Application of Various Extracts Enhances the Growth and Yield of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) without Compromising the Biochemical Content

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed some comments and some comments retained unchanged. They must follow the suggestion to improve the MS before its acceptance in the journal “Agronomy”.  

 General comments

 -The introduction is now improved. However, missing relevant and recent references should be included to support your statements. 

-The suggested sections of methodology have not been rewritten according. The authors should rewrite again as suggested.

-The discussion has not been rewritten. The authors need to improve it for reader acceptability.

I suggest several comments and corrections that must be addressed by major revision before publication. The specific comments are suggested to be taken into consideration by the authors below:

Specific comments

 Introduction

Line 82-84: Numerous secondary metabolites are induced by treatment with various biotic and abiotic stresses. Hence, the authors are suggested to cite all missing relevant and recent references here to support your statement. (doi.10.3389/fpls.2020.559876; DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30897-6, doi.10.1371/journal. pone.0206388, DOI.10.1007/s12010-018-2784-5, doi.10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.097).

Materials and methods

Line 110-124: The authors didn’t respond to my query regarding design and replications in the earlier version. The authors should include in detail treatments, design, replications, sample collection of plants, etc.

Line 125: The authors also didn’t respond to my query regarding Table 1 in the earlier version. It is also not clear to me why there are results in Table 1? Table 1 should be presented with only treatment combinations in “Materials and methods” and the whole Table1 in the “Results and discussion” sections.

Line 154: ---Ma,---. Check it. Maybe Mg or Mn. Example line 351

 Results and discussion

Why extraction methods, kinds of extracts, application frequencies are varied for estimating different parameters? The authors didn’t follow my suggestions to improve discussion. The discussion needs to be improved.

Author Response

Specific comments

 Introduction

Line 82-84: Numerous secondary metabolites are induced by treatment with various biotic and abiotic stresses. Hence, the authors are suggested to cite all missing relevant and recent references here to support your statement. (doi.10.3389/fpls.2020.559876; DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30897-6, doi.10.1371/journal. pone.0206388, DOI.10.1007/s12010-018-2784-5, doi.10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.097).

Response: We cited 4 references. See corrections in red.

Materials and methods

Line 110-124: The authors didn’t respond to my query regarding design and replications in the earlier version. The authors should include in detail treatments, design, replications, sample collection of plants, etc.

Response: Corrections have been made. See corrections in red.

Line 125: The authors also didn’t respond to my query regarding Table 1 in the earlier version. It is also not clear to me why there are results in Table 1? Table 1 should be presented with only treatment combinations in “Materials and methods” and the whole Table1 in the “Results and discussion” sections.

Response: We have added the names of the extracts to the materials and methods section as well as including application frequency and other relevant information. Table 1, which included results, has been moved from materials and methods to results and discussion.

Line 154: ---Ma,---. Check it. Maybe Mg or Mn. Example line 351

Response: Corrected

 Results and discussion

Why extraction methods, kinds of extracts, application frequencies are varied for estimating different parameters? The authors didn’t follow my suggestions to improve discussion. The discussion needs to be improved.

Response: Although the results were not consistent from both plant height and shoot fresh weight after treatments of various extracts, shoot fresh weight was more related to the growth promotion than plant height. In our first draft, this was not clearly stated, so we have added a more detailed explanation of which parameters we focused on in this study in order to determine which extracts were the most effective growth promotors.

We also addressed the lack of discussion around the mechanisms of growth promotion and added four supporting citations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Enhancing Growth and Yield without Biochemical Content Reduction in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) treated with Various Extracts" (Ref. 1105949) by Se Ji Jang, Hyun Hwa Park and Yong In Kuk reports both the effect of different extracts on cucumber growth and production, as well as the efficiency of the different application methods and time of application.

I still find the description of the experiments carried out very confusing, as does the discussion of the results. Makes reading very heavy.

The following changes still need to be made:

Material and methods

Line 158 and 174: Change “cucumber plants” by “cucumber fruit”.

Line 198: Here, I think when you talk about experiments you really want to talk about analyzed parameters.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Enhancing Growth and Yield without Biochemical Content Reduction in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) treated with Various Extracts" (Ref. 1105949) by Se Ji Jang, Hyun Hwa Park and Yong In Kuk reports both the effect of different extracts on cucumber growth and production, as well as the efficiency of the different application methods and time of application.

I still find the description of the experiments carried out very confusing, as does the discussion of the results. Makes reading very heavy.

Response: We have tried to make the experiment descriptions as clear as possible. We have also sought to clarify our discussion section in the revision process adding more discussion of the mechanism behind growth promotion and additional citations.

The following changes still need to be made:

Material and methods

Line 158 and 174: Change “cucumber plants” by “cucumber fruit”.

Response: Corrected.

Line 198: Here, I think when you talk about experiments you really want to talk about analyzed parameters.

Response: Corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments that I raised in the previous version. The manuscript is improved substantially. However, still Table 1 is retained in “Materials and methods” chapter. It must be moved to “Results and discussion chapter” before its acceptance to the journal “Agronomy”.  

Materials and methods

Line 177: In the response of my previous query, the authors have written “ Table 1, which included results, has been moved from materials and methods to results and discussion.” However, still I find it in the materials and methods chapter. It must be moved to results and discussion section.

Author Response

Materials and methods

Line 177: In the response of my previous query, the authors have written “ Table 1, which included results, has been moved from materials and methods to results and discussion.” However, still I find it in the materials and methods chapter. It must be moved to results and discussion section.

Response: Corrected.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The experiments carried out and the results obtained are not at all clear. I consider the subject to be interesting but it needs to be rewritten to can be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors assessed that the application of various extracts enhances the growth and yield of cucumber (Cucumis sativus l.) without compromising the biochemical content.

 General comments

 -It falls into the journal's scope and has a novelty to publish in the "Agronomy".

-The introduction is not hypothesis and objective-driven. Re-write it with appropriate hypotheses and objectives. 

-Some methodology must be rewritten as suggested.

-The discussion is poor that needs to discuss mechanistically with citing proper references for reader acceptability.

-Conclusion needs to be rewritten appropriately

I suggested several comments and corrections that must be addressed by major revision before publication. The specific comments are suggested to be taken into consideration by the authors below:

 Specific comments

Title

The title should be modified as “Application of Various Extracts Enhance the Growth and Yield of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) without Compromising the Biochemical Content”

 Abstract

It should have a concluding remark and/or recommendation at the end of the abstract.

Line 13: then. Delete the word.

Introduction

Re-write the introduction with appropriate hypotheses and objectives. 

Line 71-72: These compounds can also be induced by treatment with various biotic and abiotic stresses, such as chilling, salt, and drought [21,22]. The cited reference is too old. Please replace it with more recent relevant references (doi.10.3389/fpls.2020.559876; DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-30897-6, doi.10.1186/s12870-018-1484-1, doi.10.1371/journal. pone.0206388, DOI10.1002/jsfa.9423, DOI.10.1007/s12010-018-2784-5, and doi.10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.097). as so many biotic and abiotic factors are involved here.

Materials and methods

Line 92: 26 new fertilizers. Check it. It is not clear from Table 1. It is also not clear to me why there are results in Table 1? Table 1 should be presented with only treatment combinations.

Line 95 -108: "Effects of Various Liquid Fertilizers on Seedling Growth and Yield in Cucumber" Why yield and growth in methodology? Replace it appropriately. The authors should also include in details of treatments, design, replications, sample collection of plants, etc.

Line 108: Replace "--- 35/25±2°C ---" by "---- 35/25 ± 2 °C -----". 12-h. delete hyphen and use space. Follow this for line 154, 161,

Results and discussion

The discussion is poor. A mechanistic discussion with citing proper references is essential for reader acceptability.

Conclusion

It is just the repetition of the abstract where results are stated. It should be rewrite appropriately as a conclusion.