Preharvest Foliar Applications of Citric Acid, Gibberellic Acid and Humic Acid Improve Growth and Fruit Quality of ‘Le Conte’ Pear (Pyrus communis L.)
, Hesham S. Abada 4, Hayssam M. Ali 5,*, Manzer H. Siddiqui 5 and Lidia Sas-Paszt 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the manuscript entitled “Pear performance as affected by the spraying of humic, citric, and gibberellic acids " deserves publication in Horticulturae in major revision. The manuscript is clearly written you can see a significant improvement over the earlier version.however, authors must focus on correctly describing the results obtained. Very often the description of the results does not agree with the presented results. Maybe it is worth making a longer description, consistent with the results obtained. In addition, please check again the results of the post-hoc test and the letters indicating a statistically difference or their absence in many cases seem to be incorrectly entered. How the season affected the results.
Line 98: from Figure 2 it does not follow everything that is written
Figura 2DEF: please check again the results of the post-hoc test and the letters indicating a statistically difference or their absence
Line 112: from Figure 3 it does not follow everything that is written
Figure 3C: please check again the results of the post-hoc test and the letters indicating a statistically difference or their absence
Line 131: “potassium… manganese of pear plants as compared to control” it is not apparent from the results shown in Figure 4
Figura 4B please check again the results of the post-hoc test and the letters indicating a statistically difference or their absence
Lines 132-134: „Furthermore, during both growing seasons, the high content of macro and micro- nutrients was accompanied to the foliar sprays of HA at 5 or 4%, as well as GA3 at 150 ppm,” it is not apparent from the results shown in Figure 4
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors: Thank you for the work developed.
His study by him was aimed to investigate their impacts on vegetative growth, yield and fruit quality of ‘Le Conte’ pear as a good nutritional alternative to lessen the reliance on chemical fertilizers in fruit nutrition. Why not include a treatment with inorganic fertilization?
The objective would guide it: the effect of CA, GA3 and HA on parameters of vegetative development, production and fruit quality in Pear trees grown in a saline/sodic soil. Since the conditions of the soil are particular, also consider that the characteristics of the soil are not optimal for the development of the Pear tree.
Comment 1: The introduction lacks relevant information, focused on contextualizing the objective. relevance of reducing dependence on inorganic fertilizers. Optimum edaphic characteristics for the development of pear trees.
Comment 2: Characteristics of the nebulizer. Water volume/ha?
Comment 3: Specify plant distribution and treatments.
Comment 4: It is not clear to me that it was a randomized complete block design. As they blocked in the orchard.
Comment 5: Indicate the size of the experimental unit, and treatment distribution in the orchard? In the text it says: "8 repetitions per tree". The 8 experimental units were in a single tree?
Comment 6: how did you prevent the "drift" effect?
Comment 7 : Update reference, very old, only 8 citations from the last 5 years.
Comment 8: Equation 1: should define the acronyms.
Comment 9: Only lowercase letters are confusing. Different years uppercase and lowercase letters of the test of separation of means.
Comment 10: The conclusions do not respond to the proposed objective.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Resubmit with proper formatting. Use commas on numbers, use subscript on GA, tables not properly labeled or values not properly described, the figure images are grainy or pixelated. The manuscript should be in this format:
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Putting the results before the materials and methods is illogical in my professional opinion. Put the line numbering on the left side.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments. My recommendation is that the manuscript rips can be published as is.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that the manuscript entitled “Pear performance as affected by the spraying of humic, citric, and gibberellic acids " deserves publication in Horticulturae reject.
The manuscript written carelessly
Form not adapter to the requirements of the journal
The results are not presented optimally, among other things, the lack SD or SE
No use of modern analytical methods
Despite the fact that a statistical analysis is performer, there is no description of the results obtained. The effect of harvesting season is not compared.
The abstract has no specific information
Conclusion is not research-based and the statements are vague
Below are some remarks that may help to improve the manuscript. After taking into account thorough corrections and if the Editor does not see ant contraindications you can re-submit a manuscript.
Abstract – specific data
Line 27: please change “percent” into “%”
Whay acids are sometimes written with capital letters, applies to the whole manuscript
Lines 33-34: write the value/units, please check journal requirements
Line 35: please change “Citrus sinensis” into “Citrus sinensis”
Line 40: please change “fruit trees[3]. According to [4]” into “fruit trees [3]. According to Maksoud et al. [4]”, applies to all manuscript
Line 41: please delete “in”
Line 45: “CA” ?
Abbreviations used without explanation
Line 47: „0.05” units
Line 49: „GA3” ?
Line 52: please change „([19]” into „[19]”
Line 52: „TSS” ?
Line 53: please complete „to [20]”
No specific research aim and assumptions
Chapter titles and subtitles not in accordance with the requirements
Tables different format throughout the manuscript
Table captions different throughout the manuscript
The geographical location of the crop
Line 90: analyzed during the research or literaturę data? No repetition
Line 118: please change “cm3” into “cm3”
Line 132: please change “H2SO4 and H2O2” into “H2SO4 and H2O2”
Line 152: different notation of units then previously used „(μ Mol m-2 )”
No results in the description of whether these were statistical significant differences
Were there statistically significant differences between the seasons
Table 4 units
Line 178: „5% ppm” ?
Acidity in terms of what acid?
There is no SD or SE, why
Line 224: „mg L1” ?
Line 263; it is not apparent from the results presented in the manuscript
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors. Thanks for scientific work.
However, please consider in your study:
That the objective of the study should be after the statement of the problem or at the end of the introduction.
1. The chemical analysis of the soil was only carried out at a depth of 30 cm? If they have it, incorporate the chemical analysis of the soil at the depth where the roots of the Pear Tree are in greater concentration.
2. L. 85. Did the study have 10 treatments and 3 repetitions per treatment? What was the experimental unit?
3.- L. 99. Specify how I convert SPAD units to mol/m2. In table 2, it indicates that the total chlorophyll is in micromoles/m2 = SPAD??. check
4.- There are acronyms not defined for the first time.
5.- Materials and methods can be improved, make more description of how measurements are made, sample size, number of observations by repetitions, among others.
6.- Standardize units measured in leaf chlorophyll content, and correct some typographical errors.
7.- In materials and methods it does not describe how the leaf area was measured.
8. Point out the number of plants per hectare, in materials and methods. I don't agree with the kilos per plant, transforming them into tons per hectare. Check and explain how it was calculated.
9. Conclusion 1: "Spraying humic, gibrelic, and citric acid had a favorable influence on soil pH, which facilitated nutrient absorption). It has no basis based on its results. pH was not measured in each of the treatments. In addition it cannot be attributed that foliar applications of these acids alter the soil pH
The conclusions should be improved based on your results, you should not speculate. Define what treatment would be recommended, etc.
