Borated Fertilizations via Foliar and Soil for Peanut Production during the Sugarcane Reform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present work reported the importance of B fertilizations on peanut yield. However, before this paper can be considered for publication, a few concerns should be addressed below.

1. Peanut grain quality including seed protein, sugar, and starch contents; however, one of my biggest concerns was that maturation has been taken as grain quality in Table 5 and Figure 6. The authors should change the expressions of "quality" in the title and other parts of the manuscript, or grain quality parameters such as seed protein, sugar, and starch contents should be measured and analyzed in the revised manuscript.

2. Only leaf nutrients have been measured in the manuscript, whereas the nutrients accumulation in roots and peanut pods seems equal important. I highly recommend the authors to add these data, or they should describe the reason why they were missing.

3. Line 10, In abstract, when first mention B, the full name of B (boron) should be added.

4. Line 114-121, the authors should state the relation between study 1 and 2, and their potential roles in the whole manuscript, and describe in detail how many treatments have been proposed in both studies.

5. Line 203-205, "P<0.01" where P should be italic. Please revise this mistake throughout the whole manuscript.

6. Line 484-490, "ha-1" where -1 should be superscript as ha^-1.

7. Line 148, please double check the unit in "135 g l^-1" where "l" might be "L".

8.  Line 438, what did "Boct e Bba" mean? There were many spelling mistakes, please double check throughout the whole manuscript.

9. In discussion part, the authors should discuss the difference between soil and foliar application of B.

Author Response

REVIEWER

 

Reviewer: The present work reported the importance of B fertilization on peanut yield. However, before this paper can be considered for publication, a few concerns should be addressed below. 1. Peanut grain quality including seed protein, sugar, and starch contents; however, one of my biggest concerns was that maturation has been taken as grain quality in Table 5 and Figure 6. The authors should change the expressions of "quality" in the title and other parts of the manuscript, or grain quality parameters such as seed protein, sugar, and starch contents should be measured and analyzed in the revised manuscript.

Authors: Thank you for the comments and all suggestions were used to improving our manuscript. The “quality” term was removed from the text. The editions are highlighted in green in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: 2. Only leaf nutrients have been measured in the manuscript, whereas the nutrient accumulation in roots and peanut pods seems equally important. I highly recommend the authors add these data, or they should describe the reason why they were missing.

Authors: The nutrient contents in roots and peanut pods were not monitored because the focus of the study was to check nutrient absorption and not nutrient accumulation in plants.  We added that idea in the Material and Methods. Thank you for the suggestion. In Future studies, we can check the nutrient accumulation in peanuts and required to monitor all plant parts.

 

Reviewer: 3. Line 10, In the abstract, when first mentioning B, the full name of B (boron) should be added; Reviewer: 4. Line 114-121, the authors should state the relation between study 1 and 2, and their potential roles in the whole manuscript, and describe in detail how many treatments have been proposed in both studies. Reviewer: 5. Line 203-205, "P<0.01" where P should be italic. Please revise this mistake throughout the whole manuscript. Reviewer: 6. Line 484-490, "ha-1" where -1 should be superscript as ha^-1. Reviewer: 7. Line 148, please double check the unit in "135 g l^-1" where "l" might be "L". Reviewer: 8.  Line 438, what did "Boct e Bba" mean? There were many spelling mistakes, please double-check throughout the whole manuscript.

Authors:  Perfect, we edited the abstract and the P values, and more information about the treatments was added to the text from both studies.

 

Reviewer: 9. In the discussion part, the authors should discuss the difference between soil and foliar application of B.

Authors: A additional topic was added in the Discussion to explain the difference between soil and foliar application of B.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This study discussed the improvement of borated fertilizations via foliar and soil on peanut yield and quality during the sugarcane reform. The results showed that all B sources increased the content of B in leaves, and indicating that B by plants had positive effects on the content of calcium, potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus in leaves. This finding may increase our understanding of the beneficial role of borated fertilizations in sustainable agriculture.

 

There are several issues that need to be addressed.

 

1）The abstract needs to be revised to describe more clearly.

 

2）Please unify the rates unit of Boct and Bba in this paper. 

 

3）Introduction: The effects of boron fertilizer and B source on flower production need to be further introduced.

 

4）Please check the at line 80, 84 in page 2, there are some mistakes, such as: “Fig. 1A” and “Fig. 2B”.

 

5）Please add the unit of annual precipitation at line 82 in page 2. 

 

6）Please check the “in the 0.25-0.50 m layer” in line 92, it should be “in the 0.0-0.50 m layer”.

 

7）Please check the “Soil Boct (0.5-1.0 kg ha^-1)” in Fig 1 study 2 , should be “Soil Boct (0.5 and 1.0 kg ha^-1)”? It is recommended to mark the study area with different colors in Fig 1.

 

8）Please check the “October and February (2018)” in line 130-131.

 

9）Please improve the clarity of the pictures.

 

10）Author should add more details about the sampling and data analyzing, as well as the techniques used.

 

11）Please check the “Fig 5. Leaf boron (mg kg^-1) and calcium (g kg^-1)” in line 334, and “0.5 e 1.0 kg ha^-1 of Boct” in line 286.

 

12）Why the Soil samples were collected in the soil-layer 0.0-0.4 m at line 187?

 

13）The author should discuss the results in a more focused manner based on assumptions and results.

 

14）The full text of the manuscript needs scientific editing.

Author Response

REVIEWER

 

Reviewer: This study discussed the improvement of borated fertilizations via foliar and soil on peanut yield and quality during the sugarcane reform. The results showed that all B sources increased the content of B in leaves, indicating that B by plants had positive effects on the content of calcium, potassium, nitrogen, and phosphorus in leaves. This finding may increase our understanding of the beneficial role of borated fertilizations in sustainable agriculture.

Authors: Thank you for the comments and all suggestions that were used to improve our manuscript. The editions are highlighted in green in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: There are several issues that need to be addressed. Reviewer: 1）The abstract needs to be revised to describe it more clearly. Reviewer: 2）Please unify the rates unit of Boct and Bba in this paper. Reviewer: 3）Introduction: The effects of boron fertilizer and B source on flower production need to be further introduced. Reviewer: 4）Please check lines 80, and 84 on page 2, there are some mistakes, such as: “Fig. 1A” and “Fig. 2B”. Reviewer: 5）Please add the unit of annual precipitation at line 82 on page 2. Reviewer: 6）Please check the “in the 0.25-0.50 m layer” in line 92, it should be “in the 0.0-0.50 m layer”.

Authors: All editions were made in the manuscript. A paragraph in the Introduction was added about the B source on flower production.

 

Reviewer: 7）Please check the “Soil Boct (0.5-1.0 kg ha^-1)” in Fig 1 study 2, should be “Soil Boct (0.5 and 1.0 kg ha^-1)”? It is recommended to mark the study area with different colors in Fig 1. Reviewer: 8）Please check the “October and February (2018)” in lines 130-131. Reviewer: 9）Please improve the clarity of the pictures. Reviewer: 11）Please check the “Fig 5. Leaf boron (mg kg^-1) and calcium (g kg^-1)” in line 334, and “0.5 e 1.0 kg ha^-1 of Boct” in line 286. Reviewer: 12）Why the Soil samples were collected in the soil layer 0.0-0.4 m at line 187?

Authors: All Figures were edited based on the comments. The soil samples were collected at the soil-layer 0.0 – 0.4 m because it is the arable soil layer with higher root concentration in soil.

 

Reviewer: 10）Author should add more details about the sampling and data analysis, as well as the techniques used. Reviewer: 13）The author should discuss the results in a more focused manner based on assumptions and results. Reviewer: 14）The full text of the manuscript needs scientific editing.

Authors: The manuscript was edited based on the comments of all reviewers with a focus to improve the scientific writing and results. We appreciate all your comments. Thanks.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: agriculture-2168417

Title: Borated fertilizations via foliar and soil increase peanut yield and quality during the sugarcane reform

 

 

The nutrient requirements of peanuts are well known, and methods of fertilizer application and other cultural practices resulting in optimum production have been developed over the past 50 years. Boron (B) has been universally recognized as the most important micronutrient for peanut production, but the boron requirement for peanuts is not as high as that for some other leguminous species. While boron is essential for all stages of plant growth, an available supply is most important during flowering and pod development. This is especially true with today’s high-yielding varieties. Cell wall strength, cell division, and fruit and seed development are plant functions related to boron. Improved nut quality has been reported with boron applications. While boron requirements for optimum plant nutrition are low as compared with those of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, the need for boron is especially significant in flowering and pod development. Boron is essential for all plant growth. It is important for cell wall structure, root growth, and pollination. Peanut require an available supply of boron, especially during the pod development stage, or “hollow heart” may occur, possibly reducing quality and yields.

 

 

The present topic “Borated fertilizations via foliar and soil increase peanut yield and quality during the sugarcane reform” is investigated in the literature, and there is very little reference published. However, this paper gives significant contribution to the current knowledge in related fields. The data are sound and it deserves to be published.

 

I have very favorable comments for current research and manuscript quality, well-written and presented. It deserves to be published upon addressing following minute observations:

 

??Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention with brackets.

 

?? Keywords should not be the same as mentioned in the title or abstract.

 

?? Kindly don’t start a sentence with an abbreviation.

 

 

?? Collected data is sound one. It deserves to be published after minute improvements.

 

?? Use www.turnitin.com to find and eliminate unnecessary self-repetition and any copied text.

 

?? A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed.

?? Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Agriculture Journal. References formatting are inconsistent. A few DOI missing.

?? Verify each reference from original source and cross check references in the text and reference section.

Author Response

REVIEWER

 

Reviewer: The nutrient requirements of peanuts are well known, and methods of fertilizer application and other cultural practices resulting in optimum production have been developed over the past 50 years. Boron (B) has been universally recognized as the most important micronutrient for peanut production, but the boron requirement for peanuts is not as high as that for some other leguminous species. While boron is essential for all stages of plant growth, an available supply is most important during flowering and pod development. This is especially true with today’s high-yielding varieties. Cell wall strength, cell division, and fruit and seed development are plant functions related to boron. Improved nut quality has been reported with boron applications. While boron requirements for optimum plant nutrition are low as compared with those of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, the need for boron is especially significant in flowering and pod development. Boron is essential for all plant growth. It is important for cell wall structure, root growth, and pollination. Peanuts require an available supply of boron, especially during the pod development stage, or a “hollow heart” may occur, possibly reducing quality and yields. The present topic “Borated fertilizations via foliar and soil increase peanut yield and quality during the sugarcane reform” is investigated in the literature, and there is very little reference published. However, this paper gives a significant contribution to the current knowledge in related fields. The data are sound and it deserves to be published.

Authors: Thank you for the comments and all suggestions that were used to improve our manuscript. The editions are highlighted in green in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: ??Abbreviations must be described completely at first mention with brackets. ?? Keywords should not be the same as mentioned in the title or abstract. ?? Kindly don’t start a sentence with an abbreviation.

Authors: We checked the keywords to avoid the use of the same words from titles and the text with a sentence with an abbreviation (start). We also checked all abbreviations and used parentheses

 

Reviewer: ?? The collected data is sound. It deserves to be published after minute improvements. ?? Use www.turnitin.com to find and eliminate unnecessary self-repetition and any copied text. ?? Proper formatting is questionable. It must be according to MDPI Agriculture Journal. References formatting is inconsistent. A few DOI missing.?? A few very old references have been used. These must be updated with recent research findings or removed. ?? Verify each reference from the source and cross-check references in the text and reference section.

Authors: The references and additional editions in the text were made. The discussion was edited and new references were added based on your comments and other reviewers. Thank you for all your suggestions.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Following corrections/ modifications to be made:

(1) Line No. 2: Modification of the title with more clarity is required

(2) Line No. 10: expand 'B' when used for first time

(3) Line No. 24: Add two more relevant key words

(4) Materials and methods: Provide number to sub-headings

(5) Line No. 130: Correct as 'during October to February (2018)...'

(6) Line No. 160: Correct the spell of 'Formulae'

(7) Results: Provide number to sub-headings

(8) Table 2, 3, 4 and 5: Present the alphabets as superscripts.

(9) Discussion: Present with suitable sub-headings for easy understanding to the readers.

(10) Line No. 492: The sentence is incomplete.

Author Response

REVIEWER

 

 

Reviewer: Following corrections/ modifications are to be made:(1) Line No. 2: Modification of the title with more clarity is required (2) Line No. 10: expand 'B' when used for the first time (3) Line No. 24: Add two more relevant keywords

Authors: We edited the title based on your comments and from the other's review. The editions are highlighted in green in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: (4) Materials and methods: Provide number to sub-headings (7) Results: Provide number to sub-headings. Reviewer: (5) Line No. 130: Correct as 'during October to February (2018)...'(6) Line No. 160: Correct the spelling of 'Formulae'(8) Table 2, 3, 4 and 5: Present the alphabets as superscripts.

Authors: Several sub-headings were added, and all suggestions were made in the text. Thanks.

 

Reviewer: (9) Discussion: Present with suitable sub-headings for easy understanding to the readers. (10) Line No. 492: The sentence is incomplete.

Authors: The discussion was edited and new references were added based on your comments and other reviewers.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 5 Report

It is a good study for research purposes. The first aim of the study is to determine the effects of boron applications from leaves and soil on groundnut yield characteristics. The second purpose is to determine which boron source is suitable for groundnut. Third is the determination of boron leaching in the soil. However, while the study was being planned, it was not planned according to scientific experiment methods. In order to be able to compare boron sources, it is necessary to give all sources both from leaves and soil together and to apply their combinations. It is not suitable to be published because the experiment method is not correct.

Author Response

REVIEWER

 

 

Reviewer: It is a good study for research purposes. The first aim of the study is to determine the effects of boron applications from leaves and soil on groundnut yield characteristics. The second purpose is to determine which boron source is suitable for groundnut. The third is the determination of boron leaching in the soil. However, while the study was being planned, it was not planned according to scientific experiment methods. To be able to compare boron sources, it is necessary to give all sources both from leaves and soil together and to apply their combinations. It is not suitable to be published because the experiment method is not correct.

Authors: Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback. We made some editions to improve our manuscript. We have two experiments testing different rates and sources of B planned separately. The studies were not compared in text and we used adequate scientific methods in each experiment. I hope you can understand our point of view. The editions are highlighted in green in the manuscript. The editions are highlighted in green in the manuscript.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all of the concerns raised by the reviewer, I suggest this paper can be accepted at such circumstance.

Reviewer 5 Report

Accept