You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Damiano Spagnuolo1,
  • Aftab Jamal2 and
  • Domenico Prisa3,*

Reviewer 1: Sanghamitra Khandual Reviewer 2: Amine Elbouzidi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. Not much novelty to support the experiment; some bioactive compound in the algal extract could be done.
  2. During stress analysis, no antioxidant enzymes or osmoprotectants were evaluated. 
  3. Algal Biomass matter could be analyzed if it contains any antioxidant compound, which those collected from cold climates to validate the argument.
  4. Results part did not state how much % increase in biomass or oil yield etc., from the control.
  5. Not much comparison among 3 biostimulants and commercial stimulants has been done, % wise to clarify the results. It can be improved.
  6. Methodology says microbial colony counts have been done, but no results interpreted. 
  7. Conclusion: Should be precise, according to results obtained and not general opinions or speculations.

Author Response

First reviewer's response

 

Good evening, thank you for your suggestions. All the changes you suggested have been made. Paragraphs on the results, discussion and conclusion have been added. In addition, the bibliography has been checked and expanded in accordance with the first and second reviewers. All figures have been modified.The language has been checked by a native English-speaking researcher. All relevant changes are highlighted in yellow and light blue. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

  1. Not much novelty to support the experiment; some bioactive compound in the algal extract could be done.

While the study focused primarily on agronomic and physiological outcomes, future work should aim to identify and quantify the key bioactive compounds within the macroalgal extracts responsible for the observed effects. This will enable a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of action and support the development of standardized, compositionally defined biostimulant formulations.

  1. During stress analysis, no antioxidant enzymes or osmoprotectants were evaluated. 

Paragraphs have been added on these topics, with related graphs, discussion and bibliography.

  1. Algal Biomass matter could be analyzed if it contains any antioxidant compound, which those collected from cold climates to validate the argument.

Analyses of antioxidant content are currently underway for subsequent publication.

  1. Results part did not state how much % increase in biomass or oil yield etc., from the control.

The section relating to the percentage increase in biomass and oil production compared to the control has been included.

  1. Not much comparison among 3 biostimulants and commercial stimulants has been done, % wise to clarify the results. It can be improved.

A comparison was made between the three biostimulants in terms of agronomy and oil production.

  1. Methodology says microbial colony counts have been done, but no results interpreted. 

The section on microbial biomass analysis and related discussion has been added.

  1. Conclusion: Should be precise, according to results obtained and not general opinions or speculations.

              The conclusions have been modified in accordance with all the changes made in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting and relevant topic related to sustainable agriculture, examining the effect of macroalgae-based biostimulants on lavender. The experimental design is broad and multifactorial, including physiological, morphological, and biochemical parameters, which is commendable. However, several critical issues limit the manuscript’s current value and must be addressed prior to publication.

 

  • The abstract and methods make it clear that drought and salinity stress treatments were part of the experimental setup. However, when reading through the results and discussion, there's no trace of these conditions being addressed. Instead, the focus is entirely on plants grown under optimal conditions. This is a bit surprising, especially since the central theme of the study is to evaluate how biostimulants help plants cope with abiotic stress. It would really strengthen the manuscript if you could include the results from the stress conditions. Were the drought and salinity data collected but left out?
  • The study focuses heavily on essential oil yield, but no information is provided on oil composition (e.g., linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor), which is crucial for the pharmacological and commercial value of lavender. Yield alone is not a sufficient metric of quality. Please justify this choice of yield as a parametric choice.

  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is said to be performed but no figure or result is provided. Provide also a detailed discussion of the test.

  • The study refers to biostimulant extracts made from different algae but does not analyze or characterize their composition, nor provide citations or certificates of analysis from suppliers. two commercial biostimulants (Kelpak® and Trainer®) but does not provide full composition, or why these were selected as controls.

This study holds promise and could make a valuable contribution to sustainable horticulture and biostimulant research. However, significant methodological clarification, data transparency, and discussion refinement are required. The absence of key datasets (especially for stress conditions and oil composition) must be addressed, or their absence must be explicitly acknowledged and justified. For now the manuscript needs extensive work.

Author Response

Response to the second reviewer

Good evening, thank you for your suggestions. All the changes you suggested have been made. Paragraphs on the results, discussion and conclusion have been added. In addition, the bibliography has been checked and expanded in accordance with the first and second reviewers. All figures have been modified. The language has been checked by a native English-speaking researcher. All relevant changes are highlighted in yellow and light blue. Thank you.

 

  • The abstract and methods make it clear that drought and salinity stress treatments were part of the experimental setup. However, when reading through the results and discussion, there's no trace of these conditions being addressed. Instead, the focus is entirely on plants grown under optimal conditions. This is a bit surprising, especially since the central theme of the study is to evaluate how biostimulants help plants cope with abiotic stress. It would really strengthen the manuscript if you could include the results from the stress conditions. Were the drought and salinity data collected but left out?

 

New paragraphs have been added on water and salt stress, with related discussion, graphs and bibliography.

 

  • The study focuses heavily on essential oil yield, but no information is provided on oil composition(e.g., linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor), which is crucial for the pharmacological and commercial value of lavender. Yield alone is not a sufficient metric of quality. Please justify this choice of yield as a parametric choice.

Recognizing the importance of oil composition, a follow-up phase of this research is already planned. This will include chemical profiling of oil samples from the most promising treatments (particularly Ascophyllum nodosum and Sargassum muticum) to determine how biostimulant applications influence the proportion and biosynthesis of key terpenoids, especially under stress.

  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is said to be performed but no figure or result is provided. Provide also a detailed discussion of the test.

The section on PCA has been added, with results, graphs and discussion, along with an expanded bibliography.

  • The study refers to biostimulant extracts made from different algae but does not analyze or characterize their composition, nor provide citations or certificates of analysis from suppliers. two commercial biostimulants (Kelpak® and Trainer®) but does not provide full composition, or why these were selected as controls.

Data relating to the composition of the seaweed-based products used has been introduced. A clarification has also been added as to why commercial controls were used.

This study holds promise and could make a valuable contribution to sustainable horticulture and biostimulant research. However, significant methodological clarification, data transparency, and discussion refinement are required. The absence of key datasets (especially for stress conditions and oil composition) must be addressed, or their absence must be explicitly acknowledged and justified. For now the manuscript needs extensive work.

All the requested information has been included, expanding on the sections on materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions. New graphs and bibliographic data have also been added. The oil analysis is ongoing and will be part of a subsequent research article. This article aimed to give more space to the effect of biostimulants on the agronomic aspect of growth under stress and quantitative production.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now the article content is interpreted with better results from antioxidant enzymes and osmoprotectants to give trustworthy data for advanced analysis.

Lots of improvements were made in discussion and conclusion. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made all the necessary revisions, as per suggested, I believe that the paper can be accepted in its revised form (consider giving high resolution figures).