Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The work was corrected, but a lot of errors remained. There are also new ones. Very badly prepared in terms of editing. References still written against editorial requirements. Punctuation marks can be used freely. Often they are missing. Plant names cannot be replaced by one letter. There are few citations regarding the plants studied. Very fundamental research. Small experimental pots. A lot of comments were made in the text. No comparison of the results for individual plants. The effect of vermicompost is publicly known. Research is a confirmation of what is known.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: There is no address

Respond 1: According to the reviewer’s comment, Address has been rewritten correctly

The correct part was given below

Faculty of Economy and Administrative Sciences, Department of Agricultural Trade and Management, Yeditepe University,34755 Ataşehir/Istanbul, Turkey; metin.turan@yeditepe.edu.tr

 

Point 2: The first sentence is so obvious. It is redundant here.

Respond 2: According to the reviewer’s comment, First sentence removed

 

Point 3: Once there are spaces, and once there are no. It must be the same.

Respond 3: According to the reviewer’s comment. Spaces have been revised

 

Point 4: We do not use hyphenation

Respond 4: Review says we don't use hyphenation, but we need to use it in this section.

 

Point 5: Number 7 is fort he peas

Respond 5: According to the reviewer’s comment. Pea was written in sentence

The correct part was given below

Preparation based on the VC have a high effectiveness in improving of the ornamental plants yield, for example, Geranium and Pegasus patio rose and peas [5-7]

 

Point 6: The names of the plants should be used in one language. You can speak English

Respond 6: According to the reviewer’s comment. Plant names were used in one language.

 

Point 7: Letter abbreviations are not used here

Respond 7: According to the reviewer’s comment. The sentence was rewritten

The correct part was given below

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different forms and doses of vermicompost on the number of flowers, duration of flowering, growth parameters and on plant nutrient content of P. patio rose, V. rosea valiant and P. peltatum.

 

Point 8: Letter abbreviations are not used here.

Respond 8: According to the reviewer’s comment. According to the reviewer’s comment.

 

Point 9: Not in bold

Respond 9: According to the reviewer’s comment.  Title written with bold removal

 

Point 10: Not a liter, only 1 dm3. Why such small vases?

Respond 10: According to the reviewer’s comment.  dm³ was used instead of liters.

The correct part was given below

The growing medium was created using a soil and VC mixture; control (Soil:VC:100-0%), mix 1 (Soil: C:70-30% W/W), mix 2 (Soil:VC:50-50% W/W), and mix 3 (Soil:VC:40:60% W/W) of 1 dm³ pots, respectively

 

-There is no particular reason for the use of a small vase.

 

Point 11: It should be . Analysis of soil physicochemical and chemical and plant nutrients

Respond 11: According to the reviewer’s comment.  The title has been rewritten

The correct part was given below

Analysis of soil physicochemicaland chemical and plant nutrients

 

Respond 12:Why is the temperature so low

Respond 12: We do not dry it too high so that the plant nutrients do not evaporate.

 

Point 13: Table written with errors. The letters a, b, ……must be superscript. Some values are missing, as if they were lost. Notes apply to all tables

Respond 13: According to the reviewer’s comment. In all tables, the letters are superscripted. Tables have been revised.

 

Point 14: Italic because Latin names.

Respond 14: According to the reviewer’s comment. Flower names are written in Latin in all table titles.

The correct part was given below

“Effcets of vermicompost applicant on macro and micro nutrient content of Vinca rosea valiant, Pelargonium peltatum and Pegasus patio rose plants”

 

Point 15: Put a period

Respond 15: According to the reviewer’s comment. 90 days, which is the period, is written in all tables.

The correct part was given below

“Effcets of vermicompost applicant on macro and micro nutrient content of Vinca rosea valiant, Pelargonium peltatum and Pegasus patio rose plants (90 days)”

 

Point 19: Units are missing

Respond 19: According to the reviewer’s comment. The unit of EC is written dS m^-1 and the unit of OM is written as %

 

Point 20: This sentence does not apply to research.

Respond 20: According to the review comments, the sentence that was suggested to be deleted was not deleted because it was deemed appropriate.

 

 

Point 21: The references is not edited in accordance with the requirementd of the editorial Office. Necessary improvement was not made.

Respond 21: According to the comments of the review, the sources were revised and corrected.

 

Point 22: There should be a dash, not a comma, between Paczka-Mazur.

Respond 22: According to the comments of Review, a dash was placed between Paczka and Mazur.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and suggestions for Authors

 

Influence of Vermicompost Application on the Growth of Vinca rosea valiant, Pelargonium peltatum L. and Pegasus patio rose

 

The  subject is interesting and fall within the scope of the journal. The experimental dataset undoubtedly are useful and constitutes scientific values. The presented manuscript deals with the current global problem.  The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different forms and doses of vermicompost application on the flower and growth parameters and its effect on plant nutrient content of Vinca rosea  valiant, Pelargonium peltatum L. and Pegasus patio rose. One test cycle, however, can be a problem in correctly concluding.

General remarks

In order to increase the usefulness of the article, Authors must refer to the following points.

Additions should be made to increase the scientific value of the manuscript.

1.      Abstract: The first sentence should be deleted. This is an obvious statement.

2.      Introduction: At the end of the Introduction section, complete the research hypothesis.

3.      Materials and Methods: Subsection 2.2. Growth and yield parameters - line 96 - state, city of manufacture of the Chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502) apparatus. Subsection 2.3. - the principles of the methods of the parameters determined should be supplemented and extended.

4.      Results and Discussion: I propose to present Tables 1 and 2 in smaller tables (1a, 1b, 1c and 2a, 2b, and 2c).  The content of macronutrients should be given in g kg-1, and micronutrients in mg kg-1 (see Table 2). Magnesium and sodium are macronutrients (see Table 3). The content of these elements should be presented in the first part of Table 3. The units in Table 3 should be completed and clearly marked what forms of macronutrients and micronutrients (total or available) are presented. Lines 128-131: The form of the description of the results presented in Table 1 should be changed.

Lines 156-159: The form of the description of the results presented in Table 2 should be changed.

Lines 190-192: The form of the description of the results presented in Table 3 should be changed.

5.      Conclusions: Requests should be redrafted. Microbiological parameters have not been determined. Efficiency was also not calculated.

 

The tests should be carried out over a period of at least 2 years. The description of the results is very poor and requires thorough improvement. Discussion of the results is superficial.

Specific comments

Line 42 – …..phosphate, humic acids…..- these are not macronutrients.

Line 207 – ….microbiological …..-  remove

Line 208 – …..efficiency…- remove

The manuscript must be corrected according to the editorial requirements of the publisher.

Best regards,

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Abstract: The first sentence should be deleted. This is an obvious statement.

Respond 1: According to the reviewer’s comment, The statement was removed.

 

Point 2: Introduction: At the end of the Introduction section, complete the research hypothesis.

Respond 2: According to the comments of the review, the end of the introduction is completed according to the research hypothesis.

The correct part was given below

“The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different forms and doses of VC on the number of flowers,  duration of flowering, and growth parameters and its effect on plant nutrient content of P. patio rose, V. rosea valiant and P. Peltatum”

 

Point 3: Materials and Methods: Subsection 2.2. Growth and yield parameters - line 96 - state, city of manufacture of the Chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502) apparatus.

Subsection 2.3. - the principles of the methods of the parameters determined should be supplemented and extended.

Respond 3: According to the review comments, the production city of the Chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502) device was written.

The correct part was given below

“We made it as SPAD-502, Konica Minolta Sensing Inc., Japan”

 

Point 4:  Results and Discussion: I propose to present Tables 1 and 2 in smaller tables (1a, 1b, 1c and 2a, 2b, and 2c).  The content of macronutrients should be given in g kg-1, and micronutrients in mg kg-1 (see Table 2). Magnesium and sodium are macronutrients (see Table 3). The content of these elements should be presented in the first part of Table 3. The units in Table 3 should be completed and clearly marked what forms of macronutrients and micronutrients (total or available) are presented. Lines 128-131: The form of the description of the results presented in Table 1 should be changed.

Lines 156-159: The form of the description of the results presented in Table 2 should be changed.

Lines 190-192: The form of the description of the results presented in Table 3 should be changed.

 

Respond 4: All suggestions were done in the MS. But Table1. And Table 2 name is not change. Because Tabl1 refers to gorth parameters, Table 2, refers plant macro and nutrient contet.

 

Point 5: Conclusions: Requests should be redrafted. Microbiological parameters have not been determined. Efficiency was also not calculated.

 

Respond 5: We corrected the conclusions.

 

Specific comments

Line 42 – …..phosphate, humic acids…..- these are not macronutrients.

Line 207 – ….microbiological …..-  remove

Line 208 – …..efficiency…- remove

 

Respond: Review recommendations were reviewed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study gives insights on the use of vermicompost as a growth medium for the enhancement of ornamental plants growth. The introduction is based on recent findings and “Materials and Methods” are described with sufficient details. The results have been appropriately verified by statistical analysis. Main results and ideas are well documented, justified and supported by relative references. Tables are clear to the reader. Minor changes are recommended.

 Lines 167-176 should be part of the discussion in Section 3.1

Table 2. Please convert ppm to % for P,K,Ca,Mg

Table 3. Add units for EC and OM. Please check the EC values. too high!

 Based on the above the manuscript can be considered for publication in this journal considering the minor changes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Lines 167-176 should be part of the discussion in Section 3.1

Respond: Done.

 

Point 1: Please convert from ppm to %

Respond 1:  Units are used in ppm in all studies so I don't see it appropriate to change

 

Point 2: These lines should be part of the discussion in paragrap 3.1

Respond 2: The proposed change could not be made, it should be part of the discussion in paragraph 3.2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments  for Authors

Dear Authors

 

Influence of Vermicompost Application on the Growth of Vinca rosea valiant, Pelargonium peltatum L. and Pegasus patio rose

 

General remarks

1.      Results and Discussion: The content of macronutrients in the plants should be given in g kg^-1, and micronutrients in mg kg^-1 (see Table 2).

Specific comments

Line 24 – ….% …..-  remove

Line 162 – …macro and micro nutrient …..- should be: macro- and micronutrient

The References must be corrected according to the editorial requirements of the publisher.

 

Best regards,

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

Unfortunately. The article is not written on an academic level. No comparison of the results for individual plants. Too many generalities. Often those that are known without research. No relevant conclusions were presented on the basis of the conducted research. There are only generalities. Lots of mistakes in the text. A lot of comments were made in the text. Tables and references are not written as per editorial requirements. Each table edited differently. There are no Latin names for plants. Very basic research. Small the experimental pot. There are no citations regarding the plants tested. Punctuation marks can be used freely. Often there is no such thing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All the corrections requested by Review have been made.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article entitled “Effects of Worm Enzyme on Growth Parameters of Vinca, Geranium and Petunia Flowers is submitted to the Agronomy journal. This study aimed to investigate the influence of different forms and doses of vermicompost on the growth parameters properties of petunia, vinca and geranium plants.  This paper is a good fit for the journal’s audience and subject matter, specifically the impact of vermicompost application at different rates on the growth parameters of 3 different ornamental plants were investigated using pot model experiment.

I recommend this article for publication in the journal with minor revisions, based on the comments and questions detailed below.

 

General comments:

1. The English is good in this paper, and the writing is clear and easy to understand.

The manuscript title looks different from the study's objectives, worm enzymes or vermicompost rates, or soil worm fertilizer? 

2. The affiliation of the authors are not correct
3. The background of the abstract is not good; write the two sentences about your experiment background, why you did this experiment, why you need to use vermicompost and peat, what was the main problem in soil/environment. The overall abstract need improvement. You have measured chlorophyll SPAD but did not mention here.

 

 

Line 21-23. Remove sentence “then plant number of flower, height, stem diameter, flower stem length, flower diameter, flower stem thickness, fresh flower weight, dry flower weight of plant were recorded”.  These sentences have no meanings, write about these parameters compared to control.

Write your experimental results and compare it with the control. Write in an increase or decrease values or in percent as compared to control.

Line 56. Why use impact of biochar was discussed here? Did you use biochar?

I would like to see a more general introduction and discussion about the importance of worm fertilizer since this is the focus of your measurements. Why is it important and what can you infer from it (bigger picture)?

Line 77. It's not clear from 2019 to 2020. Did you conduct a two-season experiment or one-season experiment from 2019-to 2020.

Line 79. “Vinca, Geranium and Petunia replace Flowers” by “These flowers”.

Line 92. The abbreviation used for gram can be changed to g or gm

Line 113: In statistical analysis, you mentioned plots, while in the Material and Methods, you mentioned pots. It's confusing now. Either it's a pot experiment or a plots experiment?

Tables. Add standard error or standard deviation to tables 1, 2, and 3. Why there is a comma between the values, I think it's the point. Change the commas to point throughout all tables.

Line 269. The authors used VC for Vermicompost in some places, while they used the full name in some places. Make it correctly throughout the manuscript.

In conclusion, the authors just mentioned that “Soil vermicompost applications can be considered as a very useful organic source” While they did not mention the suggested rate of VCAnd Compared to other chemical fertilizers, which are not eco-friendly to the environment.

Author Response

All the corrections requested by the reviewer have been made.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the authors evaluated the effect of vermicompost on three ornamental flowers such as Vinca, Geranium and Petunia. The study objective is novel and the findings reported in this manuscript will advance the existing knowledge on the effect of manures on crops. However, I have some observations indicated below which are to be addressed by the authors.

1. The authors focused the effect of vermicompost on Vinca, Geranium and Petunia flowers throughout the manuscript. They never mentioned the term ‘worm enzyme’, once they mentioned ‘worm fertilizer’ in line 109. But in the title, they used ‘worm enzyme’ instead of ‘vermicompost’. So, I suggest to replace ‘worm enzyme’ in the title with ‘vermicompost’.
2. Since, organic manure is a key focus of this manuscript, the authors should provide a bit detail on the effect of manures (biofertilizers, compost, cowdung and poultry manure) on crops. The authors are suggested to consult with the following papers as these are very much relevant to this study.
3. Islam, M.R., Rashid, M.B., Siddique, A.B. and Afroz, H. 2014. Integrated effects of manures and fertilizers on the yield and nutrient uptake by BRRI dhan49. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University. 12(1): 67-72.
4. Nuruzzaman, M. Ashrafuzzaman, M., Islam, M.Z., & Islam, M.R. 2003. Field efficiency of biofertilizers on the growth of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus [(L.) Moench]). Journal Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 1522-2624, v166:764-770.

• Islam, M.R., Bilkis, S., Hoque, T.S., Uddin, S., Jahiruddin, M., Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M.M., Alhomrani, M., Gaber, A. and Hossain, M.A. 2021. Mineralization of farm manures and slurries for successive release of carbon and nitrogen in incubated soils varying in moisture status under controlled laboratory conditions. Agriculture 2021, 11(9), 846; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11090846.

3. The authors used sometimes ‘capital letters’ and sometimes ‘small letters’ before the name of flowers (Vinca, Geranium and Petunia). Both are correct but they should follow the same style (either one) throughout the manuscript.
4. Line 19 & 22, please take care of using space before or after comma (,) and stop (.)
5. Line 24, the full name of ‘SPAD’ should be mentioned.
6. Line 34, ‘environmentally friendly’ can be replaced with ‘environment friendly’.
7. Line 46, there should be a stop (.) after evaluated.
8. Line 55 & 58, the scientific name should be italic. In case of Petunia, the full name of genus ‘P.’ should be mentioned in line 55.
9. Line 57-58, the sentence should be revised to make it sense.
10. Line 89, ‘days seedling planting’ should be replaced with ‘days of planting seedlings’.
11. Line 110-111, the words ‘Organic’ and ‘Water soluble’ should be started with small letters.
12. Between lines 153-154, the ‘Vinca Rosea’ should be either ‘Vinca’ or ‘Vinca rosea’.
13. Line 219, please check the spelling of geranium.
14. Line 278, ‘designed the performed’ should be ‘designed and performed’.

Author Response

All the corrections requested by the reviewer have been made.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is not properly corrected. There are many mistakes left. New ones have appeared. Incorrectly given numbers from references. The publications cited did not always contain the information read. The article is not written to the appropriate level for this journal. No comparison of the results for individual plants. Tables and references are not written as per editorial requirements. Each table edited differently. Lots of mistakes in the text. There are no citations regarding the plants tested. Punctuation marks can be used freely. Often there is no such thing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf