Substrate Properties, Vegetative Growth, Chlorophyll Content Index and Leaf Mineral Content of Sweet Cherry Maiden Trees as Affected by Rootstock and Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID: sustainability-3367308
Title: Substrate properties, vegetative growth, chlorophyll content index, and leaf mineral content of sweet cherry maiden trees as affected by rootstock and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria.
The following comments and suggestions may further enhance the manuscript's quality:
· L18-19: “Field pot experiment” plz be specific; Field experiment or Pot experiment? Plz clarify.
· The abstract needs to be further highlight innovation.
· L20-21: “Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Azospirillum brasilense was added by watering the plants in the dose of 1.12 kg/ha”, explain, how to add 1.12 kg /10,000 m2 through irrigation (watering)?
· L22: “or every two months (T2)” How many times is the total added?
· L25-26: “Substrate and leaf samples were collected and analyzed in the laboratory in accordance with established procedures. Data was processed by ANOVA and Tukey test” plz move this sentence from the abstract to the materials and methods section. Because it is not appropriate to write it in the abstract part.
· L27-28: “EC, NO3-, mineral N, P2O5, Ca and Mg content; tree height, circumference, shoot length, and internode number; leaf CCI, leaf K, Ca and Mg content” Plz define all acronyms in the abstract when they appear first. If they appear once, there is no need to use acronyms.
· L28-30: “Furthermore, treatment affected CCI, average internode length, NH4 and Ca content in the substrate, and leaf N, Ca and Mg content” plz explain, Is the effect significant or not?
· L30: “rootstock had a stronger influence on overall tree growth” significant or not?
· Plz choose expressive keywords, while not repeating any word mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Plz write the keywords in alphabetical order. Also, plz capitalize the first letter of each word and refrain the use in abbreviations in the keywords.
· L41: “(FAOSTAT, 2023)” Please follow the Journal's instructions in writing the literature. Here the number 1 is written in parentheses and the following numbers are modified accordingly.
· L24: “The current production in Croatia is not sufficient for the market needs” Is there a reference for this, and do you have statistics on global needs and acknowledge that Croatia’s production is not sufficient?
· There is some information included in many parts of the manuscript that is not related to the topic of the current manuscript. Please focus on plants, experimental treatments, and what serves the listed measurements only, without addressing other information that does not serve the current topic. For example, there is no relationship between the following sentences and the manuscript's topic: L83-87: “It is a self-pollinating variety with early flowering and medium late ripening period. Cultivation on less vigorous rootstock contributes to the earlier fruiting. Trees have high and regular yields maintained by proper and regular pruning [20]. Several authors confirmed the difference in vigor of cv. Lapins trees are grown on SL 64, MaxMa 14, and Gisela 5 in different agroclimatic conditions [15,21–23]”
· L139-140: “Unlike the in vitro inoculation of fruit planting material which has proven to be effective, the use of in nurseries and plantations is still insufficiently researched” delete.
· L141-146: “Several studies on the advantages of inoculating a wide variety of important crops with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) have drawn attention to potential replacement of mineral fertilizers entirely or partial with an emphasis on enhancing crop sustainability, restoring degraded soils, and inducing plant resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses [64–66]. This approach could meet the present standards of agricultural 145 and environmental sustainability” plz delete. There is evidence of a similar meaning above, there is no need for repetition and weakening of the scientific writing.
· There is no connection between the parts of the introduction and each other, and there are many parts that are redundant and far from what serves the topic of the current manuscript.
· In the introduction; the hypothesis part is not clear, plz improve it.
· The introduction provides a solid background and a clear statement of the manuscript gap. but it would be helpful to clearly state how this study advances current knowledge in this area.
· In the abstract, L23: the authors wrote “plain water”: but in the materials and methods, L214, the authors wrote “rainwater” Plz explain which one is correct, plz unify.
· L241: “2.7.1. Chlorophyll content index (CCI)” plz add a recent relevant reference.
· L243-245: “Chlorophyll Content Meter Model CCM-200 (Opti-Sciences, Inc. USA)” Is chlorophyll measured in SPAD or is this device similar to SPAD? Please clarify with a detailed explanation.
· L250-262: “2.8. Analysis of macronutrients in leaves” The method of digesting samples to prepare them for measurement was discussed in detail, but the most important thing, which is the estimation of nutrients, was discussed very briefly. It is even known that the method of determiniting phosphorus is completely different from potassium, and no supporting reference was mentioned except in the case of potassium only. Plz amend according to that note.
· In the results section, conjunctions should be used to show the relationship between sentences. The quality of the figures is very poor
· The discussion and data analysis could dig a bit more into the mechanisms. Plz, make an effort to synthesize the text avoiding redundancies and repetitions in the discussion.
· Plz add depth to the discussion regarding the role of PGPR on the studied parameters through its physiological and genetic roles.
· L461: “Lang (2005)” Please follow the Journal's instructions in writing the literature. Here the number 1 is written in parentheses and the following numbers are modified accordingly.
· L472: “(Flügge 1886.)” same previous comment
· L494: “Naby et al. [97]” same.
· Although the discussion section is written in systematic way in many of its parts, the explanations focus largely on what has been found from previous studies. The authors should focus on the results of the current study and discuss them in more detail, and then only infer the results of relevant previous studies without explaining those studies in detail. This is a general observation throughout the entire discussion section.
· The conclusion is interesting, but it should be crispy and not in detailed form. Also, the conclusion needs more improvement. In the conclusion, Plz keep it precise and concise. Add future perspectives at the end of conclusion.
· Cross check all the references for mistakes and follow the journal style of reference input.
· The number of references is very large (117 references). Please review carefully and delete old and unimportant ones
· Plz use third person language throughout the manuscript. Go once through the manuscript language as there are some typos and writing errors.
· The acronyms in the entire manuscript should be revised.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
All responses are provided in Word file we have attached. Revised manuscript has also been uploaded.
Kind regards,
Tomislav Kos and co-authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks to the authors for providing this study
This study provides information on: “Substrate properties, vegetative growth, chlorophyll content index and leaf mineral content of sweet cherry maiden trees as affected by rootstock and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria”.
Please see the following comments:
1- The linguistic revision of the title, especially (as affected by rootstock and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria), needs to be rephrased to show that the studied traits are affected by rhizobacteria.
2- Re-linking the study title to the objective mentioned in lines (153-157), where it must be mentioned that vegetative growth and chlorophyll content are the objective of the study and showing the extent to which they are affected by the rootstock used as well as by root bacteria treatments.
3- Line 164: What is meant by the phrase (at an altitude of 6 m)? Was the experiment placed on a raised platform or what? Please explain.
4- In Planting material
a. Add the date or time of chip budded.
b. Add how many rootstocks were grafted in each transaction and duplicate.
c. What are the other specifications of the rootstock (height, price of the stem, etc.).
5- In Experimental Design, how was the amount of irrigation water determined for each pot? Was this based on an estimate of the field capacity of the soil used in the experiment?
6- Is the device or method used to estimate chlorophyll, the Chlorophyll Content Meter Model CCM-200 (Opti-Sciences, Inc. USA), a field device? It is best to explain more in this paragraph.
7- Why was the leaf area of the leaves not measured for all treatments? Leaf area is one of the most important indicators of vegetative growth.
8- The results show large values of standard deviation in many data, for example, the most important in Table 1, the calcium data? There is some confusion in the values of the replicates!! Please explain this. Also review the standard deviation of some data in Figures 2, 3 and 4.
...............................................................
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
All responses are provided in Word file we have attached. Revised manuscript has also been uploaded.
Kind regards,
Tomislav Kos and co-authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
My concerns are responded
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to express the research more clearly.
