed elaboration. In much portion authors just mention very little detail and let the other data on the behalf of the tables. One more thing is that authors should some of the results in the figure form, because mean comparison data can be analyses in the charts/graphs.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.