Next Article in Journal
Ecological Security Patterns Based on Ecosystem Services and Local Dominant Species in the Kunlun Mountains
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Diversity, Abundance and Range of Invasive Alien Plant Species in Córdoba, a Mediterranean Urban Area
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effects of a Microbial Vetch Fertilizer on the Disease Resistance, Yield, and Quality of Sweet Waxy Corn

Diversity 2024, 16(12), 778; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16120778
by Xiangtao Meng †, Zhuangzhuang Li †, Han Wu, Haiming Duan *, Li Yu, Cheng Zhou, Meng Wang, Kun Zhang, Chaofan Hu, Zhangjun Su and Haibing Yu
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diversity 2024, 16(12), 778; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16120778
Submission received: 27 November 2024 / Revised: 18 December 2024 / Accepted: 20 December 2024 / Published: 22 December 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     It is necessary to highlight the relevance and novelty of the research and clearly define the purpose of the research.

2.     In the Introduction the literature review is presented sufficiently, the purpose of the study and its relevance are sufficiently substantiated.

3.     The methods are described well, readers will be able to reproduce this experiment if necessary.

4.     The presented results are well described and interpreted.

5.     The discussion is well structured and a sufficient amount of references are used.

6.     In your Conclusions, highlight the practical significance of the results obtained.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. The following is my response.

Comments 1: [It is necessary to highlight the relevance and novelty of the research and clearly define the purpose of the research.]

Response 1: Thank you for your guidance. I understand the importance of emphasizing the research's relevance and novelty. We have already made modifications.

Comments 2: [ In the Introduction the literature review is presented sufficiently, the purpose of the study and its relevance are sufficiently substantiated.]

Response 2: Thank you for your positive review.

Comments 3: [The methods are described well, readers will be able to reproduce this experiment if necessary.]

Response 3: Thank you for your positive review.

Comments 4: [The presented results are well described and interpreted.]

Response 4: Thank you for your positive evaluation.

Comments 5: [The discussion is well structured and a sufficient amount of references are used.]

Response 5: Thank you for your positive review.

Comments 6: [In your Conclusions, highlight the practical significance of the results obtained.]

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. I understand the importance of emphasizing the practical implications of our findings in the conclusions. We have already made modifications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I greatly appreciate the thoroughness in the methodology description – it's excellent that you provide specific dates. The work is original and very interesting; however, as a reviewer, I have a few comments. I hope that implementing them will make the paper even more polished.

I really appreciate the way the results are presented – the paper is very readable.

I have no objections regarding the citation guidelines – I only notice a missing space in Ref 55, line 713. This section has been correctly followed by the rules, for which I sincerely thank you.

Please pay attention to standardizing the font sizes – errors appear as early as the beginning of the document. Additionally, ensure the correct formatting of microorganism names – italics are not consistently used throughout the entire paper, for example, in lines 126–127.

For section 2.1.2. Culture medium, I believe that preparing a diagram or graphic would enhance the quality of the work.

In the methodology section, you should describe the tests more comprehensively, as the sentence "Inhibitory activity was assessed using confrontation tests [35]" is too vague. This could be improved similarly to how Chiang et al. approached it in their research. There is a similar situation in line 137.
line 162: It would definitely be better to express this in liters rather than kilograms.
Please note that if you use abbreviations, as is the case with MVF, you should consistently use only the abbreviation throughout the text, rather than repeating the full name.

line 269: "July" is duplicated

I do not understand point 3.3 and '3.3.1. Effects of different MVF amounts on sweet-waxy corn development and productivity in the 2023 field experiment' – why is there no accompanying text here? Please revise this section to make it clearer and more acceptable. You can remove one point and add 'in 2023 field experiment' to the title of section 3.3.1.1, and 'in 2024 field study' to section 3.3.2.1. If you have another suggestion, please feel free to present it.

In Table 3, there is a missing space between the value and the SE in T5.

line 548: delete comma "," after citation

line 560: Is the use of quotation marks necessary in this case? (MVF)

Ref 55, line 713: missing space

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. The following is my response.

Comments 1: [I have no objections regarding the citation guidelines – I only notice a missing space in Ref 55, line 713. This section has been correctly followed by the rules, for which I sincerely thank you.]

Response 1: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have added a space in reference 55.

Comments 2: [Please pay attention to standardizing the font sizes – errors appear as early as the beginning of the document. Additionally, ensure the correct formatting of microorganism names – italics are not consistently used throughout the entire paper, for example, in lines 126–127.]

Response 2: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder. We have made careful modifications.

Comments 3: [For section 2.1.2. Culture medium, I believe that preparing a diagram or graphic would enhance the quality of the work.]

Response 3: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have already modified the medium in Section 2.1.2 to be presented in the form of a diagram.

Comments 4: [In the methodology section, you should describe the tests more comprehensively, as the sentence "Inhibitory activity was assessed using confrontation tests [35]" is too vague. This could be improved similarly to how Chiang et al. approached it in their research. There is a similar situation in line 137.]

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the kind consideration and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have already made detailed modifications in the text paragraph.

Comments 5: [line 162: It would definitely be better to express this in liters rather than kilograms.]

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading. According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have changed "kilogram" to "liter".

Comments 6: [Please note that if you use abbreviations, as is the case with MVF, you should consistently use only the abbreviation throughout the text, rather than repeating the full name.]

Response 6: Thanks for your careful checks. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to make the word harmonized within the whole manuscript.

Comments 7: [line 269: "July" is duplicated.]

Response 7: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder.

Comments 8: [I do not understand point 3.3 and '3.3.1. Effects of different MVF amounts on sweet-waxy corn development and productivity in the 2023 field experiment' – why is there no accompanying text here? Please revise this section to make it clearer and more acceptable. You can remove one point and add 'in 2023 field experiment' to the title of section 3.3.1.1, and 'in 2024 field study' to section 3.3.2.1. If you have another suggestion, please feel free to present it.]

Response 8: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have made careful modifications.

Comments 9: [In Table 3, there is a missing space between the value and the SE in T5.]

Response 9: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. We have already added spaces in Table 3.

Comments 12: [line 548: delete comma "," after citation]

Response 12: Thanks for your careful checks. We have made careful modifications.

Comments 10: [line 560: Is the use of quotation marks necessary in this case? (MVF)]

Response 10: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. We have already made modifications.

Comments 11: [Ref 55, line 713: missing space]

Response 11: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have added a space in reference 55.

 

 

 

 

 

Back to TopTop