Effect of New Pre-Emergence Herbicides on Quality and Yield of Potato and Its Associated Weeds
, Mohamed A. M. Atia 2,*, Amira K. Nasrallah 3, Hossam S. El-Beltagi 4,5, Farida F. Kabil 6, Mohamed M. El-Mogy 6 and Emad A. Abdeldaym 6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Good day!
I rated your manuscript as major revision to be fixed in the proper way. Please keep up the good work and make your work a better present to your readers.
Regards;
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments. Accuracy and care have been taken into account when replying to each comment of the reviewer.
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
This study would be helpful as an applied basis for future data pre-emergence commercial herbicides. On the other hand, it is essential for you to disclose any result, data or information on the detriments or disadvantages of these agrochemicals on plants or consumers health. This study just looked over as herbicides to be good for potato tubers but we all know that is not true, so please work on that. |
The Abstract, introduction, conclusion and references have been improved. |
|
Line 26. Please refrain from giving information which should be at material and methods, for example formulation of herbicides (SL, SC, and …) and also, please refrain from using abbreviation before explaining the full words first |
The correction has been carried out. The abbreviations (SC, SL…ets) have been removed from abstract and written under the Table1 |
|
Another noteworthy comment is to keep the same capitalized first alphabet of herbicides name in whole the manuscript, because they are names and should starts with capital letter but you did not do as such in the rest of the manuscript. Line 39 & 400.
|
Correction done. |
|
Extra space. Line 43 & 297.
|
Removed |
|
Highlighted test Line 43 |
The Highlight removed |
|
Unnecessary use of Capital alphabets Line 56
|
Changed into small alphabets |
|
Please refrain from writing 0 after decimal her and in the rest of manuscript, that does not make any sense! Line 68 |
Correction done. |
|
Different font sizes! 2 Line 87. |
Corrected |
|
If you could include the specific geographical longitude and latitude that would be great too. Line 90. Forgotten space! Line 94.
|
Correction done. |
|
Please use the subscript for chemical formula rather than reducing the size of numbers here and in the rest of the paper. |
Done in line 152 and 189 |
|
Figure 1. This one is a very clear and good illustration but it needs an improvement which is making the distance equal to their value (0-15--45-60----120) |
Correction done. |
|
Table 1. First row, should be in same alignments. Row1-cell3: please write it in one line, you have enough space for that. First column, left orient the texts and try to either make the cells wider to have the texts each in one line or increase the cells heights for reader to be able to differentiate the cells. |
Correction done. |
|
Line 120. This line should be in same alignment “2.1. Experimental layout” subheadings. |
Correction done in line 108 |
|
Line 126. Extra comma. |
Removed in line 150 |
|
Line 127. Please Use multiply sign rather than Capital X. |
Correction done line 152 |
|
Line 144. Degree sign |
Correction done in line 171 |
|
Line 157. Please delete the space between degree sign and the number here and in the rest of manuscript.
|
Deleted in line 184 |
|
Line 162. Apply changes as like as Line 120 |
Correction done in line 192 |
|
Line 165. Extra spaces |
Correction done in line 195 |
|
Line 165. Extra space between number and rotation unit |
Removed in line 195 |
|
Line 176. Put the % either in brackets like next formula "Starch" or simply write percentage |
Put in the brackets in line 206 |
|
Figure 2. Use same Font and sizes for all figures |
Correction done |
|
Line 224. Correct the chlorophyll b’s name |
Corrected in line 225 |
|
Table 3. Please reduce the font size of the content of table in order to make it clearer because text are very close together. |
Correction done |
|
Line 249 & 286 & 338, and ... . Forgotten dot. |
Added in line 282, 320,and 374 |
|
Line 290. Red color text. Line |
Removed in line 325 |
|
Line 291 & 350. Forgotten space. |
Removed in line 326,and 638 |
|
Please refrain from using different fonts in figures as commented before. Also, units are not in consistency with the text and they are in different sizes too.
|
Correction done |
|
And in case of right figure, this 0.00 does not make sense please change it to just 0 |
Changed in all Tables |
|
Line 318. What does “untreated check” mean? |
Means untreated control. all words of “check” changed into control |
|
Table 4. Column 5-Row 7: Just this cell is not in one line despite the much spaces that you can use. |
Justified (Table 4)
|
|
Figure 5. unify the text font and sizes, and despite the fact that this figure is totally about tuber quality, you have not address that in the figure leading. |
Done |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I found this manuscript is intersting to read.
But I have some minor revision as below:
Introduction: Add some information of weed loss of potato on Eygpt and related countries.
Line 118: Headlines of the tables would be properly adjustable in the table.
Line 120: Why did all the subheadings are started more than 5 spaces gap?
Line 130: It’s written, “Five plants from each treatment were selected…” Then total, how many plants were evaluated? If, for each data, treated plants were different, then how would the analysis be authentic?
Line 161. Add a full stop at the line end.
Line 186: “The interactions between treatments and years for all studied parameters were insignificant…” what does it mean?
Line 231: Adjust the frequency of the data by three-digit.
Line 239, 295: Remove double fullstop.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments. Accuracy and care have been taken into account when replying to each comment of the reviewer.
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
Introduction: Add some information of weed loss of potato on Egypt and related countries.
|
The introduction, conclusion and references have been improved |
|
Line 118: Headlines of the tables would be properly adjustable in the table.
|
Adjusted. |
|
Line 120: Why did all the subheadings are started more than 5 spaces gap?
|
Adjusted in all subheadings. |
|
Line 161. Add a full stop at the line end.
|
Added in line 187 |
|
Line 186: “The interactions between treatments and years for all studied parameters were insignificant…” what does it mean?
|
One of the conditions for conducting the combined analysis is that it should be no significant differences between the results of the first and the second year of treatments |
|
Line 231: Adjust the frequency of the data by three-digit.
|
Adjusted in all tables |
|
Line 239, 295: Remove double full stop.
|
Removed in line 272 and 329. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments:
-In general, this manuscript has interesting topic with a valuable impact . The topic is scientific sounds.
-The writing style and English language is fine.
-The experimental design is suitable
-The methods were adequately discussed.
-There are some minor comments.
Detailed comments:
-In general, please avoid using personal pronouns such as we, our results, and apply this rule throughout the manuscript (for example -Line 32 ( We evaluate, Please change to the aim of this study was to evaluate……), line line 39 (our results please change to the results
Title:
Effect of New Pre-emergence Herbicides and on Quality and Yield of Potato and its Associated Weeds. Please take off the first and to be:
Effect of New Pre-emergence Herbicides on Quality and Yield of Potato and its Associated Weeds.
Abstract:
This section is missing the direct and clear aim. Please state the aim of the study clearly as follow: the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of new…
Key words; Please take off correlation study from the keywords list.
Introduction:
The topic of herbicides and weeds control and its effect on quality and yield of potato is very important and has a great value. It is also can be applied for other crops. I see that the introduction is very poor. This section needs to be enriched and provided with more background about the topic.
Materials and Methods:
The experimental design was suitable and adequate to the current study.
Results and Discussion:
-I found that this section is well presented. this section and provide the appropriate citations in argument, and valuable discussion to the current results.
Conclusion:
This section provides a good conclusion for the study and includes the significant findings with some recommendations for further investigations on this topic. The conclusion was supported by the results.
References:
The authors provided enough citations, and it was UpToDate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments. Accuracy and care have been taken into account when replying to each comment of the reviewer.
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
Abstract -In general, please avoid using personal pronouns such as we, our results, and apply this rule throughout the manuscript (for example –Line 32 (We evaluate, Please change to the aim of this study was to evaluate……), Line 39 (our results please change to the results. |
Changed
Corrected in line 25- 26
Corrected in line 40 |
|
Title: Effect of New Pre-emergence Herbicides and on Quality and Yield of Potato and its Associated Weeds. Please take off the first and to be:
|
Removed the word “ and” Effect of New Pre-emergence Herbicides on Quality and Yield of Potato and its Associated Weeds. The authors suggested to replace the word “ready- mix” with the word “ Pre-emergence” in the title to be: Effect of New Ready- mix Herbicides on Quality and Yield of Potato and its Associated Weeds. |
|
Introduction: The topic of herbicides and weeds control and its effect on quality and yield of potato is very important and has a great value. It is also can be applied for other crops. I see that the introduction is very poor. This section needs to be enriched and provided with more background about the topic.
|
The introduction section was provided with more background and overview of previous and similar studies of importance. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Good day!
There are some minor comments, please find them as follows:
1. Between number and % or degree-sign should not be any spaces! (Line 163, 169, 170, 171, and 186)
2. Please do not forget to superscript the highlighted part in line 178; (mg proline g-1 DW).
Please before the final submition read the whole manuscript one more time to avoid such dictation errors.
Regards;
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments. Accuracy and care have been taken into account when replying to each comment of the reviewer.
|
Comments |
Reply |
|
Between number and % or degree-sign should not be any spaces! (Line 163, 169, 170, 171, and 186) |
Done. |
|
Please do not forget to superscript the highlighted part in line 178; (mg proline g-1 DW). |
Done. |
We believe that our revised manuscript will be up to the mark, and hopefully, the revisions and reply would be satisfactory.
We look forward to your favourable consideration.
Thanking you,
Best regards
Hossam S. El-Beltagi
1- Professor in Agricultural Biotechnology Dept., College of Agriculture and Food Sciences, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 420, Al-Ahsa 31982, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. helbeltagi@kfu.edu.sa; helbeltagi@agr.cu.edu.eg
2- Professor in Biochemistry, Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Gamma St., P.O. Box 12613, Giza, Cairo, Egypt.
Tel. +966541775875
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
