Biostimulant Effect of Marine Macroalgae Bioextract on Pepper Grown in Greenhouse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Editor

The current study focuses on the effects of use the concentrated marine algae extracts, as the biostimulator, in growth and production of pepper.

The title of the manuscript seems to fit the aims of the scientific journal Applies Sciences. The topic of the study is interesting and it fits into trends in science as well as in the manufacturing practice. Generally, the main complaint this paper is that the experiment covered only one year of harvesting.

In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication in the scientific journal Applies Sciences after minor revision:

• Describe in more detail the statistical analysis performed (number of variables, replicates, software) and provide the name of the software that was used.
• Add to all the parameters listed in Tables the associated standard deviations.
• The conclusions seem to be descriptive. Please rewrite it clearly stating the facts; focus more on how your research has contributed to knowledge gaps; describe research limitations for future research and restate your major findings.

Author Response

R1: Generally, the main complaint this paper is that the experiment covered only one year of harvesting.

A: Yes, the experimental work takes place in a single year, as it corresponds to the standard test type made by the team at the University of Lavras. The results are, from our point of view, enlightening and can be replicated.

R1: Describe in more detail the statistical analysis performed (number of variables, replicates, software) and provide the name of the software that was used.

A: The statistical analysis performed was duly described in the text, including the software used.

R1: Add to all the parameters listed in Tables the associated standard deviations.

A: Done

R1: The conclusions seem to be descriptive. Please rewrite it clearly stating the facts; focus more on how your research has contributed to knowledge gaps; describe research limitations for future research and restate your major findings.

A:The conclusions were rewritten in order to be more focused on the facts and the main results of the experimental work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the manuscript “Marine macroalgae bioextract as a biostimulator for Pepper growth and production in greenhouse”. Manuscript number: applsci-826758. Applied Sciences.

The aim of the manuscript was to investigate the effect of Reabilit® Algas on pepper growth. The manuscript describes a very interesting topic however it is presented in a confused form. English language should be improved. More detailed information about Reabilit® Algas (producer, application, commercialization) should be provided. Material and Methods should be re-written and organized in sub-paragraphs, as it could be more clear to follow the whole experimental design. Unfortunately, manuscript is not always easy to follow, especially as regard Results and Discussion section, that should be greatly improved. I suggest authors to re-write this section in a more clear form. I think that this study could provide an advance in current scientific knowledge, however I recommend to accept this manuscript only after major revision.

Specific comments:

Title: I suggest to change as follows: “Biostimulant effect of Marine macroalgae bioextract on Pepper grown in greenhouse”.

Abstract: pp. 1 line 10: please change “biostimulator” in “biostimulant”.

Abstract: pp. 1 lines 22-23: Please delete this sentence: “The pepper was chosen because it presents high sensitivity to biotic and abiotic stresses.”

Introduction, pp. 2, lines 58-62: please rephrase.

Introduction, pp. 3, lines 79-81: It’s vague. I suggest to clearly state the aim of the work.

Materials and methods, pp. 3, line 96: “….were performed according to……”

Materials and methods, pp. 4, lines 100-102: “The mineral content of Reabilit Algas was as follows”

Materials and methods, pp. 4, line 106: as references is in brackets, delete “(1975)”.

Materials and methods, pp. 4, lines 120-121: as references is in brackets, delete “(1973) and (1983)”.

Materials and methods, pp. 4, line 133: No paragraphs were included in Material and Methods, the only one mentioned is: “Place of execution”. I suggest authors to re-organize the Material and Section in subparagraphs.

Materials and methods, pp. 4, line 137: as references is in brackets, delete “(1948)”.

Results and discussion, pp. 4, line 148: change as “randomly chosen”.

Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 158: Glenn et al. 2000, references should be given in brackets.

Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 162: as references is in brackets, delete “(2005)”.

Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 162: as references is in brackets, delete “(2005)”.

Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 167: as references is in brackets, delete “(1992)”.

Results and discussion, pp. 5, lines 162-171: please rephrase the whole period, it’s very difficult to follow.

Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 177: delete comma after both.

Table 3: change as follows: “Number of Leaves (LN)”.

Results and discussion, pp. 6, lines 204-213: please rephrase the whole period, it’s very difficult to follow.

Results and discussion, pp. 7, lines 238-240: thee informations should be provided in the Materiel and Methods section.

Results and discussion, pp. 7, line 253: as references is in brackets, delete “(2005)”.

Results and discussion, pp. 7, lines 255-267: please rephrase the whole period, it’s very difficult to follow.

Conclusions: I suggest to re-write the conclusions, by providing the main conclusions in a more clear way.  

Author Response

R2: Title: I suggest to change as follows: “Biostimulant effect of Marine macroalgae bioextract on Pepper grown in greenhouse”.

A: Done

R2: Abstract: pp. 1 line 10: please change “biostimulator” in “biostimulant”.

A: Done

R2: Abstract: pp. 1 lines 22-23: Please delete this sentence: “The pepper was chosen because it presents high sensitivity to biotic and abiotic stresses.”

A: Done

R2: Introduction, pp. 2, lines 58-62: please rephrase.

A: Done

R2: Introduction, pp. 3, lines 79-81: It’s vague. I suggest to clearly state the aim of the work.

A: Done.

R2: Materials and methods, pp. 3, line 96: “….were performed according to……”

A: It was rewritten

R2: Materials and methods, pp. 4, lines 100-102: “The mineral content of Reabilit Algas was as follows”

A: Done

R2: Materials and methods, pp. 4, line 106: as references is in brackets, delete “(1975)”.

A: Done

R2: Materials and methods, pp. 4, lines 120-121: as references is in brackets, delete “(1973) and (1983)”.

A: Done

R2: Materials and methods, pp. 4, line 133: No paragraphs were included in Material and Methods, the only one mentioned is: “Place of execution”. I suggest authors to re-organize the Material and Section in subparagraphs.

A: Done

R2: Materials and methods, pp. 4, line 137: as references is in brackets, delete “(1948)”.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 4, line 148: change as “randomly chosen”.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 158: Glenn et al. 2000, references should be given in brackets.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 162: as references is in brackets, delete “(2005)”.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 162: as references is in brackets, delete “(2005)”

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 167: as references is in brackets, delete “(1992)”.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 5, lines 162-171: please rephrase the whole period, it’s very difficult to follow.

A: It was rewritten

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 5, line 177: delete comma after both.

A: Done

R2: Table 3: change as follows: “Number of Leaves (LN)”.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 6, lines 204-213: please rephrase the whole period, it’s very difficult to follow.

A: It was rewritten

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 7, lines 238-240: the informations should be provided in the Materiel and Methods section.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 7, line 253: as references is in brackets, delete “(2005)”.

A: Done

R2: Results and discussion, pp. 7, lines 255-267: please rephrase the whole period, it’s very difficult to follow.

A: It was rewritten

R2: Conclusions: I suggest to re-write the conclusions, by providing the main conclusions in a more clear way.  

A: The conclusions were rewritten in order to be more focused on the facts and the main results of the experimental work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, you should address my recommendations highlighted 
across the text and tables.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

A The authors introduced the references suggested by the reviewer 3. Some of the suggestions for correction were introduced in the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors revised the manuscript according to what I suggested. So I consider the manuscript this form acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

'Accept in the present form'.