Effects of Goat Manure Fertilization on Grain Nutritional Value in Two Contrasting Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Varieties Cultivated at High Altitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work requires editing. There is no need to separate individual sections in the abstract. The notation of units should be corrected in accordance with editorial requirements. SI units should be used. Detailed comments are provided in the accompanying manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer I

First of all, we would like to thank you so much for your precious time and helpful comments that helped us to improve the overall quality of our manuscript.

The work requires editing. There is no need to separate individual sections in the abstract. The notation of units should be corrected in accordance with editorial requirements. SI units should be used. Detailed comments are provided in the accompanying manuscript.

We have modified the manuscript according to your precious comments and suggestion. Hopefully,  the revised version of our manuscript can meet now your high expectations.

As well as, we have followed your instructions in the attached file point by point

Thank you so much

Reviewer 2 Report

Quinoa is better crop in the cold and dry area, and also is an alternative with other crop in rotation cultivation. For the big scale area, using organic fertilizer is high-cost practice except for machine application. This study reports the effects of manure on the yield and quality, data are enough and the collusion is valuable for quinoa cultivation with machine application in future.

 

Here are some suggestions:

 

1．  Adding more details on why do this works. Some words in the discussion seems more in the introduction, I made marks in the text.

2．  The yield or production should be showed as kg/ha, which is easy compared with other reports. And each year’s data of production should be showed.

3．  The yield losses when more manure applied, I think you should discuss which reasons caused the results.

4．  The quality changes is related more about the nitrogen, also is related with the Ca content in the manure, which is higher than the P and K contents

5．  In the discussion section, it is necessary to look forward the application by machine.

6．  English language needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

First of all, we would like to thank you so much for your precious time and helpful comments that helped us to improve the overall quality  of our manuscript

1．Adding more details on why do this works. Some words in the discussion seems more in the introduction, I made marks in the text.

# we agree with your suggestion of adding more details on why doing this work. As suggested by you, we brought information from discussion to introduction, you can see it from line 95 to 105.

Regarding lines 110-115: “In general, the soil where quinoa grows has a low organic matter and nitrogen content, fertilization is scarce, and watering is made by furrow irrigation. In general, quinoa is now a good alternative for grain production with a high nutritional value but there is scarce information about the effect of organic fertilization on grain yield and different organic and inorganic compounds” we think they also give information about the reasons for doing this work.

However, we changed some parts for improving language and also for considering organic fertilization instead of nitrogen fertilization (as required by Referee 3).

2．  The yield or production should be showed as kg/ha, which is easy compared with other reports. And each year’s data of production should be showed.

    #  Changes regarding yield production were made according the suggestion. Considering each year data, no significant differences between years were found, that is why we only show differences between treatments. Anyway, when reviewing figures, we realized that bars indicated standard error and by mistake in the caption was said standard deviation, we changed that in all figures. 

3．  The yield losses when more manure applied, I think you should discuss which reasons caused the results.

      We appreciate your suggestion, which coincides with a comment made by Referee 3. We discussed some possible reason from 449 to 466 line.

4．  The quality changes is related more about the nitrogen, also is related with the Ca content in the manure, which is higher than the P and K contents

This suggestion agrees with other suggestion of Referee 3. We did all needed changes; you will see them at the new discussion from 449 to 466 line.

5．  In the discussion section, it is necessary to look forward the application by machine.

Added from 617 to 623 line: “Another interesting future research topic would be mechanized organic fertilization. Despite that, in this study, manure was added by hand due to experimental design needed, information obtained about manure effect on yield and grain quality justify further studies about manure application by machine. It is worth noting that this would be necessary for producing quinoa at big scale, particularly at lowlands. While at highlands, where growers mainly produce at low scale, adding manure by hand is an interesting option.”

6．  English language needs improvement.

      Suggestion considered. Improvement can be seen all over the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The keywords should not contain the words already in the title. The author must replace these words with different words to improve the searchability of the paper.

2. The statement in lines 36-37 is repeated.

3. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) in line 55 should be italicized.

4. The serial number of references shall be marked in the order in which they appear in the text. (e. g. References 15, 53, 54)

5. Please check whether the unit abbreviations and symbols in the full text are correct.

6. Formulas appearing in the text should be arranged in sequence numbers.

7. Please carefully check the significance analysis in the full-text chart.

8. The test design was not clearly described.

9. Each plot is 10m2, is there any duplication?

10. The amount of irrigation in the whole growth period was added to the experimental design.

11. Add the serial number of the reference in line 214

12. Please check whether the data described in the full text is correct. (For example, lines 239-240, 245-246, 249)

13. In lines 377-378, the output is 700-1200kg/ha. The output calculated according to the value in Figure 1 will seriously exceed the output in the reference.

14. Discussion section, It is recommended that 4.3 be merged into 4.2 or 4.4.

15. To revise the conclusion part, the conclusion must: (1) summarize the main points concisely. (2) Point out the importance of these results. (3) Discuss the remaining problems in this field.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3

First of all, we would like to thank you so much for your precious time and helpful comments that helped us to improve the overall quality of our manuscript

1. The keywords should not contain the words already in the title. The author must replace these words with different words to improve the searchability of the paper.

In the manuscript: Keywords used: organic nitrogen, fertilization, fatty acids, Chenopodium quinoa, oil content, nutritional value

New keywords: crop nutrition, grain quality, amino acids content, amino acids type, fatty acids, oil content

            

2. The statement in lines 36-37 is repeated.

It was corrected in the manuscript

3. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) in line 55 should be italicized.

It was corrected in the manuscript

4. The serial number of references shall be marked in the order in which they appear in the text. (e. g. References 15, 53, 54)

References were corrected as suggested.

5. Please check whether the unit abbreviations and symbols in the full text are correct.

Unit abbreviations and symbols were verified.

6. Formulas appearing in the text should be arranged in sequence numbers.

Numbers in each formula were added

7. Please carefully check the significance analysis in the full-text chart.

It was carefully checked in all the tables

8. The test design was not clearly described.

Test design description was improved.

9. Each plot is 10m², is there any duplication?

Each treatment had three replicates, each replicate (plot) is 10 m². Some changes in description of experimental design have been made to clarify this.

10. The amount of irrigation in the whole growth period was added to the experimental design.

We added information about total amount of irrigation from manure addition until the end of growth period in line 154.

11. Add the serial number of the reference in line 214

Serial number was added. (now in line 217)

12. Please check whether the data described in the full text is correct. (For example, lines 239-240, 245-246, 249)

Lines 239-240: it was corrected (now in the lines 253 – 256)

Lines 245 – 246: the value consigned in the text has been eliminated

Lines 249-250: it was corrected (now in the lines is 265-266)

13. In lines 377-378, the output is 700-1200kg/ha. The output calculated according to the value in Figure 1 will seriously exceed the output in the reference.

         700 – 1200 kg/ha is a mean reference related to different varieties and different places in Latin America ([46] Bonifacio A (2003) Chenopodium Sp.: Genetic Resources, Ethnobotany, and Geographic Distribution . Food Reviews International, 19(1–2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-120018863. And [47]  Alandia G Rodriguez J P Jacobsen S E Bazile, D and Condori B (2020). Global expansion of quinoa and challenges for the Andean region. Global Food Security, 26, 100429). The cited range of 700 – 1200 kg/ha comes from growers available data and without fertilization. Our results show the great effect of manure on yield. Also, when considering our treatment without manure, which also had higher yields than grower´s yield, is important to remind that in an experimental field control is higher than in grower´s lands.

14. Discussion section, It is recommended that 4.3 be merged into 4.2 or 4.4.

We preferred to separate in 4.3. (Soluble sugar content) because they are different from the compounds discussed in 4.2 (Protein and amino acids profile) or 4.4. ( Oil content and fatty acids profile).

15. To revise the conclusion part, the conclusion must: (1) summarize the main points concisely. (2) Point out the importance of these results. (3) Discuss the remaining problems in this field.

Conclusion part has been improved.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have reported on quinoa responses to manure addition as an alternative to synthetic N fertiliser. The main weakness of the manuscript concerns the experimental design and the appropriateness of the 'controls'. The assumption is that the only thing the authors have changed is the N content with increasing manure addition. This is only true is control treatments were managed that removed limitations in all other essential plant nutrients. This point is best demonstrated by the simple expedient that I could replace the x-axis on all graphs with 'P added' ranging from 0, 6, 12, 24, 48 etc. kg P/ha and still expect roughly similar response curves to what is presented. It may even make better sense of the fact that high rates of manure resulted in yield decline - something more likely for P toxicity than N toxicity. Particularly in high pH, low OM soils which are traditionally responsive to P. Without knowing what the critical upper P tissue concentration for quinoa is however I can't conclude that. But I confess that publishing this paper with the implicit assumption that it is an N response paper rather than a manure response paper lacks credibility. The results are interesting in their own right, but I would advise the authors, in the absence of appropriate controls, to rename their paper and describe it as manure response rather than N.

As a manure response paper masquerading as an N paper however, more information is required around planting time, soil temperature at planting, time before sowing that manure was applied (as this determines the timing of mineralisation of N (and P)) and irrigation regime. N uptake and N recovery should be reported also as it may be that total N acquired (whilst higher according to protein content) reaches a maximum based on availability of N from the manure (limited by mineralisation rates).

Author Response

Dear reviewer 4

First of all, we would like to thank you so much for your precious time and helpful comments that helped us to improve the overall quality of our manuscript

The authors have reported on quinoa responses to manure addition as an alternative to synthetic N fertilizer. The main weakness of the manuscript concerns the experimental design and the appropriateness of the 'controls'. The assumption is that the only thing the authors have changed is the N content with increasing manure addition. This is only true is control treatments were managed that removed limitations in all other essential plant nutrients. This point is best demonstrated by the simple expedient that I could replace the x-axis on all graphs with 'P added' ranging from 0, 6, 12, 24, 48 etc. kg P/ha and still expect roughly similar response curves to what is presented. It may even make better sense of the fact that high rates of manure resulted in yield decline - something more likely for P toxicity than N toxicity. Particularly in high pH, low OM soils which are traditionally responsive to P. Without knowing what the critical upper P tissue concentration for quinoa is however I can't conclude that. But I confess that publishing this paper with the implicit assumption that it is an N response paper rather than a manure response paper lacks credibility. The results are interesting in their own right, but I would advise the authors, in the absence of appropriate controls, to rename their paper and describe it as manure response rather than N.

As a manure response paper masquerading as an N paper however, more information is required around planting time, soil temperature at planting, time before sowing that manure was applied (as this determines the timing of mineralisation of N (and P)) and irrigation regime. N uptake and N recovery should be reported also as it may be that total N acquired (whilst higher according to protein content) reaches a maximum based on availability of N from the manure (limited by mineralisation rates).

Relevance of your suggestions made us do a major revision of the manuscript. We are thankful for them. We renamed the paper and described it as manure response rather than N. You will find changes all over the manuscript regarding your suggestions. Also more information was added according to your request.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Please carefully check the significance analysis in the full-text chart. First, rank all the averages from the largest to the smallest, and then mark the letter "a" on the largest average. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

Thank you very much for the suggestion. We checked and corrected the full-text chart.

Warmest regards

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed the major flaw in the manuscript by referring to responses in terms of goat manure responses rather than N application responses and as such the manuscript is suitable for publication. Still requires proof-reading for English.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We have revised the manuscript according to your comment

Hopefully, it can meet now your high expectations

Thank you so much for your time and effort

Warmest regards

The authors