Impact of Foliar-Applied Plant Extracts on Growth, Physiological and Yield Attributes of the Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)â€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsImpact of Foliar-applied Plant Extracts on Growth, Physiological and Yield Attributes of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
General Comments: This manuscript addressed determining the influence of the foliar application of four plant extracts (Ascophyllum nodosum, moringa, garlic bulb, and aloe vera) on growth, and certain physiological and yield attributes of potatoes. It is an important topic and one of general interest.
However, the manuscript needs to be re-written in several parts. Mainly, it is necessary to comment on the materials and methods section on how the values of the chemical composition of the extracts shown in Table 1 were obtained. It is very important. It should also be very clear how long the experiment lasted and exactly when the different variables evaluated were recorded. The Discussion section exhibits a high degree of repetition and would benefit from a thorough revision. The composition of the extracts is reiterated frequently, yet it often does not align with the results presented in Table 1.
Some specific comments are reported below, referring to line numbering of the manuscript.
Specific Comments:
Line 21- change P ≤ 0.05 for p ≤ 0.05
Lines 22-23. The abbreviation is not defined. What are ANE and MLE?
Lines 64-66. What are the extracts that are studied? Should be included in the objective of the work.
Line 88-89. There should be the scientific names (genus, family, and order) of the plants with which the extracts were made.
Why were these plant extracts chosen to study their effects on potatoes? Are they currently used in potatoes or some other crop?
Line 90-91. Delete the sentence “All plant extracts were derived using an eco-friendly extraction protocol, employing hot water, as described by Ngcobo and Bertling (2021)” because it is already detailed later.
Line 95. When was the harvest? This fact is very important.
Lines 111-112. How each extract was chemically analyzed? What equipment was used?
Table 1. The abbreviations of the extracts in Table 1 should be defined.
Lines 118-122. How many plants were these data taken from?
The authors mention that the number of branches was counted, but these results are not shown.
Remove "as well as leaf chlorophyll index" because it is explained later.
Line 124. How many leaves per plant were these measurements taken from?
Line 128. When was this measure taken? Line 119 mentions that the leaf chlorophyll index was recorded from the first treatment application until stage 4. However, only a bar graph is provided, which I assume corresponds to a specific time.
Line 135. How many plants were these data taken from?
Line 138. I understand that the maturation of the tubers coincides with the harvest. That is, they have the same sampling time.
Line 152. Change p ≤ 0.05 for p ≤ 0.05
Line 153. Were there differences observed only after four weeks? In Figure 1, it appears that differences are also noticeable at three weeks. These distinctions should be clearly marked on the graph.
Lines 160, 169, 180, 190, 204, 216, 228. The species name should be in italics.
Line 161. LSD at (p ≤ 0.05) = 4.91: What specific time does it correspond to? The figure displays results at various weeks after the application of treatments. It is essential to clarify which specific week the statistical analysis corresponds to. Additionally, it is advisable to conduct statistical analyses for each week sampled. Moreover, it is recommended to maintain consistent symbols representing each treatment across all figures. For instance, if ANE is represented by a circle in Figure 1, it should not be depicted as a square in Figure 2.
Line 170. Same as the previous comment.
Lines 174-176. Change cm2 for cm2
Line 177. Change p ≤ 0.05 for p ≤ 0.05
Line 181. The same comment applies as in line 161. Figure 3 illustrates differences in leaf area from the first week of treatment. Why was this specific time point not subjected to statistical analysis?
Figure 4. When was the Leaf chlorophyll index measured? The authors show a bar graph, so I assume that they are measurements at a certain time of the experience. Please this needs to be clarified.
Line 198. ANE does not differ significantly from MLE or GBE
Line 200. The dry above-ground biomass of the control only differed statistically from that of ANE
Line 207. Italics letters for DM and regular letters for FM
Line 210. Change p ≤ 0.05 for p ≤ 0.05
If measurements of the number of tubers/plant were taken before harvest, then in Figure 6 what time is it showing? Was the time in which the number of tubers/plant was recorded the same day that the harvest took place? Please these dates must be very clear and consistent throughout the manuscript.
Line 211-213. Delete “recording 10 tubers/plant,…..” because it is already shown on the graph. Results that are already in the figures should not be repeated in the text.
Line 222. Same as the previous comment. Results that are already in the figures should not be repeated in the text.
Figure 5 and Figure 6. Labels in graphics are overlapping
Line 227. This is Figure 7
Line 230. Change p ≤ 0.05 for p ≤ 0.05
Lines 240. Delete (Fig. 1-7). I suggest referring to the results obtained, without naming the figure.
Lines 240-243. Delete the sentence “Authors should discuss the results and how ….”.
Line 257. Delete (Fig, 2 and 3)
Line 260. Delete (Table 1)
Line 265. Scientific names must be in italics.
Line 275. Delete (Fig. 1,2 and 3)
Line 296. Delete (Fig. 4)
Line 299-302. The authors state that both, ANE and MLE are good sources of phytohormones, especially of auxins, gibberellins, and cytokinins, however, these compounds do not appear in Table 1.
Lines 308-309. According to Table 1, it would not seem that MLE and ANE had much nitrogen.
Lines 313, and 322 delete Fig. 4. I suggest referring to the results obtained, without naming the figure.
Line 326, 333 delete Fig. 5
Line 328 delete Fig. 6
Line 334-336. Many compounds that are named here as components of ANE are not shown in Table 1. Therefore, it cannot be stated that they are in that particular extract, given that many factors influence an extraction, such as the part of the plant that is used, plant geographical origins, type of extraction, and solvent used for the extraction, among others.
Line 340, 342, 348. Delete Fig 5
Line 354. Delete Fig 6 and 7
Line 357-359. Repetition of information already mentioned previously in the discussion.
Line delete Fig 7 and 8
Line 377, 380, 382. Delete Fig 6 and 7
Lines 392-394. Repeated phrases.
Lines 397-398. Just because it has been tested on potato crops does not mean that it can be generalized to all solanaceous plants.
Line 399. It should be clarified that field studies should be carried out to demonstrate that these extracts can be applied safely and are beneficial in potato plantations.
Author Response
Comments are addressed in the file attached and alterations are highlighted in yellow. The discussion is also re-written to eliminate repetitions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments an suggestions are in manucript
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We tried to address the comments to the best of our ability, we hope they will find your approval
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have addressed your comments to the best of our ability, alterations are highlighted in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract
Please make the methods accessible to follow; try not to "go and come back." Make it linear (step by step), without the necessity to go back to mention past facts.
INTRODUCTION
the phrase on line 34-36 suits better on the beginning of second paragraph (line 41).
rephase the idea in line 52-54. i belive Lucas et al is not the first study to identify the harm of excesive inorganic pesticides and fertilizers.
line 63. add the scientific name of potato
the last part of introduction requires a final paragrah tha sumarizes the aim of the study.
METHODS
Line 69, "pot experiment" means "one experiment", or "set of experiments"?
line 92. please comply with MDPI guidelines. change reference from APA to numbers
line 107. "magnetic stirrer", not "electromagnetic stirrer"
table 1 is a result rather than a method
please add the methods used for the analysis of the extracts
RESULTS
Please, revise how the units were written "cm2/plant"
DISCUSSION
Please remove the idea on lines 240-243
in line 251 authors discuss that the possible explanation to the results is the phytohormone content of extracted plants. please reinforce this statement comparing the most common extraction methods. Does 30 min at 100C do not degrade phytohoromones?
what means "chiefly determining crop productivity" in line 287
Author Response
We have addressed your comments to the best of our ability, alterations are highlighted in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNot all of the required corrections have been addressed. While the authors indicated in their cover letter that certain issues had been resolved, these corrections are not reflected in the manuscript. Kindly review the attached manuscript with accompanying comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I think I addressed all the comments with all my capacity, I hope that you will find them correct and accept this manuscript for publication
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not do their homework.
The observations, suggestions, and comments from the first review of this manuscript are current.
The authors tried to present an article that deals with potato pest control using three plant extracts. However, there are some flaws in the experimental setup and execution along with the poor presentation of the obtained result. therefore I cannot recommend it for publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
In general, the quality of English is quite good, but there are few places that need a lot of attention.
Author Response
Tried with all my ability to address the comments, I hope it will now succeed and get published
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
