Deteriorating Harmful Effects of Drought in Cucumber by Spraying Glycinebetaine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper examines effects of glycinebetaine application on the yield and physiological characteristics of cucumber under different water stressed conditions. From this aspects, the subject of the paper is relevant, informative, interesting and within scope of the journal.

Introduction section of the manuscript clearly describes importance of cucumber for vegetable production and the agricultural use of glycinebetaine for alleviation of harmful effects of drought. The aim of the study was also clearly described at the end of the introduction section.

The materials and methods used in the study were clearly described in the manuscript. Standard methods were given by references.

Results were presented in a logical order. The findings of the study were satisfactorily discussed in the related section.

Writing style of the manuscript is academic and clear. In my opinion, originality and common influence of the article are quite high, so the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

My further comments are included below.

Line 105-106: Is precipitation amount right? It looks very little.

Please capitalize the tables to better track the statistical differences between the data.

Check the table numbers.

Give more explanation about GlyBet x irrigation levels interaction in discussion section.

Author Response

Dear Prof.

We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our manuscript. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We think that the manuscript has been greatly improved by these revisions and hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you have noted. The necessary corrections have been written with a track in the manuscript. To facilitate your evaluation, the following is a point by point response to the questions and comments

1- The paper examines effects of glycinebetaine application on the yield and physiological characteristics of cucumber under different water stressed conditions. From this aspects, the subject of the paper is relevant, informative, interesting and within scope of the journal.

Thank you for your valuable comment

2- Introduction section of the manuscript clearly describes importance of cucumber for vegetable production and the agricultural use of glycinebetaine for alleviation of harmful effects of drought. The aim of the study was also clearly described at the end of the introduction section.

Thank you for your valuable comment

3- The materials and methods used in the study were clearly described in the manuscript. Standard methods were given by references.

Thank you for your valuable comment

4- Results were presented in a logical order. The findings of the study were satisfactorily discussed in the related section.

Thank you for your valuable comment

5- Writing style of the manuscript is academic and clear. In my opinion, originality and common influence of the article are quite high, so the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

Thank you for your valuable comment

6- My further comments are included below.

Line 105-106: Is precipitation amount right? It looks very little.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you say it looks little, this region is located in the area of ​​arid and semi-arid lands, and its winters are often cold without precipitation or very little rain.

7- Please capitalize the tables to better track the statistical differences between the data.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we add standard deviation and letters depending on Tukey's HSD test at 0.05 probability level for better tracking the statistical differences between the data

8- Check the table numbers.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We checked it.

9- Give more explanation about GlyBet x irrigation levels interaction in discussion section.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We do our best to explain the interaction effect in discussion as indicated in the revised manuscript.

Once more, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Agriculture (ISSN 2077-0472)  Manuscript ID agriculture-1987012

Title: Deteriorating harmful effects of drought in cucumber by spraying glycinebetaine

Authors: E E Metwaly, Hatim M. Al-Yasi, Esmat F. Ali *, Hamada A. Farouk, Saad Farouk *

 The manuscript is interesting however in the way it is presented, it cannot be accepted for publication. Major changes are required.

The tables and figures must be improved and include the standard deviation and the letters to be able to see the significant differences. The way the data is presented is not correct.

The authors should focus on discussing the results of treatment interactions.

Once this is changed, the reviewer can review it again.

It is also recommended that the results are shown first and then discussed. Separate the two sections Results and Discussion.

I recommend that there be a balance between the number of tables and figures presented in the article to better display the results.

other comments:

In the introduction include crop information.

Line 89 carbohydrate% (separate the % symbol from the word)

Line 106. The physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental soil's profile, which displays clay loam texture down to a depth of 60 cm, were provided in a table.

This information can be included in a table as Supplementary table 1.

 Review the abbreviations in row 1 of the table and complete the abbreviations in footer of table 1 F.C : Field Capacity; W.P.: Welting point; AW: Available water; OM: Organic matter

change to: FC: Field Capacity; WP: Welting point; AW: Available water; OM: Organic matter; pH: Hydrogen potential; EC: Electrical conductance.

Line 116. Is GLYBET® an osmoprotective commercial biostimulant? in Introduction and methodology describe the product (brand).

Line 120. 2.3. Crop husbandry: Also include data on environmental conditions (humidity, temperature, light intensity, photoperiod) for the crop.

 Line 127 cucumber seeds (Cucumus sativus L., cv. Gabar) change to (Cucumis sativus L., cv. Gabar)

the cucumber are certified seeds? include the trader's name and brand

Line 153. LEWC (%)= change to LRWC (%)=

Line 162. EL(%) =on the next line write the complete formula

 Line 164. Water Use efficiency (WUE): Briefly describe the procedure.

Line 174. How dry matter percentage was measured

Line 185 P 0.05 change to P < 0.05

Line 187 Results and Discussion into different sections.

Line 187 Results

Line 189. In tables 2 and 3 should be include the values and ± the standard deviation and the corresponding letters to see the significant differences of the irrigation regimens, the concentrations of GlyBet and the interaction between treatments (125.3± 0.05a).

In table 3. Relative water content % and Electrolyte leakage % change to abbreviations LRWC% and EL%

Table 4 table 4 is not shown (check this).

Table 5 and 6. Same comments as the previous tables, put the standard deviation and the letters that indicate the significant differences between the treatments. Improve the presentation of the table, eliminate vertical lines.

 

Table 6: Some fruit quality trials of cucumber as affected by GlyBet concentration, irriga- 397

tion regimes, and their interactions in both season 2020 and (complete the season 2021

Line 306, 371 ml change to mL

 

Figure 1. It should be improved, A-D the images put in the same format and size, as well as use the same colors or patterns to differentiate the treatments. It is necessary to include the standard deviation and the letters that indicate the significant difference on the bars.

remove the horizontal lines inside the figures. The letters inside the figures in bold

on the "Y" axis put full name Water use efficiency

Author Response

Dear Prof

We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our manuscript. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We think that the manuscript has been greatly improved by these revisions and hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you have noted. The necessary corrections have been written with a track in the manuscript. To facilitate your evaluation, the following is a point by point response to the questions and comments

1- The manuscript is interesting however in the way it is presented, it cannot be accepted for publication. Major changes are required.

Thank you for your time and effort that is increased our manuscript values, following your recommendation

2- The tables and figures must be improved and include the standard deviation and the letters to be able to see the significant differences. The way the data is presented is not correct.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we add standard deviation and letters depending on Tukey's HSD test at 0.05 probability level for better tracking the statistical differences between the data

3- The authors should focus on discussing the results of treatment interactions.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We do our best to explain the interaction effect in discussion as indicated in the revised manuscript.

4- Once this is changed, the reviewer can review it again.

It is also recommended that the results are shown first and then discussed. Separate the two sections Results and Discussion.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we separate the results and discussion into two sections

5- I recommend that there be a balance between the number of tables and figures presented in the article to better display the results.

Thank you for your valuable comment.

6- other comments:

In the introduction include crop information.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we introduce some information about the crop information including the source of seeds and environmental conditions. Please see introduction (line 38-40) and material and methods (Line 130-132)

7- Line 89 carbohydrate% (separate the % symbol from the word)

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we checked all parts of the manuscript and changed

8- Line 106. The physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental soil's profile, which displays clay loam texture down to a depth of 60 cm, were provided in a table.

This information can be included in a table as Supplementary table 1.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The authors need this table indicated in the main text, so please accept our apologies.

9- Review the abbreviations in row 1 of the table and complete the abbreviations in footer of table 1 F.C : Field Capacity; W.P.: Welting point; AW: Available water; OM: Organic matter

change to: FC: Field Capacity; WP: Welting point; AW: Available water; OM: Organic matter; pH: Hydrogen potential; EC: Electrical conductance.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we checked all parts of the manuscript and changed including Table 1

10- Line 116. Is GLYBET® an osmoprotective commercial biostimulant? in Introduction and methodology describe the product (brand).

Thank you for your valuable comment. We are so sorry we used the pure chemical from sigma company (indicated in material and methods) for our research not commercial product. Line 120-121

11- Line 120. 2.3. Crop husbandry: Also include data on environmental conditions (humidity, temperature, light intensity, photoperiod) for the crop.

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we introduce some information about the environmental conditions for the crop in the introduction section Line 38-40.

12- Line 127 cucumber seeds (Cucumus sativus L., cv. Gabar) change to (Cucumis sativus L., cv. Gabar)

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we changed it to C. sativus L., cv. Gabar where they introduced in the introduction section in full name

13- the cucumber are certified seeds? include the trader's name and brand

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we introduce some information about the crop information including the source of seeds , Line 130-132

14- Line 153. LEWC (%)= change to LRWC (%)=

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we changed it.

15- Line 162. EL(%) =on the next line write the complete formula

Thank you for your valuable comment. As indicated in the revised manuscript we changed it.

16-  Line 164. Water Use efficiency (WUE): Briefly describe the procedure.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The WUE was estimated as indicated in the manuscript following the equation of Howell 1994.

17- Line 174. How dry matter percentage was measured

Thank you for your valuable comment. We introduce in the revised manuscript the method of dry matter percentage estimation in the fruit chemical quality section in material and methods

18- Line 185 P 0.05 change to P < 0.05

Thank you for your valuable comment. We changed it in all parts of the manuscript

19- Line 187 Results and Discussion into different sections.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We divide it into two sections, Results, and Discussion

20- Line 187 Results

Thank you for your valuable comment. Ok changed

21- Line 189. In tables 2 and 3 should be include the values and ± the standard deviation and the corresponding letters to see the significant differences of the irrigation regimens, the concentrations of GlyBet and the interaction between treatments (125.3± 0.05a).

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we add standard deviation and letters depending on Tukey's HSD test at 0.05 probability level for better tracking the statistical differences between the data

22- In table 3. Relative water content % and Electrolyte leakage % change to abbreviations LRWC% and EL%

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we add the full name of criteria in the front of Tables and figure

23- Table 4 table 4 is not shown (check this).

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we checked it and correct the table number

24- Table 5 and 6. Same comments as the previous tables, put the standard deviation and the letters that indicate the significant differences between the treatments. Improve the presentation of the table, eliminate vertical lines.

 Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we add standard deviation and letters depending on Tukey's HSD test at 0.05 probability level for better tracking the statistical differences between the data. Also we eliminate all vertical lines

25- Table 6: Some fruit quality trials of cucumber as affected by GlyBet concentration, irriga- 397

tion regimes, and their interactions in both season 2020 and (complete the season 2021

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we checked the title and changed it

26- Line 306, 371 ml change to mL

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we checked all manuscript parts and changed it 

27- Figure 1. It should be improved, A-D the images put in the same format and size, as well as use the same colors or patterns to differentiate the treatments. It is necessary to include the standard deviation and the letters that indicate the significant difference on the bars.remove the horizontal lines inside the figures. The letters inside the figures in bold

on the "Y" axis put full name Water use efficiency

Thank you for your valuable comment. As you can see in the revised manuscript, we add standard deviation and letters depending on Tukey's HSD test at 0.05 probability level for better tracking the statistical differences between the data. Additionally, we do all comments on the figure

Once more, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.docx