Physiological Effects and Economic Impact of Plant Growth Regulator Applications on Soybean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors clearly provide a report on a set of experiments designed to test the effect of plant growth regulators on soybean growth and yield.  These are worthwhile experiments, and the paper is written clearly.  However, there are several areas where the authors failed to provide clear and complete context for the results to be interpreted.  The discussion is especially problematic and needs to be rewritten to provide a clear description of what can and can’t be concluded from this data.  The following items need to be addressed before the paper can be published:

• The introduction to plant growth regulators line 48-55 doesn’t cover all the situations described in the paper. They failed to include brassinosteroids, but one of the plant growth regulators tested included homobrassinolide.  Lactofen appears to be a herbicide unrelated to the plant hormones listed.  The mention of cytokinins being found in animals is not relevant to this study. 
• Indication of what class of plant growth regulator the product contains needs to be included for each of the prior studies referenced in the introduction. Enersol by Amcol doesn’t sound like a PRG at all.  For example, you need to indicate that TIBA (line 76) is an auxin transport inhibitor (which is different than your treatments). 
• Table 1 should include a column indicating the type (auxin, cytokinin, etc…) of plant growth regulator each ingredient is.
• Line 234 and 241 indicate that the response was from GA, but the Cygin treatment includes three active ingredients.
• The connection between stressors and treatments is emphasized, but the authors failed to make the connection with their results in a meaningful way. Is there a meaningful way to measure the stress that was experienced at each location/year?  If this is apparent from the precipitation and temperature data, then you need to point it out.  To make this connection, you may need two different levels of irrigation.   If you cannot show a correlation between a specific stress and a benefit, you need to remove discussion like the following:
  1. Line 190 – may enhance tolerance to stressors
  2. Line 295 – provides valuable insight into the potential benefits of PGRs during stress periods.
  3. Line 311 – may have enhanced stress tolerance
• Line 300 – please provide a citation and details to support the claim that “PGRs containing GA have been reported to improve drought tolerance”
• Line 306 – You can’t infer that Indole-3-butyric acid (auxin) and B-Aminobutyric acid (signaling molecule that activates plant immune response) are the same thing.  Please remove reference 16 from your article.
• Line 324 – Removing the meristem stops the production of mainstem notes, because the meristem is the source of nodes. This is not showing compensation for anything.

Author Response

Individual reply to reviewer is attached to the associated document.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.There are many errors in the introduction, such as: ① The definition of Plant growth regulators in line 44 is incorrect. Naturally occurring hormones are called hormones, while synthetic compounds are called Plant growth regulators. ② What does' may pose phytotoxicity to the plant 'mean in line 46? Do you have any relevant examples? ③ Line 47, are there more than 5 types of plant hormones? ④ They can be found in both plants and animals. Are you sure? Please provide evidence that plant hormones were found in animals! The overview of the application of Plant growth regulators in lines 56-68 is too limited, indicating a lack of understanding of their practical applications. Should be rewritten and supplemented.

2. Materials and Methods does not specify the specific meanings of V4 and R2, and which reproductive period they belong to?

3. Statistical Analysis did not use the method of significant difference analysis.

4. There are many issues with Results. ① There are too many 'not significant' or 'no significant' statements in the analysis text, so why do they still correspond to statements such as' increase 'or' decrease '? In statistics, if the statistical result is not significant, it means that they are at the same level and there is no increase or decrease The data in the graph does not have error bars or significant difference markers, so how can we determine who is higher and who is lower in statistics?

5.The 307th Latin in Discussion does not have italics.

6.After recalibrating the results analysis in Results according to statistical results, revise the Discussion and Conclusions accordingly.

Author Response

A reply to the reviewer can be found on the associated document.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant improvement in the introduction and discussion section.  However I feel it appropriate for them to dial back some of the claims and conclusions.  I also found a few small errors that need to be resolved.

Line 17 - I don't think you have provided evidence related to the stress response - Please remove "in mimicking the plants natural stress response"

Line 18 - The word "consistent" could mean good, bad or no change.  Please alter the sentence to provide clarity, but not indicate any significant improvement.  

Line 50 - replace "chemicals" with "treatments" since some of them were not chemicals

Line 74 - Remove "formation and"  as initiation of lateral buds occurs in the meristem

Line 289 - The sentence starting with "This aligns" needs to be reworded.  The spraying of GA doesn't align with the natural reductions of GA during drought.  Instead your spraying counteracts the natural reductions.  

Line 327 - remove "and profitability" as you did not do a profitability analysis

Line 331 - add the word "slightly" before the word increased

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review! I appreciate the comments and agree with most changes. Please see below for specific changes. 

Comment 1: Line 17 - I don't think you have provided evidence related to the stress response - Please remove "in mimicking the plants natural stress response"

Response 1: reworded the sentence, but included the fact that these results were seen across various adverse conditions.

Comment 2: Line 18 - The word "consistent" could mean good, bad or no change.  Please alter the sentence to provide clarity, but not indicate any significant improvement.  

Response 2: changed the wording to "stable"

Comment 3: Line 50 - replace "chemicals" with "treatments" since some of them were not chemicals

Response 3: changed wording

Comment 4: Line 74 - Remove "formation and"  as initiation of lateral buds occurs in the meristem

Response 4: removed words

Comment 5: Line 289 - The sentence starting with "This aligns" needs to be reworded.  The spraying of GA doesn't align with the natural reductions of GA during drought.  Instead your spraying counteracts the natural reductions.  

Response 5: Reworded the sentence see lines 290-291

Comment 6: Line 327 - remove "and profitability" as you did not do a profitability analysis

Response 6: Originally included a profitability portion. Missed removing this thank you for finding it

Comment 7: Line 331 - add the word "slightly" before the word increased

Response 7: adjusted wording

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has carefully revised the article, and I have no new questions.

Author Response

Thank you for your review!

As the reviewer did not have any further questions or comments, no further edits were made from this review.