Biostimulants in the Production of Forage Grasses and Turfgrasses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript agriculture_2548027 Mackiewicz-Walec and Olszewska review the utilization of plant biostimulants for forage grasses and turfgrasses. There are not many reviews on this subject, so the manuscript could bring some contribution to the field of plant biostimulants and would be of some interest to the readers. Unfortunately, I think the manuscript has some serious flaws and needs major improvements before considering it for publication.

1.       The abstract must be reduced to max. 200 words and reorganized.

2.       I consider that the mention regarding phenolic compounds as synthetic biostimulants must be deleted (please see below).

The authors included among plant biostimulants, plant growth regulators nitrophenolates, i.e., para-nitrophenol sodium salt, ortho-nitrophenol sodium salt, 5-nitroguaiacol sodium salt. This is a common mistake of Polish authors that in my opinion confuse the agricultural inputs categories. According to the EU Commission, the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 lays down the list of active substances approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009: nitrophenolates are listed as active substances in plant protection products under points ”272. Sodium 5- nitroguaiacolate (Sodium 2-methoxy-5- nitrophenolates), 273. Sodium o-nitrophenolate (Sodium 2-nitrophenolate; sodium o-nitrophenolates), and 274. Sodium p-nitrophenolate (Sodium 4-nitrophenolate; sodium p- nitrophenolates)”, whereby they are approved to be used as plant growth regulators, e.g., active substances for plant protection uses. The authors have a whole subsection related to Regulations. The following is mentioned regarding the Polish Regulation: ”The following products and substances that improve plant growth are listed in Article 2, points 7-10a, of the Act of 10 July 2007 on fertilizers and fertilization [14]: …. 2. growth promoters – organic or mineral substances or mixtures thereof that promote plant development and other life processes in plants, which are not classified as fertilizing products in the EU, excluding growth regulators defined as plant protection products in plant protection regulations.” Not only in EU nitrophenolates are plant protection products. Please remove nitrophenolates from the manuscript and revise accordingly.

A slightly different situation is regarding chitosan. Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 563/2014 is approving the basic substance chitosan hydrochloride in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. In the case of chitosan, its registration as basic substance offers some possibilities to be used also as biostimulant – please check Molecules 2022, 27(9), 2801; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27092801.

3.       The authors used too much commercial names of the plant biostimulants. A scientific paper is not a promotional material for companies. The authors must revise the use of the commercial names.

4.       Introduction Section must be revised and more focused on the topics. Redundant information must be deleted. The repeat sentence must be avoided, e.g., ”However, the responses of grasses to biostimulants have not been researched extensively to date” (Introduction, paragraph 2), ”However, the efficacy of biostimulants in grass production has not been widely investigated to date” (Introduction, paragraph 3).

5.       The authors mention in Introduction that they will describe the mechanism of action. They cited the theory of Yakhin et al. regarding plant biostimulants as complex chemical systems characterized by emergence. Their comment on this theory is confusing: ”This definition contributes very important information by indicating that a product's biological function can be influenced by particles or combinations of particles whose mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated. The above suggests a particle's mechanism of action is more important than its mode of action. If a given particle is responsible for a biostimulant's biological function, the preparation should be classified based on the discovered function.” Particle(s)? The “particle” term here is unsuitable. Moreover, the second sentence is not clear, what the authors mean by “mechanism” versus “mode” and how and what exactly of “the above” suggests that claim. Please revise and rewrite in a more comprehensible manner.

6.       Figure 1 must be revised – by definition plant biostimulants do not include plant nutrients and plant nutrients are not plant biostimulants. Synthetic biostimulants are mainly those already registered as plant protection products. Same observation is valid for subsections 3.2.1. Nutrients and phenolic acids and 4.2.1. Nutrients. For example, soluble silicon is still considered a plant biostimulants and not a nutrient. The authors must develop here, based on the following suggested articles - Savvas, D., & Ntatsi, G. (2015). Biostimulant activity of silicon in horticulture. Scientia Horticulturae, 196, 66-81. Brown, P. H., Zhao, F. J., & Dobermann, A. (2022). What is a plant nutrient? Changing definitions to advance science and innovation in plant nutrition. Plant and Soil, 476(1-2), 11-23.

7.       The Subsection 3.2, Synthetic biostimulants must be reorganized and revised. Natural compounds (i.e., Silvit is a natural growth biostimulant which contains plant-available silicon) or nanoformulation with biobased compounds of mineral nutrient are not synthetic.

8.       Conclusion Section must be reduced, it is too long.

9.       Author Contributions is not described.

10.   Value of the funding project is not relevant for the value of the manuscript and must be deleted.

11.   Bibliography must be checked and corrected.

Some editing of English language is needed, for example the genitive case is not used properly: the singular 's or plural s' should not be used with inanimate objects (such as "particle" for example). The noun in this case can be used as an adjective or with the preposition "of".

Author Response

In the manuscript agriculture_2548027 Mackiewicz-Walec and Olszewska review the utilization of plant biostimulants for forage grasses and turfgrasses. There are not many reviews on this subject, so the manuscript could bring some contribution to the field of plant biostimulants and would be of some interest to the readers. Unfortunately, I think the manuscript has some serious flaws and needs major improvements before considering it for publication.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and guidance, which have assisted in enhancing the quality of my manuscript. Since there are not many review papers available on the subject of grasses, and navigating through regulatory information can be challenging, I felt it necessary to write this paper to systematise the available information. Amendments to the review are emphasised in red.

1. The abstract must be reduced to max. 200 words and reorganized.

Thank you for your insightful observation. I completely concur with this view. The abstract has been reduced to 154 words and reorganized.

2. I consider that the mention regarding phenolic compounds as synthetic biostimulants must be deleted (please see below).

The authors included among plant biostimulants, plant growth regulators nitrophenolates, i.e., para-nitrophenol sodium salt, ortho-nitrophenol sodium salt, 5-nitroguaiacol sodium salt. This is a common mistake of Polish authors that in my opinion confuse the agricultural inputs categories. According to the EU Commission, the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 lays down the list of active substances approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009: nitrophenolates are listed as active substances in plant protection products under points ”272. Sodium 5- nitroguaiacolate (Sodium 2-methoxy-5- nitrophenolates), 273. Sodium o-nitrophenolate (Sodium 2-nitrophenolate; sodium o-nitrophenolates), and 274. Sodium p-nitrophenolate (Sodium 4-nitrophenolate; sodium p- nitrophenolates)”, whereby they are approved to be used as plant growth regulators, e.g., active substances for plant protection uses. The authors have a whole subsection related to Regulations. The following is mentioned regarding the Polish Regulation: ”The following products and substances that improve plant growth are listed in Article 2, points 7-10a, of the Act of 10 July 2007 on fertilizers and fertilization [14]: …. 2. growth promoters – organic or mineral substances or mixtures thereof that promote plant development and other life processes in plants, which are not classified as fertilizing products in the EU, excluding growth regulators defined as plant protection products in plant protection regulations.” Not only in EU nitrophenolates are plant protection products. Please remove nitrophenolates from the manuscript and revise accordingly.

A slightly different situation is regarding chitosan. Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 563/2014 is approving the basic substance chitosan hydrochloride in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. In the case of chitosan, its registration as basic substance offers some possibilities to be used also as biostimulant – please check Molecules 2022, 27(9), 2801; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27092801.

Thank you for your fair comment and full explanation.

There is a great deal of confusion in the biostimulant market. The lack of uniform legislation governing the marketing of such preparations throughout the Community creates difficulties in correctly classifying products with stimulating and, equally often, nutritional effects into the appropriate category of products listed in the Fertilisers and Fertilisation Act. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

2. The authors used too much commercial names of the plant biostimulants. A scientific paper is not a promotional material for companies. The authors must revise the use of the commercial names.

As commercial names often appear in articles, I decided to include them in my manuscript. On the other hand, on reflection, I think it may look like product promotion. Following a valuable suggestion, changes have been made and commercial product names have been removed. Thanks for your fair comments.

4. Introduction Section must be revised and more focused on the topics. Redundant information must be deleted. The repeat sentence must be avoided, e.g., ”However, the responses of grasses to biostimulants have not been researched extensively to date” (Introduction, paragraph 2), ”However, the efficacy of biostimulants in grass production has not been widely investigated to date” (Introduction, paragraph 3).

Thank you for your valuable input. The introduction has been revised, and irrelevant material has been omitted. The introduction provides a clearer overview of the subject matter.

5. The authors mention in Introduction that they will describe the mechanism of action. They cited the theory of Yakhin et al. regarding plant biostimulants as complex chemical systems characterized by emergence. Their comment on this theory is confusing: ”This definition contributes very important information by indicating that a product's biological function can be influenced by particlesor combinations of particles whose mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated. The above suggests a particle's mechanism of action is more important than its mode of action. If a given particle is responsible for a biostimulant's biological function, the preparation should be classified based on the discovered function.” Particle(s)? The “particle” term here is unsuitable. Moreover, the second sentence is not clear, what the authors mean by “mechanism” versus “mode” and how and what exactly of “the above” suggests that claim. Please revise and rewrite in a more comprehensible manner.

I fully support this proposal. The sentence containing the word 'particle' may potentially confuse the reader, and the mental shortcut may not be completely evident. I believe that it is reasonable to indicate other definitions without delving into-depth interpretations.  

6. Figure 1 must be revised – by definition plant biostimulants do not include plant nutrients and plant nutrients are not plant biostimulants. Synthetic biostimulants are mainly those already registered as plant protection products. Same observation is valid for subsections 3.2.1. Nutrients and phenolic acids and 4.2.1. Nutrients. For example, soluble silicon is still considered a plant biostimulants and not a nutrient. The authors must develop here, based on the following suggested articles - Savvas, D., & Ntatsi, G. (2015). Biostimulant activity of silicon in horticulture. Scientia Horticulturae, 196, 66-81. Brown, P. H., Zhao, F. J., & Dobermann, A. (2022). What is a plant nutrient? Changing definitions to advance science and innovation in plant nutrition. Plant and Soil, 476(1-2), 11-23.

Figures and subsections 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 have been rewritten, and the nutrients and phenolic acids of plants have been excluded. Most synthetic biostimulants are already listed as plant protection products. The same observation also pertains to subsection 3.2.1.

7. The Subsection 3.2, Syntheticbiostimulants must be reorganized and revised. Natural compounds (i.e., Silvit is a natural growth biostimulant which contains plant-available silicon) or nanoformulation with biobased compounds of mineral nutrient are not synthetic.

Subsection 3.2 on synthetic biostimulants has been reorganised and amended. Silvit has been included in the natural biostimulants category.

8. Conclusion Section must be reduced, it is too long.

The summary has been abridged. Thank you for your kind attention.

9. Author Contributions is not described.

The authors have contributed to the article. Thank you for your valuable guidance.

10. Value of the funding project is not relevant for the value of the manuscript and must be deleted.

The value of the funded project is irrelevant to the manuscript's value; hence we've removed the sentence trailing this.

However, the funding remains intact as it will be used to cover the costs of translation and journal inclusion.

11. Bibliography must be checked and corrected.

The bibliography has been verified and rectified.

Thank you for your very insightful and comprehensive review.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

congrats on the manuscript, but there are things that need to be changed to match the principles of MDPI. I will announce them below:

Abstract: 245 words. MDPI recommends 200 words, so please shorten this section. It is also necessary to rewrite the entire chapter, because the text is not coherent, there is no connection between the main ideas. Please rephrase and do not include any part that may not be fully explained or is based on assumptions.

The same problem with the introduction. It's like the sentences are thrown next to each other. Please write again. The literature is good, but the wording is not.

The same applies to the article. There is no connection between thoughts and sentences. There is no logical chain. Please rephrase.

The manuscript is currently 28 pages long. A tiny part of this is actually about herbs. Delete or condense the general descriptions that have already appeared elsewhere, because there are too many descriptions of general effects. You should rather concentrate on the grasses and give a much more detailed description of them. Because that's not good. The entire text needs to be completely restructured. Literature related to herbs should be in the main place, not everything else.

The article is formally incorrect. It's not out of line and I don't think the font is good either.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The overview article is about the relationship between grasses and biostimulators.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?

The topic of the draft article would be good in principle, but unfortunately the quality is not adequate at the moment. There is little description that really and concretely talks about the relationship between biostimulators and grasses and their results so far.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?

Although in very few parts, it presents the relationship between grasses and biostimulants and their results so far.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?

General parts should be shortened or deleted and made much more specific.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?

no. The form is not correct.
6. Are the references appropriate?

No, it is too broad and instead of a lot, the topic mentioned in the title should really be explained.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, I can't see the manuscript, but as far as I remember, they weren't in it.

Due to the English language, the manuscript needs to be reviewed again.

Author Response

Dear Authors,

congrats on the manuscript, but there are things that need to be changed to match the principles of MDPI. I will announce them below:

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and guidance, which have assisted in enhancing the quality of my manuscript. Since there are not many review papers available on the subject of grasses, and navigating through regulatory information can be challenging, I felt it necessary to write this paper to systematise the available information. Amendments to the review are emphasised in red.

Abstract: 245 words. MDPI recommends 200 words, so please shorten this section. It is also necessary to rewrite the entire chapter, because the text is not coherent, there is no connection between the main ideas. Please rephrase and do not include any part that may not be fully explained or is based on assumptions.

Thank you for your insightful observation. I completely concur with this view. The abstract has been reduced to 154 words.

The same problem with the introduction. It's like the sentences are thrown next to each other. Please write again. The literature is good, but the wording is not.

Thank you for your valuable input. The introduction has been revised, and irrelevant material has been omitted. The introduction provides a clearer overview of the subject matter.

The same applies to the article. There is no connection between thoughts and sentences. There is no logical chain. Please rephrase.

The manuscript is currently 28 pages long. A tiny part of this is actually about herbs. Delete or condense the general descriptions that have already appeared elsewhere, because there are too many descriptions of general effects. You should rather concentrate on the grasses and give a much more detailed description of them. Because that's not good. The entire text needs to be completely restructured. Literature related to herbs should be in the main place, not everything else.

Thank you for your comment. The article no longer contains generic descriptions

The article is formally incorrect. It's not out of line and I don't think the font is good either.

Whilst writing the article, I utilised a pre-designed Microsoft Word template that was obtainable on the Agriculture website via the "Submission Checklist" section. It is possible that the document was reformatted to a different version of Word by opening it.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The overview article is about the relationship between grasses and biostimulators.

I agree. Our primary aim was to demonstrate the impact of biostimulants on forage and turf grasses.

It transpires that there is limited research done in this area and a mounting interest in these preparations.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
   address a specific gap in the field?

The topic of the draft article would be good in principle, but unfortunately the quality is not adequate at the moment. There is little description that really and concretely talks about the relationship between biostimulators and grasses and their results so far.

I believe that the proposed topic is pertinent to the field. I have not come across an article where such an assembly can be presented together. To my mind, there is information within it that could be helpful to the reader.

3. 
   What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
   material?

Although in very few parts, it presents the relationship between grasses and biostimulants and their results so far.

In comparison to other materials, this article comprehensively covers the effects of biostimulants on specific plant species. Most articles dedicated to biostimulants usually concentrate on the effects of one or a few of them. However, this article covers all of their effects together.

While writing this article, I aimed to introduce the reader briefly to a specific preparation when searching for information on the effects of biostimulants on grasses. Therefore, I included a lot of general descriptions and also presented the research that has been carried out and its findings. Furthermore, it demonstrates the problem associated with the classification and definition of biostimulants.

4. 
   What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
   methodology? What further controls should be considered?

General parts should be shortened or deleted and made much more specific.

Thank you for your objective feedback and guidance. The emergence of the methodology issue is certainly interesting and will undoubtedly enhance the article. As recommended, the article has been revised accordingly.

5. 
   Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
   and do they address the main question posed?
6. The form is not correct.
   
   

Thank you for your feedback. As recommended, we have altered the outcomes.

6. Are the references appropriate?

No, it is too broad and instead of a lot, the topic mentioned in the title should really be explained.

The article has been updated to provide a deeper exploration of the topic.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, I can't see the manuscript, but as far as I remember, they weren't in it.

The tables and figures have been corrected.

Thank you for your very insightful and comprehensive review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have partially improved the manuscript, but there are still some issues to be addressed and the manuscript reorganized.

1. Subchapter 2.2  has the title "Biostimulants definitions and classification" (using the plural here is not appropriate in this format, it should be either Biostimulant definition or Definition of biostimulants), and describes biostimulants in general terms, but Table 2 is with grasses. If chapter 2 remains as general description, Table 2 should be moved and discussed in chapter 3.

2. In my opinion subchapter 2.2 does not need a Table, chapter 2 being already relatively too long, considering that the aim of the paper is not to describe biostimulants in general.

3. In Chapter 3 and 4, the authors introduced new Information about the mechanisms proposed in various papers. I think a brief conclusion at the end of each subchapter and/or at least at the end of chapter 3 and respectively chapter 4 summarizing and trying to unify the mechanisms proposed by various researchers would add value to the manuscript.

4. I still find the Conclusions too long. Not clear why the authors decided to select HA and PH to describe in this section. I would remove this or add it in the corresponding sections, if the Information does not repeat itself. If the authors want to add brief conclusions for each biostimulant type, it should be added at the end of each subchapter/chapter.

 

Please check English language again, there are still problems with the genitive used in the wrong manner.

Author Response

The authors have partially improved the manuscript, but there are still some issues to be addressed and the manuscript reorganized.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your valuable contribution and dedication to the process of reviewing my work.  I would like to inform you that I have made some revisions to the manuscript and highlighted them in purple.

I hope this change will facilitate the identification of the introduced modifications and speed up the review process. I hope this change will facilitate the identification of the introduced modifications and speed up the review process. Thank you for your time and attention.

1. Subchapter 2.2  has the title "Biostimulants definitions and classification" (using the plural here is not appropriate in this format, it should be either Biostimulant definition or Definition of biostimulants), and describes biostimulants in general terms, but Table 2 is with grasses. If chapter 2 remains as general description, Table 2 should be moved and discussed in chapter 3.

The subheading title has been corrected according to the guidelines.   The use of the plural form was not appropriate in this context, so it has been changed to "Biostimulant definition and classification". Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion.

I completely agree with the comment. Table 2 has been moved and its description has been added in Chapter 3.  I agree that it was definitely better to include it in the chapter that deals with describing grass instead of the chapter that introduces the topic. Thank you for your opinion.

2. In my opinion subchapter 2.2 does not need a Table, chapter 2 being already relatively too long, considering that the aim of the paper is not to describe biostimulants in general.

Thank you for bringing up the length of chapter 2.2 and suggesting the use of a table.   Chapter 2 is already quite extensive, and the article's goal is not to provide a detailed description of biostimulators in general.

I agree with your point of view. I agree with your point of view. I would like to inform you that the table has been expanded and moved to the relevant chapters 3 and 4, which I hope has contributed to a better structure and conciseness of the text.

I agree with your point of view. Thank you for your assistance and valuable input.

3. In Chapter 3 and 4, the authors introduced new Information about the mechanisms proposed in various papers. I think a brief conclusion at the end of each subchapter and/or at least at the end of chapter 3 and respectively chapter 4 summarizing and trying to unify the mechanisms proposed by various researchers would add value to the manuscript.

Your comments were inspiring and encouraged me to seek further information. Consequently, I have opted to augment the article with more in-depth explanations of the mechanisms of action.Based on the existing literature, I am of the opinion that this addition will enhance the article's worth and render it more engrossing to the reader. Therefore, in accordance with your suggestion, I have added concise conclusions on the action mechanism of each preparation in grasses at the end of Chapters 3 and 4.

Thank you for your attention and constructive criticism, which proved invaluable in refining my work.  Hopefully, the article is now more comprehensive and beneficial.

4. I still find the Conclusions too long. Not clear why the authors decided to select HA and PH to describe in this section. I would remove this or add it in the corresponding sections, if the Information does not repeat itself. If the authors want to add brief conclusions for each biostimulant type, it should be added at the end of each subchapter/chapter.

Thank you for your latest comment regarding the proposals' length and your specific suggestion.

I would like to inform you that the conclusions have been revised in accordance with your recommendation. I realized that the summary was excessively long, potentially impeding readability.

 

*Please check English language again, there are still problems with the genitive used in the wrong manner.

 

Thank you for your comments on the English language in the manuscript. I have reviewed the text carefully and made the necessary corrections to address problems with the complement usage. Your comments were highly valuable in identifying these errors, and I am thankful for your help in enhancing the manuscript's overall quality.

 

Thank you for your constructive review.

 

Best regards,

Ewa Mackiewicz-Walec

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thanks for the revision. Please keep working on it, after that it will be good for sure. Please correct the following:

Chapter 2 is unreasonably long. Delete most of it and leave only a few thoughts that can be linked to the previous chapter. Anything that is not directly related to grasses does not need to be included because it has no novelty value.

3.1.3. and 3.1.4. this is also the case with subsections. Please keep it short and focus on the topic described in the title.

The manuscript is not formally correct - neither the numbering of the lines nor the form of the References.

Please supplement the remaining parts with a table or diagram.

Author Response

Dear Authors,

thanks for the revision. Please keep working on it, after that it will be good for sure. Please correct the following:

I would like to express my wholehearted gratitude for your invaluable contribution and active participation in the review process of my paper. Your proficient scrutiny, suggestions and constructive feedback have substantially enhanced the standard of my paper. I found your expertise and guidance highly valuable and motivating. Thank you for your dedicated time and efforts towards refining my work.

I thought it apt to inform you that I have made the necessary corrections to the manuscript and highlighted them in purple. I hope that this alteration will simplify the identification of the revisions made and expedite the reviewing procedure. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration.

Chapter 2 is unreasonably long. Delete most of it and leave only a few thoughts that can be linked to the previous chapter. Anything that is not directly related to grasses does not need to be included because it has no novelty value.

Thank you for your feedback on Chapter 2. My objective in writing this chapter was to present a summary of the key concerns related to the subject matter and to emphasise the challenges that arise within the framework of the legislation. In light of your suggestions, I have made revisions to the material, and have implemented the following changes:

I have streamlined the significant ideas and information that are noteworthy and can be correlated with the preceding chapter, while also prioritising the regulatory concerns.

I have verified that Chapter 2's information is now more precise and focused on the pertinent regulatory concerns and their influence on the subject of the investigation.

I appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that these revisions have made Chapter 2 more suitable in terms of length and emphasis on the pertinent regulatory aspects of the study.

3.1.3. and 3.1.4. this is also the case with subsections. Please keep it short and focus on the topic described in the title.

Thank you for your feedback on the conciseness and relevance of sections 3.1.3. and 3.1.4. Following your guidance, I have eliminated superfluous content and honed in on the subjects outlined in their headings. I hope that they are now more concise and relevant.

The manuscript is not formally correct - neither the numbering of the lines nor the form of the References.

Thank you for your feedback and guidance regarding my manuscript. I am pleased to inform you that I have made the necessary amendments to the paper as recommended. The manuscript now includes line numbers, the abstract text has been realigned, and the Bibliography citation style has been updated to comply with the journal's requirements.

Please supplement the remaining parts with a table or diagram.

I would like to inform you that we have made suitable changes to the document. We have included graphic images that illustrate the mechanisms of biostimulants, particularly in relation to abiotic and biotic stresses in grasses. Additionally, the table outlining the effects of biostimulants has been split into two sections and substantially expanded. We trust that these modifications will meet your expectations and enhance the quality of the document.

Furthermore, I have taken special care to ensure the tables and graphs meet the formal requirements of the journal.

Thank you for your helpful review.

 

Best regards,

Ewa Mackiewicz-Walec.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx