Using Brown Algae in the Plant–Soil System: A Sustainable Approach to Improving the Yield and Quality of Agricultural Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Obviously, the author made necessary revisions to the manuscript, resulting in a significant improvement in quality. But the current version is still too cumbersome.  If the content of the paper is further refined, it may be considered for publication. The abstract still does not fully reflect the main conclusions of the paper. Please refer to the first review comments for details.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Obviously, the author made necessary revisions to the manuscript, resulting in a significant improvement in quality. But the current version is still too cumbersome.  If the content of the paper is further refined, it may be considered for publication. The abstract still does not fully reflect the main conclusions of the paper. Please refer to the first review comments for details.

Response: The manuscript was restructured and the abstract was adapted to the main conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed review presents new data on brown algae, their products, composition and application on agricultural plants and soil. For individual taxonomic groups, the effects on agricultural crops are shown under different processing methods and environmental conditions. High efficiency of various products based on brown algae (extracts, fresh or dried thalli, composts) in agriculture is shown. The effect of various products of brown algae on plants turned out to be effective on production and yield, as well as on the nutraceutical and nutritional quality of crops. This effect of brown algae products on plants was manifested both in the absence of stress and under stressors of various natures (abiotic and biotic).

The review is written in a clear and simple text, easy to read, contains some new information. However, it notes many shortcomings.

1. The review suffers from excessive information on well-known and even elementary biological aspects.

2. In addition, it is poorly organized and requires some reorganization. Specifically, this is expressed in the following:

2.1. The title does not correspond to the content of the review, since a number of sections do not include information on stress.

2.2. In all sections, it is necessary to organize the flow of information in such a way that there is a logical sequence and connection between subsections. Tables should be enlarged and all the necessary information should be entered into them, and duplicate data in the text should be sharply reduced.

2.3. The authors should restructure the review. I recommend that Section 3 be presented in terms of the influence of brown algae products on physiological and biochemical manifestations in plants, on yield, its quality, all without stress. This can also include the mechanisms of action of brown algae products on crops, as well as on soil (as a basis for plant functions).

The effects and mechanisms of action of brown algae products on crops under stress should be highlighted in a separate section.

2.4. The section on the effect of brown algae products on crops under abiotic and biotic stressors is very scanty. It is necessary to expand it as much as possible, taking all the known literature (not limited to recent years), and to make subsections on stressors. When considering the mechanisms of efficiency of brown algae products under stress, it is necessary to remove elementary information on signal transduction (Fig. 4 and the description to it), since this is not a feature of brown algae products.

2.5. The authors need to remove repetitive and duplicate information from the article to the appropriate sections, for example, L. 819-829 on vermicomposting, on the mechanisms of action (which are scattered throughout the text); remove unnecessary information (for example, on Navicula - L.825-829, on Sargassum - L.1049-1060, etc.).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The peer-reviewed review presents new data on brown algae, their products, composition and application on agricultural plants and soil. For individual taxonomic groups, the effects on agricultural crops are shown under different processing methods and environmental conditions. High efficiency of various products based on brown algae (extracts, fresh or dried thalli, composts) in agriculture is shown. The effect of various products of brown algae on plants turned out to be effective on production and yield, as well as on the nutraceutical and nutritional quality of crops. This effect of brown algae products on plants was manifested both in the absence of stress and under stressors of various natures (abiotic and biotic).

The review is written in a clear and simple text, easy to read, contains some new information. However, it notes many shortcomings.

1. The review suffers from excessive information on well-known and even elementary biological aspects.

Response: In this sense, we consider that the known or elementary biological aspects are of sufficient importance in this type of review, since they help to better understand new aspects of this area of research.

2. In addition, it is poorly organized and requires some reorganization. Specifically, this is expressed in the following:

2.1. The title does not correspond to the content of the review, since a number of sections do not include information on stress.

Response: The title was modified, according to the content of the manuscript.

2.2. In all sections, it is necessary to organize the flow of information in such a way that there is a logical sequence and connection between subsections. Tables should be enlarged and all the necessary information should be entered into them, and duplicate data in the text should be sharply reduced.

Response: Tables were expanded and more information was added. Also, duplicate data in the Tables and text were removed.

2.3. The authors should restructure the review. I recommend that Section 3 be presented in terms of the influence of brown algae products on physiological and biochemical manifestations in plants, on yield, its quality, all without stress. This can also include the mechanisms of action of brown algae products on crops, as well as on soil (as a basis for plant functions).

Response: Section 3 was restructured as recommended.

The effects and mechanisms of action of brown algae products on crops under stress should be highlighted in a separate section.

2.4. The section on the effect of brown algae products on crops under abiotic and biotic stressors is very scanty. It is necessary to expand it as much as possible, taking all the known literature (not limited to recent years), and to make subsections on stressors. When considering the mechanisms of efficiency of brown algae products under stress, it is necessary to remove elementary information on signal transduction (Fig. 4 and the description to it), since this is not a feature of brown algae products.

Response: We consider that it is not necessary for the section on brown algae products in stress mitigation to be handled as a separate section. In the first instance, the Table was only expanded by adding more research on the subject and we did not consider adding subsections with the different types of stress, since in previous reviews, reviewers and editor recommended that we considerably reduce the text of the manuscript, which is why we resubmitted it. Likewise, this section aims to show some research on how algae products mitigate stress through different modes of action, and not how stress impacts crops.

Regarding the elimination of the Signal Transduction Figure, we consider that since it is elementary information, it is necessary for it to be present in the manuscript, since it shows the mode of action of brown algae products in plants and in the event that the manuscript is accepted for publication, it would be easier to understand the mode of action for students or young professionals who are starting out in this line of research.

They also mention that the Figure does not represent the mode of action of brown algae products on plants, however, there are different articles that describe and support the information shown in said Figure, which are added below: doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00655, doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.583888, doi:10.3390/plants10030531, doi:10.1007/s12298-023-01313-9, etc.

2.5. The authors need to remove repetitive and duplicate information from the article to the appropriate sections, for example, L. 819-829 on vermicomposting, on the mechanisms of action (which are scattered throughout the text); remove unnecessary information (for example, on Navicula - L.825-829, on Sargassum - L.1049-1060, etc.).

Response: The recommendations were taken into account and the information was eliminated.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript summarizes brown algae’s effects on crops and how it works on plants and soil. On the whole, this is a very good review. Several suggestions are as follows.

1.The abstract could be improved according to the content of the manuscript. It could be more closely aligning with the content and key points presented in the manuscript, providing readers with an more informative summary of the review, helping readers quickly understand the scope and significance of the work.

2. Figures 1 and 2, what they are saying, are similar, or overlapping. I would like to suggest you to combine the two figures into one figure.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This manuscript summarizes brown algae’s effects on crops and how it works on plants and soil. On the whole, this is a very good review. Several suggestions are as follows.

1.The abstract could be improved according to the content of the manuscript. It could be more closely aligning with the content and key points presented in the manuscript, providing readers with an more informative summary of the review, helping readers quickly understand the scope and significance of the work.

Rresponse: The abstract was improved, in line with the new title and Conclusions.

2. Figures 1 and 2, what they are saying, are similar, or overlapping. I would like to suggest you to combine the two figures into one figure.

Response: Figures 1 and 2 were combined.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors reorganized the review so that it became better organized, and its reorganization contributed to a better perception of the text. The authors agreed with most of my recommendations and used them to improve the manuscript. Some comments were not accepted, but the authors presented reasoned objections that cannot be disagreed with. Overall, the article was significantly improved and can be recommended for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author highlighted that brown alge play significant role on quality and yeidl of crops with postive influence on soil health. Author need to answer and incorporate all the below suggestion before the acceptance of this work.

1. I suggested to clearly highlight the conclusion at the end of abstract.

2. Introduction text is not enought, please come-up with detail and informative introduction, and avoid short paragraphs, such as the last two paras.

3. Please move the 2. Mechanism of action of algae products on plants and agricultural soil (Line 85) to the end of review before the conclusion section.

4. Author has mentioned both soil and foliar application but i suggest to mention that which method is more suitable and productive.

5. Line 900-1063, shown informative text about brown algae role on soil but no has diagram or table. I suggest to add 1 detail and informative table.

6. Line 1080-1083, need to rephrase and also improve the concluding remarks.

Author Response

1. I suggested to clearly highlight the conclusion at the end of abstract.

Answer: The abstract has been completely rewritten.

2. Introduction text is not enought, please come-up with detail and informative introduction, and avoid short paragraphs, such as the last two paras.

Answer: Two more paragraphs were added to the initial introduction, as the authors considered that the information presented was relevant.

3. Please move the 2. Mechanism of action of algae products on plants and agricultural soil (Line 85) to the end of review before the conclusion section.

Answer: Comment attended

4. Author has mentioned both soil and foliar application but i suggest to mention that which method is more suitable and productive.

Answer: This part was added to the conclusions and perspectives, indicating which applications are most appropriate according to the study objectives.

5. Line 900-1063, shown informative text about brown algae role on soil but no has diagram or table. I suggest to add 1 detail and informative table.

Answer: A Table was added with studies that mention improvements in soil characteristics. Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate how these soil characteristics are improved, which is why we no longer consider adding another Figure to the section.

6. Line 1080-1083, need to rephrase and also improve the concluding remarks.

Answer: The final observations were improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an interesting and meaningful review. However, it is overly lengthy and requires substantial condensation.

The abstract is too broad and lacks a substantive summary of the research findings. Please enhance it by providing a concise summary of the study results.

Since the title of the paper is about applications, the main content should first outline specific application areas, functions, and deficiencies. Then, proceed to analyze the relevant mechanisms. The order of different content in the paper needs to be adjusted for clearer logical relations.

The content under different headings is overly complex. It is suggested to add subheadings to enhance the coherence and readability of the text. For instance, the content in section "4.3" spans 4-5 pages, which greatly impairs readability.

I don't believe a review paper needs nearly 300 references. Simply listing references is a problem that review papers should avoid. I suggest the author remove references that are not highly relevant, outdated, or of little significance, and keep the number of references within 100. Additionally, it is necessary to supplement the author's summaries, reflections, and foresight on relevant issues.

Author Response

The paper presents an interesting and meaningful review. However, it is overly lengthy and requires substantial condensation.

The abstract is too broad and lacks a substantive summary of the research findings. Please enhance it by providing a concise summary of the study results.

Since the title of the paper is about applications, the main content should first outline specific application areas, functions, and deficiencies. Then, proceed to analyze the relevant mechanisms. The order of different content in the paper needs to be adjusted for clearer logical relations.

The content under different headings is overly complex. It is suggested to add subheadings to enhance the coherence and readability of the text. For instance, the content in section "4.3" spans 4-5 pages, which greatly impairs readability.

I don't believe a review paper needs nearly 300 references. Simply listing references is a problem that review papers should avoid. I suggest the author remove references that are not highly relevant, outdated, or of little significance, and keep the number of references within 100. Additionally, it is necessary to supplement the author's summaries, reflections, and foresight on relevant issues.

Answer: The abstract, introduction and conclusions and perspectives were improved, however, the authors believe that it is not necessary to adjust the order of the contents, since there is an order as to what types of applications are carried out, effects on different variables in plants (agronomic, quality and stress) and in the soil, which makes it attractive to readers. Now, we considered your point of eliminating some references, however, in the comments of other reviewers we were recommended to complement the manuscript by adding a Table with the effects of algae on soil characteristics and mentioning what limitations exist with the use of algae. Considering this, we only managed to eliminate 15 references, leaving it at 270. In addition to this, we also considered it necessary to handle this number of references, since it is a very broad topic, which requires all these references that are very valuable and give more support to the manuscript. Also, one of the objectives was to compile all these studies and observe how the use of brown algae in agriculture has been evaluated over the years.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript contains an interesting and extensive review of research on the use of brown algae in agriculture. A huge number of publications (as many as 285) were used to prepare the review. I highly appreciate the research results presented in synthetic tables and clear drawings.

I ask the Authors to supplement the manuscript with the disadvantages and limitations of the applied solutions using brown algae.

I also ask for an indication of expected future research directions.

Author Response

I ask the Authors to supplement the manuscript with the disadvantages and limitations of the applied solutions using brown algae.

Answer: Disadvantages and limitations were added at the end of section 4.

 

I also ask for an indication of expected future research directions.

Answer: In conclusions and perspectives, the lines of research foreseen are mentioned.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the author's response. The key to a review paper is to extract core viewpoints from references and present the author's own opinions. A large number of references listings and overly broad topic selection are not very suitable.