Reaction of Camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz) to Different Foliar Fertilization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is original and well written in every part, I would only improve the discussion in support of the results.
I would insert more references.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript is original and well written in every part, I would only improve the discussion in support of the results.
Response 1: Ln. 180. The work was corrected in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. Two new references have been added. The discussion has been changed. Thanks to the reviewer's comments, I was able to improve my publication. Thanks a lot.
Point 2: I would insert more references.
Response 2: Two new publication have been added to the literature:
Ln. 444-446. Mauri, P.V.; Mostaza, D.; Plaza, A.; Ruiz-Fernández, J.; Prieto, J.; Capuano, A. Variability of Camelina Production in the Center of Spain in Two Years of Cultivation, a New Profitable and Alternatives Crop. In EUBCE - 2019. (27 th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition), 2019, 196-200. DOI: 10.5071/27thEUBCE2019-1BV.8.16
Ln. 570-572. Zanetti, F.; Alberghini, B.; Marjanović Jeromela, A., Grahovac, N.; Rajkowić, D.; Kiprovski, B.; Monti, A. Camelina, an ancient oilseed crop actively contributing to the rural renaissance in Europe. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 2. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s13593-020-00663-y
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Camelina is a less known plant, but it attracts interest in its cultivation, especially in worse environmental conditions or on fallow areas. Moreover, in many countries it can be a good alternative, mainly as a raw material for biofuel production.
Manuscript is an interesting research of the reaction of the camelina variety Śmiłowska (spring form) to different foliar fertilization with macro-and microelements. Research methods and Results and Discussion are presented carefully and legibly.
After careful analysis, only a few defects or comments were noticed:
Ln 9 (in Abstract) – change to Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz)…
Ln 129 - add - what preparation was used to treat the flax seeds
Ln 303-304 - unnecessary words „in the discussed aspect”
Ln 358 - should be - the statistical calculations presented in the diagram show that fertilization ….
Ln 415 - The conclusion should be concluded with a specific recommendation for agricultural practice.
These minor changes would improve the quality of your manuscript, in my opinion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Ln 9 (in Abstract) – change to Camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz)…
Response 1: Ln 8. The Latin name Camelina was added in the first sentence
Point 2: Ln 129 - add - what preparation was used to treat the flax seeds
Response 2: Ln 130. The seeds was not dressed. Translation error corrected
Point 3: Ln 303-304 - unnecessary words „in the discussed aspect”
Response 3: Ln 303-304. Removed unnecessary words "in the discussed aspect"
Point 4: Ln 358 - should be - The statistical calculations presented in the diagram show that fertilization ….
Response 4: Ln 358. The sentence was changed as suggested by the Reviewer
Point 5: Ln 415 - The conclusion should be concluded with a specific recommendation for agricultural practice.
Response 5: Ln 418-419. In the conclusion, the sentence was added: "In the cultivation of spring camelina, a multicomponent foliar fertilization can be recommended."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript present interesting results concerning the use of fertilizant in the crop of camelina. Minor revisions. This is a very interesting work on the cultivation of camelina and the possible improvements to obtain a higher grain yield and economic benefits.
It is a manuscript that lays the foundation for new researchs in countries that grow camelina.
The subject of this work is interesting but there are some points that need to be clarified and revised:
- In line 28, 29 , in pag.1., in Introduction authors indicate consider reviewing the grammar of sentence “a special feature………regions of the world”.
- In line 32, 33, in pag. 1. In Introduction authors indicate: what about of the yield on the other countries?
- E.g. (28) Solis and (35) Wysocki and the other autor as “PV Mauri, D. Mostaza, A. Plaza, J. Ruiz-Fernández, J. Prieto and A. Capuano. Variability of camelina production in the center of Spain in two years of cultivation a new profitable and alternative crop. In EUBCE. 2019. (27 th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition) 2019. Pp 196-200.
- In line 65, 66, in pag. 2 In Introduction authors indicate: “The recommended nitrogen doses for camelina vary and range from 34 kg ha-1” Does this phrase refer to the nitrogen dose only? Or do you mean the dose of commercial fertilizer? Could you comment on the usual doses of commercial fertilizer?
- In line 109, 110, in pag 3. In M&M authors indicate that “different variants of camelina foliar fertilization……factor” consider reviewing the use of passive.
- In page 9 review title of figure 2.
- In page 9 review title of figure 3.
- It is better to separate the results and discussion in two sections. In the guide authors it is also appear separated.
- This work presents very interesting results and practice to increase the crop of camelina. I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration. The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: In line 28, 29 , in pag.1., in Introduction authors indicate consider reviewing the grammar of sentence “a special feature………regions of the world”.
Response 1: Ln. 29-30. A grammatical correction was made. The current sentence is: According to Román-Figueroa et al. [3], a special feature of this plant is its easy adaptation to various soil and climatic conditions.
Point 2:
In line 32, 33, in pag. 1. In Introduction authors indicate: what about of the yield on the other countries? E.g. (28) Solis and (35) Wysocki and the other autor as “PV Mauri, D. Mostaza, A. Plaza, J. Ruiz-Fernández, J. Prieto and A. Capuano. Variability of camelina production in the center of Spain in two years of cultivation a new profitable and alternative crop. In EUBCE. 2019. (27 th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition) 2019. Pp 196-200.
Response 2: Ln. 35-36. Sentence added: Mauri et al. [7] showed that the Camelina yield depends on the cultivars and years of research.
Ln. 444-446. Literature added:
Mauri, P.V.; Mostaza, D.; Plaza, A.; Ruiz-Fernández, J.; Prieto, J.; Capuano, A. Variability of Camelina Production in the Center of Spain in Two Years of Cultivation, a New Profitable and Alternatives Crop. In EUBCE - 2019. (27 th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition), 2019, 196-200. DOI: 10.5071/27thEUBCE2019-1BV.8.16
Point 3: In line 65, 66, in pag. 2 In Introduction authors indicate: “The recommended nitrogen doses for camelina vary and range from 34 kg ha-1” Does this phrase refer to the nitrogen dose only? Or do you mean the dose of commercial fertilizer? Could you comment on the usual doses of commercial fertilizer?
Response 3: Ln. 66-67. The given nitrogen doses are in the pure component. Commercial fertilizer doses depend on the nitrogen content.
Point 4: In line 109, 110, in pag 3. In M&M authors indicate that “different variants of camelina foliar fertilization……factor” consider reviewing the use of passive.
Response 4: Ln. 110 – 111. Corrected sentence. Currently it is: The experiment was carried out on the variety Śmiłowska.
Point 5: In page 9 review title of figure 2.
Response 5:
Ln. 269-270. The title of figure 2 has been changed: Soil plant analysis development (SPAD value)
Point 6: In page 9 review title of figure 3.
Response 6: Ln. 277-276. The title of figure 2 has been changed: Leaf area index (LAI)
Point 7: It is better to separate the results and discussion in two sections. In the guide authors it is also appear separated.
Response 7: Ln. 180. I agree with the reviewer's suggestion. However,
I left the linked chapters. In the next work I will write separately the results and discussion
Point 8: This work presents very interesting results and practice to increase the crop of camelina. I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration. The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained
Response 8:
I introduced changes in the work in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. This allowed to improve the publication. Thank you for your time to review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
