Algae Extracts and Zeolite Modulate Plant Growth and Enhance the Yield of Tomato Solanum lycopersicum L. Under Suboptimum and Deficient Soil Water Content

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、The number of experimental treatments is not extensive, justifying the use of a split-plot experimental design

2、The experimental workload is relatively small, and there are few indicators tested. For example, why not test the quality of the fruit, as well as other related physiological indicators

3、In the analysis of variance, are the error values all of the same magnitude?

Author Response

The comments were attached below. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract defines deficient soil moisture content (DSMC) as "20% ± 2 (1/3 upper than Permanent Wilting Point)" with PWP = 18%. However, 20% is above PWP (18%), not 1/3 above it (1/3 above 18% ≈ 24%).
2. Lines 14-16. The manuscript does not clearly state the hypothesis or specific objectives of the study. The authors should explicitly state the hypothesis or specific research questions they aim to address.
3. Lines 17-23. The experimental design description is somewhat ambiguous, particularly regarding the application rates and timing of algae extracts and zeolite. The authors should provide a detailed and clear description of the experimental design, including precise application rates, timing, and methods.
4. Lines 47-59. The introduction lacks a comprehensive review of the existing literature on the effects of algae extracts and zeolite on plant growth and yield under water stress conditions.
5. Lines 352-454. The discussion section does not fully explore the implications of the findings. There is a lack of in-depth analysis of how the results fit into the broader context of plant growth and stress management. The authors should provide a more comprehensive discussion of the results, linking them to existing theories and models.
6. Lines 454-465. The conclusion section is somewhat brief and does not clearly summarize the key findings and their implications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

The comments and suggestions were attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses a relevant issue — mitigating drought stress in tomato cultivation using algae extracts and zeolite. The experimental design is generally sound, and the findings under suboptimal irrigation conditions are promising. The research topic and contents of this article are interesting. However, there are still some issues with the manuscript. The specific issues can be found below, and of course, the issues are not limited to these. The author is requested to carefully review the paper revisions.

 

1. The abstract is too long and contains too much information, and does not highlight the research focus well. In addition, there is some redundancy or confusion in the expression of certain terms and values, such as: “an average increase of 2.4 times more compared to the control” is redundant. It should be: “an average increase of 2.4 times compared to the control. Some numerical data are overly precise for an abstract. Consider simplifying where appropriate.
2. The introduction identifies drought and water scarcity as key agricultural issues but lacks a comprehensive review of current research regarding algae extracts and zeolite as mitigation strategies. The novelty and scientific contributions of this study are not clearly distinguished. Please elaborate on the innovation and relevance of your study in the context of recent literature.
3. The manuscript does not report essential statistical details such as F-values, degrees of freedom, or specific p-values. It only states “P < 0.05.” To strengthen the credibility of the results, include detailed statistical indicators and effect sizes where appropriate.
4. Figures (e.g., Figure 4 and Figure 6) present overlapping information. Inconsistent use of treatment names, such as AE vs. SE (for algae extracts), is confusing. Please standardize all treatment labels across text and figures. Redundant graphs should be consolidated for clarity.
5. The manuscript refers to the presence of silicon and aluminum in the biostimulants but does not provide adequate explanation of their physiological mechanisms under drought stress. Please expand on the biochemical pathways or hormonal responses involved, supported by appropriate citations.
6. The authors state in multiple places that the treatments were ineffective under deficient soil moisture, but the reasons for this are not analyzed. Were the products poorly absorbed, or was the stress level too severe? Discuss possible mechanisms or limitations using relevant literature.
7. The conclusion section merely restates the findings and does not connect them clearly to practical applications or broader implications. It should include actionable recommendations for agricultural practice, and discuss economic feasibility.

Author Response

Comments and suggestions were attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and relevant. However, it is recommended that the entire manuscript be improved to enhance its clarity.

Materials and Methods
The authors are encouraged to provide more detailed information on the algal species used for extract preparation. A more comprehensive description of the extraction procedure (e.g. solvents used, time, temperature and yield) would also improve reproducibility and scientific value.

Experimental design
Expanding the scope of the analysis to evaluate the effect of the biostimulants on not only the parameters listed in Section 2.5.2 (plant growth, chlorophyll content and yield variables) but also on enzymatic activity and stress-related biochemical responses in the treated plants would be beneficial. 

Results section
The presentation of the results requires clarification. The authors should consider reorganising this section to improve readability and ensure that the data are clearly linked to the objectives and methodology. 

Author Response

Comments and suggestions were attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall workload of the paper is small, and there is a lack of innovation.

Author Response

The responses point-by-point are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is pleasure to receive the revised manuscript from the author again. After reading the revised version and explanation, I believe the author has made detailed revisions to the relevant comments and added relevant data and explanations. The quality of the revised manuscript has significantly improved. There are still some issues that may affect the readability of the article, and it is recommended to make revisions.

1. Suggest further streamlining the description of experimental treatment in the abstract, which is a bit lengthy, to avoid duplication with the Materials and Methods section. For example, 'A randomized block experimental design in a split plot arrangement with three replicates was used.' does not need to appear in the abstract.
2. Line 378：“no statistical difference (P < 0.05)”， This expression is incorrect. If there is no significant difference, P should be greater than 0.05. Suggest standardizing terminology, such as "no statistically significant difference (P>0.05)" or "differences were not significant"
3. Line 447-448：“Thus, plant growth response shown by indicators such as plant height, stem thick-ness, and vigor when AE, Z or AE+Z were applied under suboptimum soil water content 28% lower of FC…….”, Suggest specifying the specific effects of AE, Z, and AE+Z on plant growth indicators, whether they significantly increase or by how much? To better link to “an increase of plant nutritional availability” in the following text.
4. Some journal names are abbreviated in the references, while others are not, so they need to be unified.

Author Response

The responses point-by-point are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was carefully reviewed and improved in line with the suggestions.

Author Response

The responses point-by-point are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf