Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Actually, you can write a similar comment as before. Information on the given subject collected but not structured. The review paper and the references still have errors. The units are not standardized. Some are not used in scientific works. Only some corrections have been made. If there are different symbols for the same quantities in a paper, this is unacceptable. Notes have been marked in the text, but repeated errors have not been marked many times. The addition of text written in red is not justified. This publication does not meet the requirements of scientific work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thanks for the valuable feedback

 

Kindly note the following:

1 - All units were updated and unified in the manuscript.

2- The added part after round (1), which was out of the scope (references 53, 54,55, and 56) was removed based on your opinion

3- All corrections (Round 2) were written in red color

4- Some units were difficult to uniform such as (and Kg per hectare). Those mainly were in section 4 (biological treatment). It was hard to find a conversion to mmol dm-3. Thus, it was skipped in table number 6.

5- If am true, you were reviewing this manuscript twice. It was somehow difficult to uniform spray dosage units into (mmol dm-3) for references (43, and 50). Also, I noticed no objection to using (tons per hectare) for soil additions, and yield measurements. Thus the unit of (tons ha-1) was used -exceptionally- in references (43, 47, 49, and 50). Your final decision is highly appreciated regardless of any further opinions.

5 Reference 52 shifted to become 45, and consequent changes were taken place. This was done to make the structure fitter.

 

Thanks and Regrads

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The work that I have read is an interesting work from the researcher's point of view, an exhaustive bibliographic review work has been carried out. The tables elaborated synthesize the mentioned studies and the unification in the dosage of the products and treatments described seemed to me a success. It will serve as support for researchers to discuss their research work and can be a good tool for transferring the use of these products to the productive sector.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

On behalf of authors' team

 

I would like to thank you for the valuable and positive feedback. In fact, I cannot say thank you enough!

 

Thanks and Regards

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

All comments are inserted in text.

I would like to point out that there are some parts of text repeated for two times often in the same paragraph. As, some sentences are quite long and hard to understand due to inappropriate grammar or terminology used, I suggest a text rewiev by native english speaker.

I think that tables should have an additional column for concentrations used. The first column contains treatments, the second one concentrations applied, and the third an impacto of foliar application on plants. The tables will be clearer and more transparent.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

On behalf of the authors' team, am so grateful for your valuable comments.

Kindly note that the article was sent to a native English speaker 3 times, thus, we will correct the current draft by following your notes and removing repeated sentences. Further, the final draft will be double-checked for grammar proofreading and punctuation before uploading. We started corrections on March 9, and the final manuscript will be on this profile before March 19, 2023 (God willing).

One more thing, we started to update the data mentioned within the text and tables, by placing a uniform dosage of foliar sprays for all cited references. As mentioned in the Round 1 draft, the final used unit will be (mmol dm-3). Also, the dosage was inserted within tables in a new column. All suggested corrections by your sincerely will be written in red color. However, some conversions were done to (tons ha-1) because of scientific difficulties (references 43,47,49, and 50). I will ask the editor in the cover letter to grease the wheels and overlook those citations because of the scientific difficulties of conversions. References (43, and 50) are only for spray dosage, and others for soil additions and yield measurements. Anyway, your opinion on further development will be highly appreciated.

 

Thanks and Regards

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript, following the changes indicated by the reviewers, has improved a lot. The authors considered the suggestions of the reviewers and found solutions for each indication. I therefore have no other changes to suggest and the manuscript can be published in its current state.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

On behalf of other authors

 

I would like to thank you for your valuable and effective feedback

 

Thanks and Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I still believe that the work does not correspond to the level that characterizes scientific work. The information is still not organized. The units were unified in a strange way. The conversions used are not always justified. I have no idea how you can calculate the molar concentration for tea or seaweed. The authors did not understand some of the comments. The unification concerned the notation of units. You cannot give once ml once cm³. Or dm³ and once L. This was my comment. The second column in the tables is only the concentration of the solution and not the dasage. References still have errors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

Based on the editor's opinion to send the manuscript to an academic editor, I have to reply to your last argumentation

First:

In order to unify the units into one unit (mmol dm^-3), we did the following:

 

 1 Molar (M) equals 1000 mmol dm^-3

 1 milliMolar (mM) equals 1 mmol dm^-3

1 microMolar (µM) equals 0.001 mmol dm^-3

The site used for the above is:

https://www.convert-measurement-units.com/conversion-calculator

1 gram per Liter equals 21.7391304 mmol per Liter

1 mg per Liter equals 0.0217391 mmol per Liter

The site also used for the above is:

https://everydaycalculation.com/bac-converter

And by basic information, the following were deduced:

1 Liter equals 1 dm^-3

1 ppm equals 1 mg per Liter

1 gram per Liter equals 1000 mg per Liter

1 Liter is 1 dm^-3.

And finally:

1 milliliter equals 1000 mg per Liter, which equals 1 gram per Liter (21.7391304 mmol per Liter).

http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ppmm

1 % equals 10000 mg per Liter

https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/

 and yes -Simply - 1 mL is 1 cubic centimeter!

Second:

Compost tea is mentioned in the text and tables only as soil additions - not foliar sprays - in all places where compost tea is mentioned, the molar concentration was not mentioned as a unit of measurement. 

 

Third:

 

Biomin and Hufimifolin are mentioned in the reference [23] as a percentage (0.2%). The concentrations mentioned after conversions.

 

Original concentrations (before conversions) for references [23] and [24] were added in blue color in the corrected manuscript

 

Fourth: All corrections are written in blue, even the spaces for references.

 

Finally: 

Conversions factors are true, we prepared two foliar solutions in the lab to test the correctness of conversion and it worked well. The sodium bicarbonate (5 g per liter) (w/v%) and hydrogen peroxide (500 ml per liter) (v/v%) (Kindly look to the attachment).

 

Thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for paper improvement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thanks for your valuable support and encouragement. Am so grateful

 

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

Good afternoon, I have read your work and I find the review you have carried out with many results of foliar applications very interesting and useful. It seems to me that it can provide a lot of data to other researchers who are investigating foliar applications. They have presented them in an orderly manner and it is simple and understandable. Simply tell them that in the abstract they must specify as clearly as they did in the introduction, in lines 47 and 48, that they are complementary systems in plant nutrition and plant stimulation, especially interesting for secondary macronutrients and micronutrients, just as they can be a supplement for nutrition in the main macronutrients, but in no way is it a technique that can replace fertigation or fertilization through the soil. Finally, the most current scientific name of the tomato should be put, in this case, Solanum lycopersicum. All the best

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reports the analysis of studies carried out on foliar nutrition and the effects of substances distributed on vegetable plants.

The research work of the sources has been translated into a schematization conducted in a scientific and useful way for understanding the passages over time of studies and research in the sector.

The manuscript was written in a clear manner and I find nothing to report for improvement.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

In the introduction, general statements without citing literature. Sentences contain similar information. The review paper and the references are edited not in accordance with the editorial requirements. Units are not unified. It is not possible to compare the methods used. No doses, only given concentrations of solutions. Tables edited very carelessly and incorrectly. Information on the given topic collected, but not arranged. 42 remarks have been marked in the text. The text can be used as a leaflet for gardeners, but not a scientific article. The work should be completely redrafted. You must write correctly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf