Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s:

In general terms the paper is clearly written, although several editing and/or writing corrections should be made throughout the manuscript.

The experimental design seems appropriate to evaluate the effect of water deficit and biostimulants on some key aspects of plant growth and metabolism. One of my main concerns has to do with the colorimetric method used for the determination of total phenolic compounds in the extracts, since “controls” aimed to differentiate the proportion of color development due to the presence of interfering compounds were not included, which may lead to misestimations of the desired trait. Please see specific comments and suggestions on this aspect in the revised manuscript file attached.  This question should be considered when discussing the data.

On the other hand, the discussion section is mostly descriptive, with few attempts aimed at integrating the physiological changes with the growth responses observed. This makes it difficult to provide a theoretical basis for understanding the mechanism of action of the biostimulants on the responses to water deficit, which was intended to be a central objective of the present research. Authors are encouraged to rephrase and/or expand some parts of the discussion with this premise in mind.

 

Please find detailed comments on these and other subjects in the revised file attached

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

List of changes in the revised paper:

Dear Professor

Thanks for your comments about improvement of this paper. We eagerly used your comments in revised version of paper and more description around the changes in revised paper is presented at following.

 

Thanks for your attention and helpful comments.

 

 

Line 60: Correct the spacing; Thanks, “biostimulant s” edited to “biostimulants”

Line 62: Correct the spacing; Thanks, “biostimulant s” edited to “biostimulants”

 

Line 110: pots??, plants?? Please specify where appropriate the number of plants tested per each replicate.

Thanks,

In revised version Line 115; Edited “three pots and three plants replications”.

 

Line 111-113: The design has two factors: One is water deficit (with four levels) and the other is the type of biostimulant (with also four levels considering the control).

Thanks

In revised version line 115-120; edited to “The design has two factors: One is water deficit (WD) with four levels of; WD0 (100% Field Capacity; FC), WD1 (80% FC), WD2 (60% FC), and WD3 (40% FC), and water deficit treatments were applied based on the daily weight of the pots. The other is the type of biostimulants (with also four types considering the control) include”

 

Line 116: Please specify the procedure as well as the type and proportion of inoculant used

Thanks;

The Commercial form of Mycorrhiza bio-fertilizer (Mycoroot) were prepared of Zist fanavar Pishtaz Varian, Iran; This fertilizer Contains three arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi strains (Glomus mosseae, Glomus intraradices, Glomus etunicatum) with 107 -108 CFU/gr (https://bio-zpv.com/en).

 

 

Line 142: This general method for the determination of polyphenolic (or total phenolic) compounds is not specific, and the presence of other reactive metabolites may lead to erroneous estimates of their content. Samples treated with PVPP, for example, should be included as reaction controls to differentiate the proportion of color development (and hence absorbance readings) due to the presence of interfering compounds. Please see the following references for further details:

- Sánchez-Rangl et al. (2013)  Anal. Methods, 5, 5990.  DOI: 10.1039/c3ay41125g

- Bastola et al. (2017):  American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 8, 416-431 (https://doi.org/10.4236/ajac.2017.86032)

- Nardini, M., and Garaguso, I. (2018).  Effect of Sulfites on Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols, and Flavonoid Measurements in White Wine. Foods 7(3), 35 doi:10.3390/foods7030035

 

In revised version line 154: and PVPP were used to remove non phenolic combinations.

23- Nardini, M.; Garaguso, I. Effect of Sulfites on Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols, and Flavonoid Measurements in White Wine. Foods 2018, 7, 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7030035

 

 

Line 183: “liner”

Thanks, in revised version line 195: edited to “linear”

 

Line 235: “carotenoid”

Thanks, in revised version line 323: edited to “carotenoids”

 

Line 249: The method used for carbohydrates determination comprises both primary and secondary metabolites, hence they should not be grouped with typically secondary metabolites such as phenolic compounds

 

Thanks; in revised version line 333-334; title edited to “Table 8. Results of variance analysis of experimental factors on tuberose carbohydrates and secondary metabolites” 

 

Thanks; in revised version line 334: Table 8 edited; “phenol, carotenoid and carbohydrate” edited to “phenolic compounds, carotenoids, carbohydrates”   

 

Line 251: “compression”

in revised version line 203: edited to “comparison”

Line 265: “acid humic”

Thanks; in revised version line 249, 288: edited to "humic acid"

Line 282: “biostimulant s”

Thanks; in revised version line 282: edited to “biostimulants”

Line 292: “io-stimulant”

Thanks; in revised version line 297: edited to “bio-stimulant”

Line 309: “biostimulant s”

Thanks; in revised version line 329: edited to “biostimulants”

Line 315: “phenol compound”

Thanks; in revised version line 332: edited to “phenolic compounds”

Line 336: “Zinnia elegans”

Thanks; in revised version line 383: presented in italic form “Zinnia elegans”.

Line 340: “biostimulant s”

Thanks; in revised version line 387: edited to “biostimulants”

Line 341: “on enhance”

Thanks; in revised version line 388: edited to “to enhance”

Line 344: “biostimulant s”

Thanks; in revised version line 394: edited to “biostimulants”

Line 375: of ROS???

The writing of this whole sentence is confusing. Please rephrase and briefly explain how can ROS affect chlorophyll concentration and the impact on growth responses

Thanks; in revised version line 424: rewrite “Moreover, studies have shown that the imbalance in reactive oxygen species (ROS) metabolism potentially causes to significant decrease in chlorophyll content under severe drought stress, ROS leads to the destruction of chloroplast structure and acceleration of chlorophyll decomposition”

 

 

Line 378: The authors should briefly discuss while the synthesis of these secondary metabolites changed under the different experimental conditions, rather than mentioning the observed trends as in the Results section.

 

Thanks; in revised version line 434-439 added discuss about metabolites.  

Therefore, under fewer and moderate water deficit the accumulation of phenolic and flavonoid compounds leads to plant acclimation against water stress. But under sever water deficit condition there were more stomata closing and ROS aggregating that causes to decreases of production and increases of destruction of osmolytes such phenolic and flavonoids compounds.

 

Line 396: “biostimulant s”

Thanks; in revised version line 444: edited to “biostimulants”

Line 341: “biostimulant s”

Thanks; in revised version line 449: dited to “biostimulants”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Optimizing Tuberose production using mycorrhiza and biostimulants to enhance drought tolerance”. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of biostimulators on morphological and physiological changes in tuberose plants grown under water deficit conditions. This study aims to provide a theoretical basis for understanding the responses of tuberose cut flowers to water deficit, which could be applied to optimize growth and maximize cut flower yield. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Horticulturae and needs the following adjustments:

 

TITLE

 

- Insert the scientific name of the species.

- The name “Tuberosis” should not start with a capital letter.

- Replace “drought tolerance” with “water deficit tolerance”. Drought involves more abiotic factors than just water deficit. The study only tested water availability.

 

ABSTRACT

 

- It is not necessary to state that previous studies had positive results. This information should be included in the Introduction.

 

- Modify the keywords that are repeated in the title. This will help in the search for the article after the process. of publication.

- In the conclusion it was mentioned that the increase in the levels of proline, flavonoids and carbohydrates are indicators of stress tolerance. This is Discussion. There is no need to state this here.

- Insert a general conclusion about the study. Biostimulants mitigated the effect water deficit or not? What is the best biostimulant? What concentration?

 

INTRODUCTION

 

- In line 45 it was mentioned that water deficit is a significant factor. This is not correct. This is an abiotic factor. An abiotic factor that is part of drought. - Insert more references in Line 49. Mention more studies.

- In line 55, it is necessary to insert a reference.

- Is the application of biostimulants an agroecological practice (See line 58)?

- The paragraph from line 64 to 88 could be shortened.

- The hypothesis needs to be reformulated. Claiming that water deficit affects growth and development is something confirmed in any study . Review.

- Check the repetition of the words “cut flowers” ​​in the last sentence. Try to modify.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

- Insert a subtopic about the study location. Insert geographic coordinates. Insert information about the climate.

- How the water treatments were determined? What irrigation method was used daily? Weighing of the pots? This needs to be detailed further.

- Topic 2.1. should be “Treatments and experimental design”.

- Was a physical-chemical analysis of the soil used in the experiment performed?

- In the topic 2.2. only morphological indices were not measured. Modify title. - In topic 3.3.: Why was it mentioned as “Estimate”? Aren’t they direct measurements? The variables were not estimated, but rather determined.

- In topic 2.3.3., carbohydrate analyses were described. They were total soluble sugars, sugars reducers. Provide more details on this subtopic.

 

- In topic 2.3.4.: Same as the suggestion in topic 3.3.

 

RESULTS

 

- Replace Tables with Figures. This will help to better visualize and present the results.

 

- Review the statement cited in Line 187. As it is written as if there were significance for all variables and interactions.

- The results are described separately. ANOVA table and test of means. These should be together and described together.

- The results need to be better described. Insert more details about concentrations, highest and lowest values.

 

DISCUSSION

 

- Check this entire section.

 

- Some results were not discussed. Only the result found was included and the reference was mentioned. This needs to be reviewed.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

- Reduce. This section is too broad.

 

- Correct the summary and add a final conclusion according to the changes here.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thanks for your comments about improvement of this paper. We eagerly used your comments in revised version of paper and more description around the changes in revised paper is presented at following.

Thanks for your attention and helpful comments.

The manuscript has gone through rigorous language revision so as to effectively communicate the findings of this work.

Reviewer: 1 (2nd report)

Comments to the Author
This sentence should be somehow connected to the previous or the following one. In the original version it was correctly written. Please revise.

Response: Thanks for the compliments. You are absolutely right. So the part has been rearranged and improved as suggested to ensure better flow and clarity.

Comments to the Author
three plants per pot? or three replications consisting of three pots with one plant each?

Response: Thanks very much for the useful comments. It has been corrected

Comments to the Author
Please revise the wording of this sentence (particularly, correct the use of punctuation marks and capital letters) 
Response: Thanks very much for the constructive comments. It has been rearranged and improved as suggested
Comments to the Author
PVPP was (used to....)

In which step was it applied?

PVPP removes phenolic compounds, hence it cannot be used "to remove non phenolic "combinations" (?).

If the measurements were not repeated with appropriate reaction controls, then the authors should at least indicate this, to take into account possible overestimations of their content in the extracts when discussing the results.

Response: Thanks very much for the useful comments. It has been corrected

Comments to the Author

Suggestion: replace with:

..., although these are well known adaptation mechanisms to cope with water deficit.

Response: Thank you very much for the useful comments. They have been replaced as suggested.

Comments to the Author

Please correct the wording of this added sentence.

Response: Thanks very much for the constructive comments. The sentence has been removed.

Comments to the Author

Please correct the wording. Proofreading by an English speaker is strongly recommended

Response: Thanks very much for the constructive comments. The sentence has been removed. The manuscript also has gone through rigorous language revision so as to effectively communicate the findings of this work.

Comments to the Author

Not clear. Please revise the wording.

In most of this last section of the discussion, the authors focus on describing the well-known effects due to water stress, rather than highlighting whether and how (but particularly taking into account the traits evaluated) their treatments helped tuberose plants to cope with those negative effects.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. This section has been completely removed and replaced with a more comprehensive part, developed based on 22 related articles. Additionally, the necessary references have been included.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors. The writing of the manuscript has been improved, I am grateful to the authors for having considered most of the suggested corrections performed in the first revision. Nevertheless, because new text has been added, writing corrections are still required before it can be considered suitable for publication. Furthermore, I strongly encourage authors to have their text proofread by a native English speaker before submitting a newly revised version. Finally, I again  encourage the authors to better discuss part of their data, taking into account the physiological traits evaluated and the responses observed under the different levels of stress, focusing on the beneficial (or the lack of beneficial!) effects excerted by the biostimulators tested. Please see the revised file attached for detailed comments on the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see coments and suggestions for the authors

Author Response

List of changes in the revised paper:

Dear Professor

Thanks for your comments about improvement of this paper. We eagerly used your comments in revised version of paper and more description around the changes in revised paper is presented at following.

 

Thanks for your attention and helpful comments.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Optimizing Tuberose production using mycorrhiza and biostimulants to enhance drought tolerance”. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of biostimulators on morphological and physiological changes in tuberose plants grown under water deficit conditions. This study aims to provide a theoretical basis for understanding the responses of tuberose cut flowers to water deficit, which could be applied to optimize growth and maximize cut flower yield. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Horticulturae and needs the following adjustments:

 

 TITLE

 - Insert the scientific name of the species.

--Thanks, Polianthes tuberosa L. add in title.

- The name “Tuberosis” should not start with a capital letter.

-- Thanks, edited to “tuberose” 

- Replace “drought tolerance” with “water deficit tolerance”. Drought involves more abiotic factors than just water deficit. The study only tested water availability.

-- Thanks, in title “drought tolerance” Replaced with “water deficit tolerance”.

 

ABSTRACT

- It is not necessary to state that previous studies had positive results. This information should be included in the Introduction.

-- Thanks, the sentence “Previous studies have shown that” deleted.   

 - Modify the keywords that are repeated in the title. This will help in the search for the article after the process. of publication.

--Thanks, keywords edited “Drought tolerance; Humic acid; Irrigation regimes; Plant growth; Seaweed extract”

- In the conclusion it was mentioned that the increase in the levels of proline, flavonoids and carbohydrates are indicators of stress tolerance. This is Discussion. There is no need to state this here.

-- Thanks, this sentence deleted due to dear reviewer comment. 

- Insert a general conclusion about the study. Biostimulants mitigated the effect water deficit or not? What is the best biostimulant? What concentration?

-- Thanks, conclusion add to the abstract “Biostimulants can be significantly mitigate the effect of water deficit, seaweed extract in concentration of 2000ppm had the best effects to alleviate negative outcomes of water deficit” 

 

INTRODUCTION

 - In line 45 it was mentioned that water deficit is a significant factor. This is not correct. This is an abiotic factor. An abiotic factor that is part of drought. - Insert more references in Line 49. Mention more studies.

-- Thanks, line 45 “a significant” edited to “an abiotic”

Two following references were added to Line 49.

3. Bao, M.; Xi, Y.; Wang, R.; Ma, Y.; Bai, M.; Wei, G.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J.; Feng, L. Trehalose signaling regulates metabolites associated with the quality of rose flowers under drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2024, 224, 105813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2024.105813
4. Sukpitak, C.; Seraypheap, K.; Muñoz, P.; Munné-Bosch, S. Influence of water deficit on the longevity of ethylene-sensitive and ethylene-insensitive flowers. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2024, 219, 105647, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2024.105647

 

- In line 55, it is necessary to insert a reference.

Thanks, two following references were added to Line 55.

3. Bao, M.; Xi, Y.; Wang, R.; Ma, Y.; Bai, M.; Wei, G.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J.; Feng, L. Trehalose signaling regulates metabolites associated with the quality of rose flowers under drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2024, 224, 105813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2024.105813
4. Chang, K.H.; Wu, R.Y.; Chuang, K.C.; Hsieh, T.F.; Chung, R.S. Effects of chemical and organic fertilizers on the growth, flower quality and nutrient uptake of Anthurium andreanum, cultivated for cut flower production. Scientia Horticulturae. 2010, 125 (3), 434-441, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.04.011

 

- Is the application of biostimulants an agroecological practice (See line 58)?

Thanks,

Yes, Agrochemical applications have negative sideffects on agricultural products and environment such as; environmental pollution such remaining the herbicide residues in the soil or end up in surface and groundwater. therefour, several international organizations and governing authorities have focused on decrease in agrochemical usage. This strategy is in line with the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. Hence biostimulants can be help to preserve agricultural sustainability for achieving the SDGs will contribute to the adoption of agroecological farming practices to mitigate the environmental footprint of conventional farming approaches.

Katsenios, N.; Sparangis, P.; Vitsa, S.; Leonidakis, D.; Efthimiadou, A. Application of Biostimulants and Herbicides as a Promising Co-Implementation: The Incorporation of a New Cultivation Practice. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2634. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102634

 

- The paragraph from line 64 to 89 could be shortened.

--Thanks, the paragraph shorted from 64-89 t0 64-86. 

- The hypothesis needs to be reformulated. Claiming that water deficit affects growth and development is something confirmed in any study . Review.

--Thanks, hypothesis revised according to dear reviewer comments “We hypothesized that Biostimulants plays a significant role on improving the quantity and quality of indices of bulbs, stems, and cut flowers of tuberosa under water deficit condition”

- Check the repetition of the words “cut flowers” ​​in the last sentence. Try to modify.

--Thanks, the repetition if the words “cut flowers” in the last sentence edited “This study aims to provide a theoretical basis for understanding the responses of tuberose plants to water deficit, which could be applied to optimize growth and maximize cut flowers yield”

 

 MATERIAL AND METHODS

 - Insert a subtopic about the study location. Insert geographic coordinates. Insert information about the climate.

-- Thanks, geographic coordinates of study location were added as bellow.

2.1. Experimental area and condition

This research was carried out in the research greenhouse of Agricultural Faculty, University of Zabol (Latitude 31.0363°N, Longitude 61.4892°E). Temperature was steed between 22 to 26°C, and air humidity conserved among 65 to 75 percent during the experiment. A mixture of garden soil, sand, and completely decayed manure (2:1:1) was used as bulb bed culture, as determined by our pilot works.

 

- How the water treatments were determined? What irrigation method was used daily? Weighing of the pots? This needs to be detailed further.

-- Thanks, water deficit treatments were applied based on the daily weight of the pots.

- Topic 2.1. should be “Treatments and experimental design”.

-- Thanks, in the revised version topic 2.2. edited to “Treatments and experimental design”

- Was a physical-chemical analysis of the soil used in the experiment performed?

-- Thanks,

Yes, before the start of experiment, substrate physicochemical analysis were prepared. Results presented in revised version of article line 108.

Table 1. Results of physical-chemical analysis of the substrate.

variable	Porosity	Bulk density (g cm-3)	pH	E.C. (S.m−1)	C/N ratio	N (g kg−1)		P (g kg−1)		K (g kg−1)
Substrate (garden soil, sand, and completely decayed manure)	45.06	1.31	6.71	2.63	9.10		4.11		3.91		4.33

 

 

- In the topic 2.2. only morphological indices were not measured. Modify title.

-- Thanks,

In revised version the topic 2.3. Measurement of morphological indices and flower yield

- In topic 3.3.: Why was it mentioned as “Estimate”? Aren’t they direct measurements? The variables were not estimated, but rather determined.

--Thanks, in topics “Estimation” edited to “Measurement”

- In topic 2.3.3., carbohydrate analyses were described. They were total soluble sugars, sugars reducers. Provide more details on this subtopic.

--Thanks,

Dear reviewer, we were measured total carbohydrate like previous studies (Chen et al., 2023; Tamboli et al., 2020; Nielsen, 2010). But, dear reviewer comment is correct for the quantification of total soluble sugars (Yemm and Coccking; 1954), and sugars reducers (Miller, 1959). We pay attention to this suggestion in future research for the quantification of carbohydrate.    

Chen, W.; Gao, L.; Song, L.; Sommerfeld, M.; Hu, Q. An improved phenol-sulfuric acid method for the quantitative measurement of total carbohydrates in algal biomass. Algal Research. 2023, 70, 102986.

Tamboli,  F.A.;  More, H.N.; Bhandugare, S.S.; Patil, A.S.; Jadhav, N.R.; Killedar, S.G. Estimation of Total Carbohydrate content by Phenol Sulphuric acid Method from Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms. Asian J. Research Chem. 2020, 13(5): 357-359.

Nielsen, S.S. (2010). Phenol-Sulfuric Acid Method for Total Carbohydrates. In: Nielsen, S.S. (eds) Food Analysis Laboratory Manual. Food Science Texts Series. Springer, Boston, MA.

 

RESULTS

 - Replace Tables with Figures. This will help to better visualize and present the results.

-- Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments, if we are present the results in figures we should draw a graph for each indices and we need 15 graph like a bellow sample for presents the results and it is causes to text longness and increase article pages’ number.  

 

 

- Review the statement cited in Line 187. As it is written as if there were significance for all variables and interactions.

--Thanks, in Line 200 in revised version the sentence “were significantly influenced” edited to “were differently influenced”

- The results are described separately. ANOVA table and test of means. These should be together and described together.

-- Thanks, according to dear reviewer comment the results presented together.

 

-- The results need to be better described. Insert more details about concentrations, highest and lowest values.

Thanks,

While, the lowest length of flower stem observed under irrigation of 40% FC and control condition, although there were no significant difference between control with humic acid and mycorrhiza treatments for flower diameter (Tab. 6).

The highest diameter of flowers was achieved under 100% FC irrigation with mycorrhiza symbiosis and application of 600ppm of humic acid.

The treatments of 1000 and 2000 ppm of seaweed extract and 300 and 600 ppm of humic acid had a more positive effect on increasing the total phenolic compounds under water deficit under 60% and 40% FC.  while, the lowest amount of total phenolic compounds were obtained in control treatment under irrigation condition of 40% FC, But there were no significant differences between control treatment with mycorrhiza, 600ppm humic acid, and 500 and2000 ppm seaweed extract.

, and the lowest concentration of carbohydrates obtained in control condition under irrigation with 40% FC.

However, there was no significant effect among biostimulant treatments and the control condition under 40% FC irrigation on proline concentration, except mycorrhiza. Tuberose plants were grown with mycorrhizal symbiosis have lower concentration of proline than plants were grown in control treatment under 40% FC irrigation

 

DISCUSSION

- Check this entire section.

- Some results were not discussed. Only the result found was included and the reference was mentioned. This needs to be reviewed.

--Thanks,

Dear reviewer, discussion reviewed according to your helply comments, and following sentences add to discuss the results.

It can be said, with increasing water limitation levels, the number of leaves, leaf area, and stem length decrease due to limited cellular water for cell division and cell elongation, and on the other hand these are some adaptation mechanisms against to water deficit.

This effects of biofertilizers is due to their impact on improving root growth and consequently improving water absorption under stress conditions, as well as their role in the production and accumulation of acclimatizing osmolytes in plants.

Biostimulators can have a positive effect on synthesis of plant phytohormones such cytokinin causes to chlorophyll maintenance.

Moreover, studies have shown that the imbalance in reactive oxygen species (ROS) metabolism potentially causes to significant decrease in chlorophyll content under severe drought stress, ROS leads to the destruction of chloroplast structure and acceleration of chlorophyll decomposition,

Therefore, under fewer and moderate water deficit the accumulation of phenolic and flavonoid compounds leads to plant acclimation against water stress. But under sever water deficit condition there were more stomata closing and ROS aggregating that causes to decreases of production and increases of destruction of osmolytes such phenolic and flavonoids compounds.  

CONCLUSIONS

 

- Reduce. This section is too broad.

 

- Correct the summary and add a final conclusion according to the changes here.

--Thanks,

Conclusions reviewed

Application of biostimulants can be alleviate negative effects of water deficit irrigation on tuberose production in greenhouse condition as an irrigation water conservation strategy while maintaining yields. The results of this research will be invaluable for advising flower producers on how to minimize agricultural water consumption. Furthermore, this study highlights the effectiveness of biostimulants in sustaining tuberose growth and flowering responses across different water deficit irrigation strategies. According to these findings, the use of seaweed extract (AE) under water deficit conditions at 60% field capacity ensure the conservation of water resources and minimize any adverse effects of water deficit on species growth and productivity.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected the manuscript according to the suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

On behalf of colleagues and myself, I wish to express our appreciation to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for your in-depth comments, suggestions, and corrections, which have greatly improved the manuscript.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
The authors corrected the manuscript according to the suggestions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his constructive and helpful comments, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript