Algae Extract Increases Seed Production of Soybean Plants and Alters Nitrogen Metabolism
, Daniela Feltrim 1, Mayara Rodrigues 1, João Leonardo Corte Baptistella 1 and Paulo Mazzafera 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript “ Algae extract increases seed production of soybean plants and 2 alters nitrogen metabolism” is a good and informative study but had some minor corrections. Below are some comments/suggestion for the authors to improve its quality:
Reduce the % of plagiarism upto 10%
Language should be improvised.
In Abstract section methodology of study should be included.
Also abstract section should include some conclusive statements.
Introduction section must include the need and significance of study.
Line 32: Correct to not o only
Line 32-34: Rewrite, confusing
Line 36: Correct (NH4+) to (NH4+)
Line 94: Correct K2O to K2O
Line 103: R5.1 stage ?? is it R5 stage
Conclusions
The conclusions are too general, format according to future aspects. Please make them more specific.
Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation
Cross check all references and style of reference according to Journal format, use abbreviation of journal name in reference
Main manuscript also include methodology section; clearly stating inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The writing could be improved by strengthening the connectivity between paragraphs. There are several places where new topics are introduced and connections to the previous subject are not clear. Read whole manuscript and correct wherever required.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Reduce the % of plagiarism upto 10%
REPLY - Unfortunately, this is near impossible. The plagiarism tracking system considered author addresses, the footnote identifying the publication, three words-sentence, and classical methodological descriptions…. The highest match (3%) was with Danielle Horz (first author) MSc thesis in Portuguese.
Language should be improvised.
REPLY – it was improved
In Abstract section methodology of study should be included.
REPLY – it was improved
Also abstract section should include some conclusive statements.
REPLY – it was improved
Introduction section must include the need and significance of study.
REPLY – It was included at the end of the section (the text was highlighted in yellow)
Line 32: Correct to not o only
REPLY - corrected
Line 32-34: Rewrite, confusing
REPLY - corrected
Line 36: Correct (NH4+) to (NH4+)
REPLY - corrected
Line 94: Correct K2O to K2O
REPLY - corrected
Line 103: R5.1 stage ?? is it R5 stage
REPLY – Some Brazilian researchers split R5 stage in 3 sub-stages. But we changed to R5.
Conclusions
The conclusions are too general, format according to future aspects. Please make them more specific.
REPLY - We included a more specific conclusion
Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation
REPLY – we made several changes in the text to improve reading. The text was read by a native-speaking English
Cross check all references and style of reference according to Journal format, use abbreviation of journal name in reference
REPLY – Checked
Main manuscript also include methodology section; clearly stating inclusion and exclusion criteria.
REPLY – this was verified too
The writing could be improved by strengthening the connectivity between paragraphs. There are several places where new topics are introduced and connections to the previous subject are not clear. Read whole manuscript and correct wherever required.
REPLY – we made several changes in the text to improve reading. The text was read by a native-speaking English
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments about the article on “ Algae extract increases seed production of soybean plants and 2 alters nitrogen metabolism”
- Abstract is not written well, rewrite it, mention V3, V5 and R 5.1.
- Objective of the study can be modified properly Line number 76-77.
- Line number 86, content of modified nutrient solution
- Line number, correct as once in a week
- Line number 95; correct this sentence- using 1 ml per pot on the sown 95 seeds.
- Line number 98; whether it is Rhizospray??
- What is R5-1 stage?
- Line number 109, After leaves collection?
- Line number, 153-154, The plants were cultivated equally in the second experiment but brought to full ma-153 turity to analyze the yield components
- Modify statistical analysis part.
- Even though the content of artice is useful, a lot of grammatical errors are observed, modify the article thoroughly.
English language should be improved.
Author Response
Abstract is not written well, rewrite it, mention V3, V5 and R 5.1.
REPLY – we improved the abstract and removed the citation of these phenological stages
Objective of the study can be modified properly Line number 76-77.
REPLY – modified as requested
Line number 86, content of modified nutrient solution
REPLY – Hoagland solutions, published for the first time in 1938 and then in 1950, are so well known and used by plant investigation that it does not make sense to include the whole modified solution. They can even be found on Wikipedia. Additionally, they are made of several stock solutions mixed in different proportions, demanding to include a table in the article.
Line number, correct as once in a week
REPLY – corrected to “once in a week”
Line number 95; correct this sentence- using 1 ml per pot on the sown 95 seeds.
REPLY – corrected
Line number 98; whether it is Rhizospray??
REPLY – it is an adjuvant to break water tension. This is quite common to use in agriculture to better spread the drops on the leaf surface.
What is R5-1 stage?
REPLY – corrected to R5.
Line number 109, After leaves collection?
REPLY – we described in the previous lines that leaves were collected for several purposes. We changed to “After that”.
Line number, 153-154, The plants were cultivated equally in the second experiment but brought to full ma-153 turity to analyze the yield components
REPLY – we changed to “We repeated the first experiment using the same growth conditions and cultivated the soybean plants to full maturity to analyze the yield components.”
Modify statistical analysis part.
REPLY – we simplified the statistical description
Even though the content of artice is useful, a lot of grammatical errors are observed, modify the article thoroughly.
REPLY - we made several changes in the text to improve reading. The text was read by a native-speaking English
Reviewer 3 Report
Detailed comments:
1) “…once during the role phenological cycle…” ?
2) The notation of measurement units (e.g. kg/ha) should be in accordance with the SI system.
3) L 63: the full name Ascophyllum nodosum should be given, as it appears in the main part of the manuscript for the first time..
4) L 86: Please state the composition of the fertiliser used as "a modified nutrient solution".
5) L 94: The notation K2O should be corrected.
6) L 158-161: „…foliar application X treatments (AE 0.25%, AE 0.50%, and control) X six replicates…” - I suggest rewording. Please describe the schemes of both pot experiments more precisely. A more detailed description for each experiment (experimental layout, number of factors and their levels) should be included in subsection 2.1 Experimental design and treatments.
7) L 171: The authors state "the two application methods tested" - this needs to be explained more precisely.
8) The expression 'Treatments' in the head of Tables 2 and 3 is incorrect. In this column, the authors list the soybean plant features studied. A similar remark applies to Table 4.
9) Abbreviations used in the tables should be explained below the tables, e.g. "D.W." in Table 2 and Table 3.
10) Why is the K, Mg and S content of the leaves given in Table 5, but not done for the N, P and Ca content ? After all, the composition of AE from A. nodosum also includes N, P and Ca.
11) I suggest to create a Conclusion chapter.
Author Response
1) “…once during the role phenological cycle…” ?
REPLY - changed
2) The notation of measurement units (e.g. kg/ha) should be in accordance with the SI system.
REPLY – corrected
3) L 63: the full name Ascophyllum nodosum should be given, as it appears in the main part of the manuscript for the first time.
REPLY – corrected
4) L 86: Please state the composition of the fertiliser used as "a modified nutrient solution".
REPLY – Hoagland solutions, published for the first time in 1938 and then in 1950, are so well known and used by plant investigation that it does not make sense to include the whole modified solution. They can even be found on Wikipedia. Additionally, they are made of several stock solutions mixed in different proportions, demanding to include a table in the article.
5) L 94: The notation K2O should be corrected.
REPLY – corrected
6) L 158-161: „…foliar application X treatments (AE 0.25%, AE 0.50%, and control) X six replicates…” - I suggest rewording. Please describe the schemes of both pot experiments more precisely. A more detailed description for each experiment (experimental layout, number of factors and their levels) should be included in subsection 2.1 Experimental design and treatments.
REPLY – we changed the writing of this section
7) L 171: The authors state "the two application methods tested" - this needs to be explained more precisely.
REPLY – text was changed
8) The expression 'Treatments' in the head of Tables 2 and 3 is incorrect. In this column, the authors list the soybean plant features studied. A similar remark applies to Table 4.
REPLY – we removed “treatments” from these tables
9) Abbreviations used in the tables should be explained below the tables, e.g. "D.W." in Table 2 and Table 3.
REPLY – we changed to dry weight
10) Why is the K, Mg and S content of the leaves given in Table 5, but not done for the N, P and Ca content ? After all, the composition of AE from A. nodosum also includes N, P and Ca.
REPLY – they were done, but since there were no statistical differences between application modes (foliar and seed applications) there is no reason to present the values for both tissues. Opposite to that, there were differences for K, Mg and S, thus being indicated in the table.
11) I suggest to create a Conclusion chapter.
REPLY – Included, as requested
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Accepted in present form
Author Response
Although the reviewer marked the items regarding the research design, methods, results and conclusion, she/he did not indicate anything in the text. So I kept it as it is. I understood that the requested changes are those marked in yellow at the end of the introduction.
