Ivy Geranium (Pelargonium peltatum (L.) L’Hér.) Plant Growth and Flowering as Affected by Mineral or Biofertilizer with or without Compost Amendment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents important results about chemical and organic fertilization for the production of geranium as an ornamental species. Interesting results were found that are well supported statistically, the manuscript, in general, is well written, but I suggest improving the discussion, in the PDF I included more suggestions for the improvement of the document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Prof

Thank you for your valuable comments. We also appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our manuscript. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We think that the manuscript has been greatly improved by these revisions and hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you have noted. The necessary corrections have been written in The fast track revision in the manuscript. To facilitate your evaluation, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments

Dear Authors,

** The research is conducted with one cultivar of geranium, so its name must be included in the title together with the Latin name of the species. In addition, the Latin names of all species discussed, in italics, should be used throughout the manuscript. Only in keywords can the common name geranium be used.

Thank you for your comments, I totally agree with your suggestions, so we add the Latin name in italic in the title (Ivy geranium (Pelargonium peltatum L.) plant growth and flowering as affected by mineral or biofertilizer with or without compost amendment) and changed the keywords as indicated in the revised manuscript (Biofertilizer; chemical fertilizer; chlorophyll; ions; organic fertilizer; sustainable production)

 

** Remove the abbreviated name of ornamental plants (OPs). It is not used anywhere.

Thank you so much, we remove it anywhere in our manuscript

** Throughout the manuscript, change the term 'variety' to 'cultivar'.

Ok done

** Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form.

Ok done

 

** You can add a photo of the variety in the Materials and methods section.

Thank you as indicated in the revised manuscript we add Figure one that indicated the experimental layout

 

** L 83-55 - Change the sentence to:

The positive roles of biofertilizers on plant growth are related to boosting nitrogen fixation by bacteria, synthesizing antibiotics and plant growth regulators (PGRs), improving ion uptake, and formation of metabolites that encourage and enhance meristematic activity…

Thank you for your comments, I totally agree with your suggestions, so done

 

**L 98-99 – Change the sentence to:

…Ivy geranium (Pelargonium peltatum) ‘Kim’ from the F1 mother plants that were propagated from seeds (Blocompic, Holland)…

Thank you for your comments, I totally agree with your suggestions, so done

**L 100 – add information:

…Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) – a PGR from the auxins group…

Thank you for your comments, I totally agree with your suggestions, so done

** For me, Figure 1 is Table 1.

We change the figure and indicated the treatment in the text

** L 166 – Change to: ...to Latimer [38].  L 519 – A.O.A.C. change to: Latimer G.W. (Ed).

Thank you for your comments, done

Once more, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor,

The article submitted for review aims to: "aims to achieve the effect of using different types of biofertilizers individually or in mixtures after adding them to the agricultural soil with or without compost on the vegetative and flowering growth of geranium plants".

When starting to read the referred work, I verified that there was a statistical error, in which the experiment was conducted in split-plots, as shown in Figure 1. And its analysis, as indicated in the section "2.5 Statistical Analysis:", was through of the "two-way-ANOVA" test. In addition, the results presented a comparison of isolated factors only and a result comparing all treatments, without actually showing the interaction.

In this way, I suggest rejecting the article and performing a correct analysis of the data and then submitting the journal again.

Moderate editing of English language

Author Response

Dear Prof

Thank you for your valuable comments. We also appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our manuscript. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We think that the manuscript has been greatly improved by these revisions and hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you have noted. The necessary corrections have been written in The fast track revision in the manuscript. To facilitate your evaluation, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments

** The article submitted for review aims to: "aims to achieve the effect of using different types of biofertilizers individually or in mixtures after adding them to the agricultural soil with or without compost on the vegetative and flowering growth of geranium plants".

When starting to read the referred work, I verified that there was a statistical error, in which the experiment was conducted in split-plots, as shown in Figure 1. And its analysis, as indicated in the section "2.5 Statistical Analysis:", was through of the "two-way-ANOVA" test. In addition, the results presented a comparison of isolated factors only and a result comparing all treatments, without actually showing the interaction.

Thank you for your comments, as indicated in the revised manuscript, The experiment was laid out as a two-factorial experiment involving compost (with or without) as the first factor, and fertilizers i.e. biofertilizer (Bio-Fert, nitrogen-fixing microorganisms; Biot-Phos, phosphorus released microorganism; and Bio-Potas, potassium released microorganisms, either alone or in combinations) or slow-release compound chemical fertilizer (Osmocote) as the second factor, and their combination with 9x2 treatments and 3 replicates of 54 experimental units. So we can compare each factor alone and finally the interaction.

 

** In this way, I suggest rejecting the article and performing a correct analysis of the data and then submitting the journal again.

Thank you for your comments, as indicated in the revised manuscript, we checked the typos and experimental layout.

Once more, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, authors analyzed the effects of three biofertilizers and one slow-release compound chemical fertilizer on geranium plant growth, flowering, chlorophyll level, and ion percentage. Results showed that the addition of a triple mixture of biofertilizers is beneficial for obtaining high plant growth and flowering attributes, which provided a recommendation for the fertilization in the agriculture. Here are some suggestions:

 

1.     I suggest authors to provide the photos of the plant growth phenotype under different treatments.

2.     Based on the results showed in this study, there are significant interaction effects between different fertilizer treatments. Therefore, I suggest authors to discuss the interaction effects in more detail.

3.     Line 134, why authors used 10 g / pot Osmocote? How much soil is in one pot?

4.     Line 164-165, the determination of NPK should be described in more detail.

5.     Line 162, authors used SPAD-502 to estimate the chlorophyll content. How can they get the data of chlorophyll content (mg/ g FW) in Table 5 from the SPAD value?

6.     Line 369, there may be a mistake in this sentence (“cell no”).

Author Response

Dear Prof

Thank you for your valuable comments. We also appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our manuscript. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We think that the manuscript has been greatly improved by these revisions and hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you have noted. The necessary corrections have been written in The fast track revision in the manuscript. To facilitate your evaluation, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments

In this study, authors analyzed the effects of three biofertilizers and one slow-release compound chemical fertilizer on geranium plant growth, flowering, chlorophyll level, and ion percentage. Results showed that the addition of a triple mixture of biofertilizers is beneficial for obtaining high plant growth and flowering attributes, which provided a recommendation for the fertilization in the agriculture. Here are some suggestions:

 1- I suggest authors to provide the photos of the plant growth phenotype under different treatments.

Thank you as indicated in the revised manuscript we add Figure one that indicated the experimental layout

 

2-     Based on the results showed in this study, there are significant interaction effects between different fertilizer treatments. Therefore, I suggest authors to discuss the interaction effects in more detail.

Thank you for your comments, I totally agree with your suggestions, but as indicated in revised manuscript the role of interaction between biofertilizers or chemical fertilizer with compost on geranium plants is very little so we discuss the interaction effects as possible as we can.

 

3-     Line 134, why authors used 10 g / pot Osmocote? How much soil is in one pot?

Thank you for your comments, as indicated in revised manuscript “”The complex mineral fertilizer Osmocote (NPK: 13-13-13) was weighed and then added at a rate of 10 g/pot in one dose to the agricultural soil immediately after the transfer as recommended by the producers”” the company indicate that on their product in poor soil we add one gram/kg , specially the pot contained 10 kg soil

4-     Line 164-165, the determination of NPK should be described in more detail.

Thank you for your comments, as indicated in revised manuscript we add some details on ion estimation

5-     Line 162, authors used SPAD-502 to estimate the chlorophyll content. How can they get the data of chlorophyll content (mg/ g FW) in Table 5 from the SPAD value?

Thank you for your comments, as indicated in revised manuscript, we find typos so we correct it and described the protocol of extraction and determination of chlorophyll

6-     Line 369, there may be a mistake in this sentence (“cell no”).

Thank you for your comments, we checked and written as cell number

 

Once more, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor,

Initially in the opinion I had denied the article, due to problems in the statistical analysis carried out at work.

 

After a new round of evaluation, I believe that the answer presented by the authors satisfies my questions. In addition, they performed extensive review work on the article.

 

So, I believe that after an English revision it can be published.

Dear editor,

Initially in the opinion I had denied the article, due to problems in the statistical analysis carried out at work.

 

After a new round of evaluation, I believe that the answer presented by the authors satisfies my questions. In addition, they performed extensive review work on the article.

 

So, I believe that after an English revision it can be published.

Author Response

Dear prospective reviewer

I would thank you a lot for your efforts and time in reviewing our manuscript. your revision increased our manuscript value, thank you again. we checked the English language for improving the language.

yours, truly

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx