Evaluation of Lily Response to Different Proportions of Calcium and Ammonium in Nutrient Solutions of Soilless Culture Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper Titled “Evaluation of lily response to different proportions of calcium and ammonium in nutrient solutions of soilless culture systems” the authors compare four soilless culture systems: (1) hydroponic/pot, (2) hydroponic/box, (3) aeroponic, and (4) ultrasonic combined with three nutrient-solution formulations differing in NH₄⁺:total-N (0.10, 0.15, 0.20) and Ca²⁺: total cations (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) named NS1–NS3, respectively for the optomised growth of Oriental × Trumpet (Orienpet; OT) hybrid 17 lily. The authors used a factorial experiment arranged as a randomised complete block design, taking into account quantitative traits. These included growth traits (Stem height, root length, flower diameter, bulb size), vase life, relative growth rate (RGR), net assimilation rate (NAR), 187 leaf area index (LAI) and leaf area ratio (LAR). They also measure biochemical traits (anthocyanins, chlorophyll fluorescence, soluble carbohydrate content, inhibition of DPPH free radicals, hydrogen peroxide, and malondialdehyde). The authors conclude that hydroponic (pot) with NS1 (and NS3) yielded the best overall results; they also suggest that lilies may be relatively tolerant to ammonium, based on fluorescence responses.

The paper is interesting, and the optimisation of resources in flower cultivation is a valid reason for such research. The experimental design is appropriate. The number of measured traits is comprehensive. Comparison of the different systems is valid. The paper is relevant given the importance of the cut flower industry. I would propose that the paper is moderately innovative.

However, the paper is not without flaws, and the authors should address the following:

Introduction

The introduction is very hard to follow (several sentences are awkward) and feels rushed.

For example, Lines 34-36. Please elaborate. What do you mean by ‘preharvest conditions’ and the composition of the medium? As the reader, I want to get an idea without having to go read references 3 and 4. This criticism applies to the entire paper, not just the introduction.

There is repetition in the text. The entire paper could be more precise and concise. 

Too many refs. Sometimes, you provide multiple references when one would suffice or refs when not needed.  Try to use only the important ones. 

Additionally, you refer to the literature but do not include the essential data, expecting the reader to consult the references for this information. Such that it reads very superficially, you should also add numbers. For example, when you talk about increasing yield (line 75)

Line 70, grams per square meter… use units

The final paragraph is not poorly written, and the justification and aims need to be stronger and clearer.

Overall, spelling, etc, is generally good. Please correct acronyms; sometimes they are redefined when not needed. Check for small details, like line 77, which should be ‘with’, not ‘by’. There are too many examples for me to highlight them all. As a general note, please break down the text into more coherent paragraphs. Large blocks of waffly text make reading the paper a struggle, especially given the interesting topic and experiment you performed.

Exprimental

Where is the materials section? All materials have produce plus purity.

All instruments must have the producer’s name.

Please state how the nutrient solution was prepared. Was the nutrient solution in tap water or distilled water? Some details for replication are missing. Please add.

Table 1. Are the concentrations estimated or measured? Ideally, they should be measured; exposure to nutrients can vary significantly. Please specify.

Please correct the significant figures in this Table and throughout the manuscript.

Figure 1 must be  improved

Is the term “the box” the best technical term?

Line 128: “the relative humidity of the plant root environment increased significantly” – give numbers.

Line 135: “The automatic solution operation schedule was established” - clarify.

Line 137: You state that pH was a constant 5.7, but then you mention it was 7.1? Make clearer. Please, justify pH handling and provide complete nutrient solution analyses over time. pH differences of this magnitude have strong physiological effects and change the interpretation of N/Ca availability. 

You also mention changing EC and replacing solutions, but not measuring ionic changes in situ. This section must be strengthened because, without a verified solution or tissue analyses, attributing effects to ammonium versus calcium is speculative at best.

Line 140: “after about 10 days” – write more scientifically. About could mean length of time.

Figure 2 and the legend need improvement. Do you mean experimental design? Where on the figure do you show “automatic adjustment of the solution delivery operations”?

I suggest using different colours and symbols to represent various treatments, variables, and so on, to do justice to your experiment.

Lines 151-165: Add more details and numbers.

Lines 160-161: Define “This experimental design was planned as a factorial, based on a randomised complete 160 block design with a total of 12 treatments in 3 replications and 2 observations.”

Line 203: “Leaf anthocyanins were measured by Wagner’s method [29], and the measurement of ca-203 rotenoids was done by Arnon’s method [30].” Give more details. It is important that the reader can replicate your experiment.

Line 211: “The calculation of FV/FM occurred on a custom-made protocol [31]”. Same as the comment above.

Detailed explanations and raw data, if too large for the manuscript, should be included in the Supplementary Data, which is also missing. Again, the reader should not have to search the literature.

Results

Lines 251-261: Where are the ANOVA results?

There is no mention of normality (Shapiro-Wilk) or homogeneity (Levene’s) tests. ANOVA validity depends on these assumptions. Please add.

Additionally, missing F-values should be added.

You need to add some numbers to the whole section to make it not just refer to figures.

Table 3: Are the numbers correct? I thought the average root length for a bulb would be 15 cm?

Here it is 70 m? Something is not correct here, as such lengths seem implausible. Recheck everything and fix if incorrect. Did you make your assumptions based on these numbers?

Also, the number of hairy roots and bulblets, surely this should be a whole number?

Table 6: Again, verify values and report decimal places/significant figures, and make any necessary corrections.

Discussion

Again, it appears that essential data is missing when making a comparison with published studies. Add numbers: E.g., line 528. Basically, you rarely quantify differences or effect sizes. Instead, they use qualitative language (“higher,” “better,” “more suitable”) without numerical support.

There is a lot of repetition within the written text, i.e., different ways of saying “ composition of the nutrient solution plays an important role in root 522 uptake due to nutrient interactions and internal regulation”

In this discussion, I miss the mention of confounding factors. You only touch on nutrient chemistry, but what about the root environment, including oxygen, humidity, temperature, and frequency of wetting, among other system effects?

Additionally, you claim that “lily is an ammonium-feeding plant” is not supported by this research, since you did not include a nitrate-only control or uptake kinetics. Moreover, the effect of calcium is inferred from other species rather than demonstrated by your experiment. This needs to be emphasised more in the text with more cautious phrasing, and you should make a more apparent distinction between observed data and hypothesised mechanisms. Please correct.

Additionally, you state that the number of buds was not significantly affected by treatments (Table 4, p = ns), yet they interpret the differences as meaningful. This needs to be checked and corrected.

Why do you discuss anthocyanin and carotenoid contents at length if they are non-significant?

I liked the factor analysis, but this is left out of the discussion. Why?

Please add an experimental limitations paragraph.

The discussion section lacks a logical structure and needs improvement. You must synthesise your data with that of the literature. Just dropping in refs is not sufficient. You have a nice experiment, so this shouldn't be difficult.

Conclusions

Your conclusions are overly dense and repetitive. This section could be shorter, with much of the text going to the discussion.

Also, please state outcomes that are directly supported by your experiment.

“Ammonium-loving” seems too informal for a scientific paper. Use better phrasing.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Few, if any, spelling and grammar mistakes. But there shouldn't be given today's writing aids. 

However:

The paper is poorly constructed and written superficially in places. It needs to be more scientific, concise and to the point. Your arguments must be logical. The use of refs must be shown to back up your argument.

Author Response

see attached file 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article can be recommended for publication, but after clarifying and detailing some parts of the text. Listed below are the suggestions:

Line 44-47 – please rephrase, for optimal plant growth the substrate should provide also macro and micro nutrients, not only water and air

Line 76 – format the reference according to the journal's guidelines

Line 92-96 – provide a more detailed description of the methodology used to determine the composition and concentration of the three solutions; it is not clear whether the study include a true control treatment (sample without a treatment), as the further text refers to three solutions and indicates that the first one is considered the control, please clarify this point

Line 96 – the authors should clarify how the micronutrient contents were determined

Line 111 – please align the numbers in the table

Line 114 – although the authors reported that micronutrient concentrations were similar across the three solutions, the manuscript would benefit from presenting the specific values for each or at least the range of concentrations to support this statement

Line 173-177 – authors should explain ratio 11/14 in the equation

Line 215-218 – the statistical method has already been mentioned in the section above; all statistical methods used in the study should be presented as one paragraph, preferably positioned at the end of the Materials and method section

Line 249 – describe the formula

Line 516 – references to Tables in the Discussion section appear unnecessary, as the text already clearly indicates which results are being discussed

Line 551 – it is not clear which authors are being referred to

Line 552 – add reference number after author's names

Line 559 – add reference number after author's names

 

In the Results section presenting the statistical analysis of interactions, authors should provide standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE) values to better illustrate data variability.

The Discussion could be improved by including specific results from other authors rather than generic statements. Additionally, although the focus of the study is on the solutions, a brief consideration of how the cultivation method affects various properties of lilies would enhance the manuscript.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Double check English and grammar, Units in Tables, etc

Author Response

Comments 1: The conclusion is too long. Some content should belong to introduction and some to Discussion. Please revise your conclusion to concisely summarize your findings, no background sentences and no discussion in this section. Future perspectives are ok. Response 1: Thank You for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised and summarized the conclusion by deleting unnecessary statements. This change can be found in page 23, Line 751-755 in the revised manuscript.

With the Best Regards,

Dr. A. Khandan-Mirkohi

18 November 2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf