Next Article in Journal
Improved SVM-Based Soil-Moisture-Content Prediction Model for Tea Plantation
Next Article in Special Issue
Potential Impacts of Certain N2-Fixing Bacterial Strains and Mineral N Doses for Enhancing the Growth and Productivity of Maize Plants
Previous Article in Journal
The Microbial Connection to Sustainable Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Graphene–Cu Nanocomposites Induce Tolerance against Fusarium oxysporum, Increase Antioxidant Activity, and Decrease Stress in Tomato Plants
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Supplementation of the Plant Conditioner ELICE Vakcina® Product with β-Aminobutyric Acid and Salicylic Acid May Lead to Trans-Priming Signaling in Barley (Hordeum vulgare)

Plants 2023, 12(12), 2308; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122308
by Eszter Virág 1,2,3,*, Márta Kiniczky 1, Barbara Kutasy 4, Ágnes Nagy 1, József Péter Pallos 1, Levente Laczkó 3,5, Csongor Freytag 3 and Géza Hegedűs 1,2,3,6
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Plants 2023, 12(12), 2308; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122308
Submission received: 19 May 2023 / Revised: 7 June 2023 / Accepted: 9 June 2023 / Published: 14 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Biostimulation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the manuscript with interest.

It brings interesting data to the discussion on the use of biostimulants in plant cultivation. 

The introduction introduces the planned scope of the research and adequately indicates the objective. 

The material and methods are correctly presented with the exception of the application process of the enriched biostimulant.

No information is available:

What was the dose of biostimulant per plant? 

How was the biostimulant enriched?

What was the concentration of the substances in the enriched biostimulant?

How was the biostimulant applied to the plants? If spraying, with what device, what nozzle, what pressure?

The results were presented correctly and I have no comments. 

Discussion carried out correctly

Conclusions refer to the research carried out.

References selected and used correctly.

Author Response

We thank you and appreciate the reviewer valuable input on improving the revised version of the manuscript. All the suggestions have been accepted, and the recommended additional information has been incorporated into the manuscript accordingly.

Open Review 1

comments:

 

  1. What was the dose of biostimulant per plant?
  2. How was the biostimulant enriched?
  3. What was the concentration of the substances in the enriched biostimulant?
  4. How was the biostimulant applied to the plants? If spraying, with what device, what nozzle, what pressure?

 

Answere:

The ms. was completed with these informations, such as:

“ The plants were cultivated in a controlled environment using an MLR-352H Panasonic growth chamber. The temperature conditions were as follows: on the first day and night, the temperature was maintained at 25 °C. From the second day to the sixteenth day, the daytime temperature was set at 25 °C, while the nighttime temperature was lowered to 15 °C. The plants followed a photoperiod of 10 hours of light followed by 14 hours of darkness, and the relative humidity was maintained at a constant level of 60±5%.

The priming inducers used for treatment were Na-SA and BABA, prepared in a solution with a concentration of 300 µM and 25 mM respectively, which was added to a solution of EL prepared at a ratio of 0.1 ml per 100 ml of water. The treatment application was carried out using a Bürkle pressure sprayer equipped with an adjustable spray jet, with a nozzle diameter of 0.8 mm. The Arabidopsis leaves were sprayed from multiple angles until they were visibly wet, ensuring complete coverage “

 We are grateful to the reviewer for helping us to shape the manuscript into its current form.

 

 

Thank you

 

Sincerely,

 

Eszter Virág

Reviewer 2 Report

 

General comments:

What is the novelty of the research?

please edit the article with English editing

The structure of plants Journal Materials and method add after discussion! Please revise it.

Why add Table 4 in the discussion part?

References are not based on the MDPI structure.

Specifical comments:

 

Results and discussion are suitable for the article and the article's goal the article.

The conclusion can be changed and focused on your novelty ( it is just my suggestion)

 

please add the version of the software you use it.

 

Author Response

we appreciate the reviewer's valuable input on improving the revised version of the manuscript. All the suggestions have been accepted, and the recommended additional information has been incorporated into the manuscript accordingly.

 

Open Review 2

comments:

 

  1. What is the novelty of the research?
  2. please edit the article with English editing
  3. The structure of plants Journal Materials and method add after discussion! Please revise it.
  4. Why add Table 4 in the discussion part?
  5. References are not based on the MDPI structure.

Specifical comments:

  1. Results and discussion are suitable for the article and the article's goal the article.
  2. The conclusion can be changed and focused on your novelty ( it is just my suggestion)
  3. please add the version of the software you use it.

 

Answere:

  1. The novelty of research was added tot he ms in the conclusion section.
  2. We edited the English of the. ms.
  3. We corrected the structure and relocated the Materials and method section after discussion
  4. Table 4 was added tot he results
  5. References were corrected based ont he MDPI structure
  6. Thank you for finding it suitable
  7. We introduced into the conclusion section the novelty of the research and after we summarize briefly the significance of experimental results 
  8. We added the used software versions.

 We are grateful to the reviewer for helping us to shape the manuscript into its current form.

 

 

Thank you

Sincerely,

Eszter Virág

Back to TopTop