Morphological Features of Winter Rape Cultivars Depending on the Applied Growth Stimulators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Morphological features of winter rape rose leaf depending on the applied growth stimulators

Recommendation – major revision

This manuscript shows the influence of some biostimulators applied in the fall on some indicators of growth and vegetative development of rapeseed plants in the rosette stage. Unfortunately, the too brief presentation of knowledge in the field, the processing of the results obtained, and the lack of discussions, of arguments make the work not live up to the desired level for publication in the journal Agriculture.

Major comments/concerns

- The lack of sufficient knowledge in the field raises questions about the need for research. Fill in accordingly to the introduction part

-L46-L50- this phrase must be in terms of materials and methods

-present in subchapters the chapter on materials and methods. E.g. the natural area of experience; the variants of treatment for stimulation (content, dose, application), experimental design and statistical analysis of the results.

- The discussion part is inferior, the arguments supporting the results are missing

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (changes made are marked in red) 1. The article was corrected as suggested by the Reviewer 2. As suggested by the Reviewer introduction expanded (the description of the microbiological preparation used as suggested can be found in Materials and Methods). 3. As suggested by the Reviewer Materials and Methods divided into sections and subsections 4. The description and discussion of the research results was extended.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

The manuscript requires the following revisions:

Title

The title should change to:

Morphological features of winter rape cultivars depending on the applied growth stimulators

Abstract

This section is generally badly written. This part should be written clearly and include the following details:

Importance of bio-stimulation

Aim of study

Methods and design used

Most importance results obtained

A short conclusion

Introduction

This part is written poorly on the whole. The authors must provide the following information in a concise manner:

Some details concerning the difference between artificial fertilizers and bio-stimulation

Information on the various bio-stimulation techniques and how they affect growth and yield

It is important to provide some background information about the plant (Rape) used in this investigation. Why did the authors decide to use this plant?

Aim of study

Materials and methods

L56 (Research Area):  It is preferable to write: Experimental design and research area. The split plot design was adopted by the authors, but they did not identify the main plot or factor and the sub-plot or component. These details should be added by the authors.

L69: The name of the microorganism and its components should be mentioned in full in the authors' description of the composition of the stimulator (Object 2).

L109: The age of plants should be inserted

L121: It should be noted what program was used to calculate the ANOVA and Tukey or LSD tests.

Results

L175 (Table 1): The method used by the authors to determine the Sielianinov coefficient should be disclosed.

Table 2-9's results are not presented in a straightforward manner. To present their findings, the authors should select one of the following two styles:

First view: Using an ANOVA table and the Tukey or LSD test, the authors should analyze the data for each year independently and include the following information:

- Effect of cultivars

- Effect of Biostimulator

- Interaction of cultivars and Biostimulator

Second method: The authors can use combined analysis of variance to assess their data, presenting the results in an ANOVA table and comparing the means using the Tukey test:

- Effect of years

- Effect of cultivars

- Effect of biostimulators

- Effect of interaction between years, cultivars, and biostimulators

The name of the parameters that were investigated in this research should be used by the authors as a header or topic.

The authors should provide a table that displays the percentage of each cultivar that has increased or decreased based on the attributes examined using this formula; (treatment-control)/control*100

The authors claimed in the materials and methods that they used the Tukey test to compare the means, but they also stated that they used LSD at the bottom of Tables 2 to 9. The authors should check it.

Discussion

There is no discussion or interpretation of the findings. The researchers need to explain how each stimulator affects the growth parameters.

Best regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (changes made are marked in red) 1. As suggested by the Reviewer, the title of the article was changed to “Morphological features of winter rape cultivars depending on the applied growth stimulators” 2. The summary is included: Importance of bio-stimulation, Aim of study, Methods and design used, Most importance results obtained, conclusion 3. As suggested by the Reviewer introduction expanded (the description of the microbiological preparation used as suggested can be found in Materials and Methods) 4. Materials and Methods was corrected as suggested by the Reviewer 5. In the Results section, as suggested, the method for calculating of the Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficient. 6. The description and discussion of the research results was extended. 7. The tables have been improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Agriculture (ISSN 2077-0472)

Manuscript ID: agriculture-1930427

Type: Article

Title: Morphological features of winter rape rose leaf depending on the applied growth stimulators

 

 

Overall Recommendations: Major Revisions

 

Abstract

??? Abstract is not written as per MDPI Journal Format

??? Please add problem/importance statement for present research work.

??? Please remove the words (1) Background: (2) Methods: object (1) - object (2) - object (3) - object (4) and (3) Results:

 

 

Introduction

 

??? Authors completely failed to develop the hypothesis with reference to title and objective, in the introduction section. Why the present research and manuscript is planned and written??? Otherwise, it looks like a B.Sc. student’s assignment.

 

??? Page # 1, Line # 35 to 36: Please rectify according to testified growth stimulators.

??? Page # 2, Line # 40 to 46: Make no sense to write in Introduction section.

 

 

Materials and methods

??? The text has many typing and grammatical errors, capitalization issues.

??? English style and language requires a profound revision. However, the readability of the manuscript needs to be improved, preferably carefully reviewing by a native English speaker???

 

??? All proper nouns must be abbreviated. Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention with brackets. Don’t start a sentence with an abbreviation here???

 

??? Page # 3, Line # 109 to 119: Please write in running style, rather than point wise enlisting.

 

??? The materials and methods section is very brief. Please add details for analytical methodologies to make it reproducible.

 

 ??? Quality assurance of data is mandatory!!! How many batch, repeats, chemical grade and for used instruments manufacturers’ user manual and instructions were strictly followed or not!!!

 

Results and discussion

 

Data is sound one. It deserve to be published.

 

??? Elaborated one. But all speculations, no confirmation made through repeated experiment.

Tried well but inconsistent and no link with parameters, as well as no logical connection has been made with previous findings???

 

 

??? Very Minute Scientific Discussion.

 

Conclusion

??? The conclusion section must not be the results section second window. Novelty of this research work is again questionable with reference to practical significance and economic feasibility must be worked and mentioned.

 

References

??? A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed.

??? Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Agriculture Journal.

 

??? References formatting are inconsistent. A few DOI missing??? Verify each reference from original source and cross check references in the text and reference section.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (changes made are marked in red)

1. As suggested by the Reviewer introduction expanded (the description of the microbiological preparation used as suggested can be found in Materials and Methods). 2. The summary is included: Importance of bio-stimulation, Aim of study, Methods and design used, Most importance results obtained, conclusion 3. The description and discussion of the research results was extended. 4. DOI numbers were verified in the literature list

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

To all Authors

The manuscript has several errors:

1. L150: The word (many Tukey intervals) should be replaced with Tukey's range test.

2. L166-L176 (3.1. Water conditions): This section's equation should be located in the materials and methods section.

3. The authors must include this sentence below Table 2:

Using Tukey's range test, values indicated with the same letter do not differ significantly at = 0.05.

Best Regards

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (changes made are marked in green) 1. As suggested by the Reviewer, the word (many Tukey intervals) should was replaced with Tukey's range test. 2. Section's water conditions was located in the materials and methods section. 3. Added sentence under the table 2. Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Agriculture (ISSN 2077-0472)

Manuscript ID: agriculture-1930427

Type: Article

Title: Morphological features of winter rape rose leaf depending on the applied growth stimulators

 

 

Overall Recommendations: Minor Revisions. The manuscript still needs improvements.

 

Abstract

Page#1, Line#16-17: … biostimulators containing microorganisms and micro and macro elements,  phosphorus and  potassium  and  silicon … please mention the targeted micro & macro elements for investigation.

 

Introduction

 

Please don’t use introduction as second window of review of literature.

 

Please write total area, production and average yield of winter rope in Poland.

 

Why Problem/Importance Statement of Present Research Page#1, Line#12-14 and Pgae#1, Line#34-36 are same???

 

 

Materials and methods

 

A few improvements with just highlighted the earlier version of manuscript.

 

??? All proper nouns must be abbreviated. Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention with brackets. Don’t start a sentence with an abbreviation here???

 

 

Results and discussion

 

Use the passive voice not possessive (we, our).

 

Conclusion

??? The conclusion section must not be the results section second window. Please don’t write point wise.

References

OK

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (changes made are marked in green) 1. The experiment investigated the effect of biostimulators containing microorganisms as well as micro and macro elements on the morphometric features of the leaf rosette. 2. The article is the result of teamwork.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx