The Response of Chlorophyll Content and Ionic Composition in Tomato and Pepper Seedlings to Foliar Nutrition in Growing Chambers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The last sentnece before the Materials and Methods, "The plant evaluation of plant health paved the way for gardners to decide on appropraite cultivar selection......" should be reomved. It is not part fo the objectives. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for valuable note. Kindly, we did this correction in the submitted version.

Thanks and Regrads

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Dear authors,

Minor comments should be taken into account:

add more keywords. 

Convert more tables to figures. 

Table 6, for +2, +, -, & 3, make them subscript or superscript based on type of anion or cation. 

The conclusion should be summarized.

Minor correction should be taken into consideration. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your valuable notes

Keywords added: Abiotic Stress, Organic Gardening, , Plant health, Salicylic Acid, SPAD Index

, Plant health, Salicylic Acid, SPAD Index

Please note that tables cannot be converted anymore to figures. Tables (1 to 3) are very important to be displayed in numbers, in order to facilitate numerical/significant highlighted comparisons. Also, the tables (4 to 7) are better to be kept in this form due to the multiple data created by Minitab.

The last table is the lone choice. But it is difficult to create 3 axes. We hope to understand our opinion.

Tables 6 and 7: +2, +,-, and 3 all are corrected

The conclusion is summarized and paraphrased.

Some English fixations took place (underlined single words inserted/removed in almost 6 positions)

Thanks and Regrads

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript continues chaotic, badly written, without idea, little bit better structured than the first version. The message passed is highly from the author’s previous work about the environmental conditions, and it is in abstract and conclusions, that is inadmissible.

Please, write about your results in past, and about the published data in the present. The last started to be facts. You did not hear this explicit demand, this is not suggestion, this is the rule how to write the scientific paper. Please, take care.

Title:

Improved. OK

Abstract:

You must make your abstract clear about the parameters measured. It is tooooo long. You do not need lines 2-6.

You must put in factor cultivar the names of cultivars. You must give MINIMUM DESCRIPTION of observed parameters... What does it mean MINIMUM RESPONSE???? This is not scientific, statistic....

After ‘Finally…’ everything can be written in few words.

What were suboptimal conditions that you mentioned? You did not work various environmental conditions??? How can you recommend for something that you had not execute in actual experiment!?

Keywords:

Those keywords will make the impression of the highly chemical work, and you are talking about gardeners. Please, use here the parameters and treatments used in your work, for example, Multiple effect; Minimum effect; Salicylic acid; SPAD index.......

Introduction:

The same observation as previously - As you did not create hypotheses, you are concluding based on your pervious wors, because you even do not perceive your actual results.

Use references, always impersonal. Do not need to tell us that research makes… You are reporting knowledge that after every fact use reference. If two phrases are related to the same reference, use reference at the end of the first one. Focus on what are you going to expose in Results. Only this is important.

Finish with a gap, hypotheses and aims to attain.

M&M:

Correctly use the description of any equipment or chemical product. Nothing is well described.

What is SPAD? How did you measure fluorescence and where are those data?

Statistics- read good papers, see how it is described. Firstly, describe the experimental design. After that, describe the methods and at the end packages end platform or language or software.

RHE GREATEST PROBLEM – TWO WAY ANOVA CAN COMPARE THE ONE FACTOR RESPONSES IN EACH TREATMENT, GENERAL FACTOR RESPONSE AND INTERACTIONS. YOU CANNOT ATTRIBUTE LETTER COMPARING ALL CASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Results:

Structure your Results responding to your hypotheses.

In your figures are shown continuous COMPARISIONS, EVEN IN TWO-WAY ANOVA.

What is the meaning of grides? Very polluted!

P-value in two-way ANOVA must exist for each factor plus for interactions!

You must give the complete description of the content in captions of each table and each figure!

Where is fluorescence in your paper???????? Or you made only SPAD index measurements (for ten times explained in M&M – please improve).

Discussion:

Discuss must start from novelty. Respond to your hypotheses and develop the idea, defend your results, and be critical.

Every paragraph must conclude something about your work.

Every paragraph is one idea. Do not start the paragraph with ‘On the other hand, ‘. What can be the other hand of nothing?

Conclusions:

Conclusions can only conclude about your work, not about everything around you. They must respond to your hypotheses.

Details can be found in the pdf here attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please, write about your results in past, and about the published data in the present. The last started to be facts.

You did not hear this explicit demand, this is not suggestion, this is the rule how to write the scientific paper. Please, take care.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We are so frustrated about negative comments. But, we still have the hope to pass your reviewing comments successfully. We are not begging you, for all that we need to make this work successful. Kindly, grease the wheels as much as it is possible.

Thanks and Regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript was slightly, but not substantially improved. This must be scientific publication, not defense that you are simple. With all respect to simpleness, tis must be scientific, and played under the scientific rules.

Please, write about your results in past, and about the published data in the present. You did not change this in Introduction.

Introduction:

Use references, always impersonal, that continue (In accordance….). The description of some whole experiments are not necessary. Please, report only what is base for your experiment.

The gap, hypotheses and aims to attain have to be, at the end of Introduction, in past.

M&M:

Correctly use the description of any equipment or chemical product. Nothing is well described.

SPAD is only estimation, one index, never measurement, only estimation of one index.

In equipment – mode in front of parentheses (producer, city, country)

Statistics- read good papers, see how it is described. Firstly, describe the experimental design. After that, describe the methods and at the end packages end platform or language or software.

THE GREATEST PROBLEM – TWO WAY ANOVA CAN COMPARE THE ONE FACTOR RESPONSES IN EACH TREATMENT, GENERAL FACTOR RESPONSE AND INTERACTIONS. YOU CANNOT ATTRIBUTE LETTER COMPARING ALL CASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Results:

Figures have the line around. Please delete.

Use always the standardize number of decimal places for p-values.

Interactions of????

In your figures are shown continuous COMPARISIONS, EVEN IN TWO-WAY ANOVA.

Cannot compare all treatments and factors at the same level. One factor I in upper letter, one in small ones. Only cultivars in every treatment.

You must give the complete description of the content in captions of each table and each figure!

SPAD is not chlorophyll content.

Discussion:

Discuss must start from novelty. It is not clear, at all. You started with emergence. That’s the point?

How did you include organic garden production?

Structure your discussion based on responses, or hypotheses. It continues not structured.

Conclusions:

Conclusions can only conclude about your work, not about everything around you. They must respond to your hypotheses.

Details can be found in the pdf here attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please, write about your results in past, and about the published data in the present. You did not change this in Introduction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for clarifying your notes this time. We are pleased to correct the article. Please read my attached profile very well. There are some misunderstood regarding interactions, discussion structure, and hypothesis-conclusion parts. We tried to put your notes into practice. Hopefully, to hear good news after this round.

Thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript was improved, but still the statistics and structure are problems.

Introduction:

Improved. Look carefully and distribute the structure from the most general to the most specific facts.

Perfect that you included hypothesis.

M&M:

Not necessary to put the address for equipment, only city and country.

Statistics – the description was improved, bur essential was confounded – factors and variables. Please, take care. Factors are foliar nutrition and cultivars impacting on variables.

Results:

The two-way ANOVA must be studied. Program can give you million responses, but you must know what is correct to use.

For example, in the Figure 2, you must compare impact of every factor and their interactions. This means that cultivar comparison resulted, for example, in:

- a, b and a for salicilyc acid,

- a, a, and a for sodium and

- a, b and ab for water.

Foliar nutrition was B, B, and A for Tukyng... etc,

            This will have the following coding aB, bB…. Look your results!

You must make difference between the variable and factor. Must differ the factors and their effects.

Based on well described statistics (I saw your responses, but you need to understand your results), you can rewrite the results and lately discussion and conclusions.

In figures and tables always use four decimals for p-values. If the p-value is very small, use p< 0.001.

Under the Table 5 you made the Discussion. Please, reorient this text.

Discussion:

Discuss must start from novelty. What is new? Be direct. You started with recommendation. The recommendations are normally places at the end of Discussion and Conclusions, not at the beginning.

Structure your Discussion responding to your hypotheses. From the specific to the most general, and finish with recommendations. Opposite of Introduction.

Conclusions:

Why only in Hungary? Nurseries are used all over the world… Gardening too.

Details can be found in the pdf here attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

OK. To look after the main improvements.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Please read my attached file very well before asking to change the data presentation. It will not be suitable for us and the journal to present significant interaction based on your way. Otherwise, we will withdraw the article if you still insist on your opinion.

Thanks and Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

There are many not clear sentences; the experiment is not well described - use time of growing, not dates, e.g. October 6, 2021 is 18th day; 48 hours and 48th hour, as well 8 days and 8th day, are not the same - use the correct one; why sodium bicarbonate solution is 0.52% but not 0.5%; the seeds were placed in 8 rows, 6 of them were used for spraying with the 2 solutions and d. water x 2 rows, what about the last 2 rows; describe all the statistics methods in one section; there is missing information in Results(e.g. standard deviations); it will be much better for the results to be presented as graphs, with columns for all the investigated terms, not as many tables where is hard to compare different obtained values; it is not clear why the authors averaged the values obtained for all the three genotypes (e.g. Tables 11 and 12) or for all the three treatments (e.g. Tables 9 and 10) - what kind of information they get from those calculations?; actually there is no discussion; the conclusions are not fully based on the results, etc. In generally, there are many incorrect sentences, many semantic errors. The manuscript needs serious revision.

The meaning of some sentences is not clear, many words are not used correctly. p. 2 "Foliar feeding is a yield-enhancing corn production technique when combined with a chlorophyll meter [3]." How one chlorophyll meter will enhance the yield? Variety and genotype are not equal, as the authors do not discuss the genetic constitution of the species, would be better to do not use this term. More precise is "cultivar". "Impact of tomato genotypes on the ... (SPAD index)" is not correct. Different cultivars have different characteristics and different reactions to different (external) factors, i.e. there are differences between cultivars.
Please, ask somebody with better English to check the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your valuable feedback. Hope to hear positive news from your side in the next round.

Thanks and Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Several comments are made on the attached Pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Quality of engilish needs to be improved. The sentences are usually too wordy, they need to be simplified. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

This is to say thanks for your valuable feedback. I will resubmit the corrected version soon after finishing the others' comments.

The attached word is just a little communication with your excellence to display some points for you.

Thanks and Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is chaotic, badly written, without idea, not structured at all. No message was passed to a reader, only headache.

Write about your results in past, and about the published data in the present. The last started to be facts.

Title:

Be direct, and not use not essential declarations. You did not make complex chemical analyses, but mineral.

Introduction:

Use references to describe all knowledge! Always impersonal. Focus on what are you going to expose in Results. Only this is important.

Finish with a gap, hypotheses and aims to attain.

M&M:

Start with species, space, and situate a reader in the time.

Describe methods of analyses, using for all used equipment and chemicals the detailed description of producer. For that read good papers.

Use the descent statistical analyses and describe them at the end of M&M. Excel is not statistical program. If you used it, describe exactly the packages. Describe exactly used methods.

Results:

Structure your Results responding to your hypotheses.

Try to pool the tables into one long and clear. The tendence is to use 6-8 illustration in maximum.

Appendix cannot be in the main text.

In your figures are shown continuous lines for different treatments. This is not correct at al!!!!!!!!! Where are SE in figures?

Write up to twelve in words, after that in digits.

Use in max three decimal digits for means and SE in your tables.

Discussion:

Separate Results from Discussion. Discuss starting from novelty. Respond to your hypotheses and develop the idea, defend your results, and be critical.

Conclusions:

Conclusions can only conclude about your work, not about everything around you. They must respond to your hypotheses.

Details can be found in the pdf here attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The use of verbs in exact time is a great problem of your MS.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for the honest comments. Yes, it is a headache for the reader and for the researchers who conducted it.

I would like to notify you that we tried very hard to correct the text based on your comments. However, merging tables could be a difficult option unless the other 3 reviewers confirmed it. I hope you accept my apology at this point. By the way, the others appreciated this way of presentation in the first submitted version.

One more difficult suggestion from your side is to separate the analysis from materials and methods. We did not prefer this, due to the need of mentioning the analysis at every stage of plant development, where the design was modified and ANOVA changed. The reason was a shift from using one factor to 2 factors during the plant development.

I wonder why the objection against using Excel in analysis. Let me tell you that I found it more accurate than Minitab 20 in measuring p-values. But, we corrected it to Minitab 20 due to the fact that the recent is more specialized than Excel. In any case, the results will lead to the same end.

Thanks and Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In title, chemical composition should be swapped with ionic composition. 

In title, no need to mention various ions detected. 

In title, (Tomatoes and Peppers Saplings), seedlings not saplings.

In abstract, (The chlorophyll content and mineral compositions of plants are highly dependent 11 on the species' physiological responses and environmental stress tolerance. The chlorophyll 12 content is important for determining abiotic stress tolerance in tomatoes and 13 peppers.). No need to this sentence.

The names of tomatoes and peppers should be removed from abstract.

In abstract, the details of measuring chlorophyll or ions should be removed (. A chlorophyll sensor (SPAD-502) was used to collect 5 measurements from 19 each plant after 2 days and 8 days of spraying. Five plant sap samples were collected from 20 ten plants after 38 days of transplantation. The calcium ion (Ca+2), potassium ion (K+), and nitrate (NO3 -) contents (mg L-1) in plant sap were measured using three calibrated electronic sensors of the type (HORIBA instruments LAQUA-TWIN).

The description of statistics should not be mentioned in abstract. 

The abstract should be rewritten, writing the rational or novelty of your work, demonstrating the main results of your work, and then giving a recommendation of your work. 

Keywords should be written in words other than that in title. 

There is no numbering of lines make the reviewing difficult.

The work is extensive and lots of data are generated. However, it would greatly benefit from a language review as sometimes it is hard to follow the authors reasoning’s as sentences are cut or spelled in difficult ways.

In the introduction, the flow of ideas from one sentence to the next is without cohesion, and it is difficult to understand the main points that are trying to make.

(Drought stress 50 is one of the most severe abiotic stresses that plant face because it reduces the flow of essential  nutrients to the root zone and limits water accessibility to cells due to insufficient hydraulic conductance from roots to leaves caused by stomatal closure. Because of the decrease in hydraulic conductivity, the supply of nutrients to the shoot is reduced). Firstly, authors must add a reference for these scentences. Why the authors mentioned the drought and no other stresses especially the authors did not apply drought to tomatoes and peppers in the experimentation?

The introduction is lengthy and no need to many general and well-known information. the connection between paragraphs is so difficult to illustrate history of the introduction.

The aims need to be rewritten - as it stands, they are just description of results. The aims must clearly state what the purpose of the study is.

The materials and methods is not written in scientific manner. 

The statistical analysis part should be written as separate part of MM.

In results and discussion, the way of presenting data is so poor. 

For tables, Too much tables with poor presentation. I suggest the data of more than trait can be collected in one table to easy follow. 

The discussion is very superficial, the section offers little insight into the results of the manuscript. The connection between sentences is difficult.

The conclusion part is not good at all. the authors should rewrite it.  

The manuscript must be revised by expert or native, the manuscript difficult to be followed.

The manuscript must be revised by expert or native, the manuscript difficult to be followed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for you. General feedback from your side was helpful.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are no real changes in the manuscript.

At first I thought the design of the experiment is simple but not so bad. But there is a big mish-mash in the presenting and analysing the results. Basic rules in science for analysing experimental results were not followed: to have a control group, to compare the effects of the investigated factors (salicylic acid and sodium hydrogen carbonate) with the control (distilled water in this experiment), to evaluate the differences in the responses of the different experimental groups – the differences between tomato cultivars; the differences between pepper cultivars. Even the differences between different plant species – tomato and paper, could be commented. Discussion is more a literature review but no explanation of possible mechanisms of the observed effects.

The English language is not corrected. There are too many sentences without meaning or with wrong statements. 

"Even in distilled water, there is no potassium (Table 29)." is just one example in between many.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks a lot for your valuable feedback

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective must be stated in past tense and not future. Future tense makes  it appear like a proposal. For instance: 

This trial will explore how drought-tolerant and non-drought-tolerant cultivars of two crops respond to the treatments by measuring aspects of the plant's biochemical makeup. It should be, the trial explored........

The authours are advised to go through the manuscript and fix these few minor gramar. Otherwise, I recommend its publication. 

The quality of the english is satisfacotry.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

You did not respect any of my suggestion.

1. You did not write hypothesis. What did you expect. What treatment, what species, what is expected, based on previously exposed references?!

2 .You preserved 29 tables and 5 figures. I wrote that the maximum today is 6-8. The major part, for example, the first 14 tables can be pooled in one unique.

3. Your Table 15 is in the Figure 1!!!!!!!!!!!!! You need to incorporate p-value and letters for comparison.

4. Idem Table 16 and Figure 2. This is not permitted in the good publication.

5. You can pool tables 17-22.

6. What is the meaning of deformed Tables 23-24-25??? It is not possible to understand, nothing is in according to anything.

7. What is the meaning of 26-28????? They are deformed, nothing corresponds to anything. How can you interpret the meaning in the table? Table 29 has no comparison, no statistic!!!!!!!!!

8. Figures 3-5 are shameless. R2 of 0.1071... we do not show. It has no significance, and no one scientific will approve!

9. Your discussion is infantile, and your conclusions did not respond to inexistent hypothesis.

10. TO UNDERLINE - NO SCIENCE, NO RESPECT.

Medium. Firstly, arrange the sense, after that the English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer /Scientist

Well it seems there is an aggressive attack from your side, and some words you used such as: no repsect, and no science, infantile...etc, indicates that you are one of most important agricultural scientists on the Erath planet. 

Am talking on behalf of my authors team, and I would like to confirm that we have not any conflict with any person, especially in research. I will not comment or submit any objection for your description. We will just reupdate and resubmit the article within our scope and limits, and as mush as we can within your willings.

I cannot say thankyou enough for your polite, honest, and direct impact towards our work 

All the best