Influence of Calcium on the Development of Corn Plants Grown in Hydroponics
, Rubens Alves de Oliveira 2, Job Teixeira de Oliveira 3,* and Priscilla Andrade Silva 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article needs revision as per the following comments:
1. Abstract must have the most relevant quantified results.
2. Line 51: Along with reference 5, add the following one as well: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US202100027597
3. What was the need for this study? Must be mentioned in the introduction part.
4. In the methodology part, the authors must write details about the procedure of data collection for different parameters shown in the paper as well as the statistical analysis part.
5. What was the design of the study for analysing the data?
6. The results were well illustrated, however, the authors must rewrite the discussion part by referencing the data obtained in this study and connecting those with the relevant scientific background.
7. Line 145-146: Delete this. It is well-known fact, use such a statement to support your results rather than stating these in a separate paragraph.
8. Line no 153-154: What is the relevance of mentioning such a statement in the results and discussion section? You might mention such a statement in the introduction part.
9. Line no. 135-136: This statement might be supported with the following reference: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/29346/1/JSIR%2073(9)%20613-617.pdf
10. Make a concrete conclusion.
4.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, ALL requested changes have been accommodated.
The Manuscript was revised in English by a specialized company.
Thank you very much for the review, it has greatly improved the quality of the article!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment: The number of references is quite low, you should improve both the introduction and discussion section with more literature. For the number or results of measurements, You should use a period instead of a comma, for example 1.67±0.83 instead of 1,67±0,83
Line 27: It would be great if you express your findings in the abstract section. What are your highlights regarding this study?
Line 36: Please, use the reference at the end of the sentence. Moreover, it would be great, if you elaborate on global issues and nutrient deficiencies in current agricultural systems.
Line 40: the definition of hydroponic systems is missing and has no relationship with the previous paragraph
Line 50: you could add this paragraph after the first one
Line 57: Please elaborate on the previous studies, what they investigated and found
Line 60: just in grasses?
Line 70: In which environmental conditions and seasons did you carry out your experiments?
Line 73: Did you perform your experiment in a hydroponic system? The details related to this soilless system are missing. Why roots of Maize are just 9 to 10 h in water?
Line 75: Did you add sufficient fertilizers into the nutrient tank? Adding new supplementary fertilizers can change the composition of nutrients. Did you measure regularly the pH and EC values of nutrients? Have you taken these parameters into consideration for adding new nutrients?
Lines 78-79: please check the formulation of chemical compounds
Line 82: table 1- What do you mean by the stock solution? Did you have separate nutrient tanks for each element? You had to give all nutrients at the amount of maize plant request. If so, I cannot see the Nitrogen, Phosphorus etc. The table is not clear
Line 86: Experimental design was not well cleared. Moreover, you have not mentioned how many plants were grown in systems. When did you harvest these plants? Did you have repetations in experiment?
Line 88: It would be great to use vegetative growth parameters instead of physical analyses``. How many plants did you measure?
Line 96: Which statistical program did you use and which tests (ANOVA, T-test) and post doc tests did you do?
Line 101: Table 2-Variables or growth parameters? What do you mean by the number of sheets?
Line 110: In table 1, you mentioned the different nutrients. In table 3, I see the weather and days. Do you mean days after the transplantation of seedlings? Moreover, results for day 1 seem to be strange plant height 1,67 cm but SD is 0.83
Line 115: Which values? or parameters?
Line 118,127 and 133: please give names of authors in the running test for the references 14, 15
Line 153: did you also test the maize in soil cultivation? If not, you could compare all parameters better in the discussion section.
Line 160: Did you use corn or maize plants in experiments? One of it for human nutrition, another one is for animals
Line 171: Author Contributions are too long, please write only the initial letters of the names
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, ALL requested changes have been accommodated.
The Manuscript was revised in English by a specialized company.
Thank you very much for the review, it has greatly improved the quality of the article!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did a good job of revising the article as per the suggestions given. In my view, the article may be accepted for publication, now.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for the suggestions.
The discussion section has been improved with more literature searches. Furthermore, it was stated in this section that the literature supports the findings.
When citing sources in full text, the surname of the first author has been clearly indicated.
An English revision was carried out by a specialized company.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering the previous suggestions. However, there are still deficiencies in the discussion section and it would be better if this section could be improved with more literature research. Moreover, It should be clearly stated in this section whether what you find in the literature supports your findings or an opposite argument is defended, or what the reason for the findings might be.
When citing sources in running text, you must clearly indicate the surname of the first author. You should write as follow: Shareef et al. [34] reported a significant difference in plant height
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for the suggestions.
The discussion section has been improved with more literature searches. Furthermore, it was stated in this section that the literature supports the findings.
When citing sources in full text, the surname of the first author has been clearly indicated.
An English revision was carried out by a specialized company.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
