Evaluation of the Effect of Biostimulation on the Yielding of Golden Delicious Apple Trees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing:
1, 2, the abstract and the introduction of the paper have been corrected
3 literature has been supplemented
4 Figures have been corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

I studied the manuscript and the title sounds attractive, while the manuscript presented no new knowledge. It is known that fertilizers improve crop yield, but knowing the mechanisms behind it is very important. The manuscript reported the improvement of apple trees yield after fertilizer application without doing further physiochemical analysis. I suggest to do analysis to improve the manuscript and again submit it to journal,

I suggest to reject it and re-submit it after basic revision.

Good luck

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing and pointing the way in future works.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

It is recommended to indicate that the research was conducted in Poland.

Keywords: Repeating the same terms in the title and keywords is not recommended. This reduces the chances of finding the article in search engines. You can choose others from your manuscript - such as fruit firmness, long-term research, etc.

Introduction

It is recommended to emphasize that fruit production is important not only to satisfy hunger, but also to take the WHO recommended dose of berries and fruits in human diet.

It would be more correct to use "essential nutrients" instead of elements. It’s all over the article.

Line 46. “…the yield obtained since the 1950s, 20th [5] and is… “-awkward expression.

Line 82. “The purpose of this study was is? to evaluate…” - correct it.

“N Pro technology” - It would be advisable to give a little information - what is it?

Materials and methods

It is necessary to indicate where the research was conducted. In which part of the country? The reader will hardly know where Sandomierska Upland is located.

You should be consistent and use a single variant designation. Currently, the use of programs, technologies and combinations is confusing. As I understand, there were two different treatments – Control and ??? – Timac Agro? Biostimulation?

How were mineral fertilizers incorporated - by spreading, spraying, sprinkling, foliar? It is necessary to indicate clearly and correctly. The article doesn't really make it clear.

Line 115. “The combinations were the above-mentioned two fertilization technologies” - not clear.

Specify the units of measurement for the indicators to be determined. You have not indicated that the apple yield was also measured.

Results and Discussion

It is generally accepted that first there is text and then only a Table or Figure.

Table 2.

The Tables should be self-explanatory. Is the data in the first part of the table an average for all the years together? Nothing specified. Why are significant differences reported when everything is within standard errors? There might just be some trend.

What the second section of the table by years refers to. What are these data - control, biostimulation variant, both together? What is the point of discussing if there is no information about the years in both technologies?

It is not correct to use the following reference form - In the study by [33]. This applies to the entire text. It is recommended, for example - in the study of Kaplan et al. [34].....

Figures

The same problems apply to almost all Figures. The Figures as Tables should be self-explanatory.

What is Ryc. 1, 2 etc.?

What is C and B? The abbreviations of treatments should be explained.

No units of measurement specified.

No standard errors are given, although the variants had replicates.

How can I know that there were significant differences between the treatments if there are no errors indicated or marked in which years the treatments were significantly different? Do I just have to believe you? This is not serious for a scientific article. Please improve the Figures.

Table 3. What are these data - control, biostimulation variant, both together? Nothing specified. What is *?

Table 4. This table is completely incomprehensible. Where there is control, where biostimulation. What is *?

Figure 5. What does - had a higher extract mean? What kind of extract is there, what units of measurement?

Figure 6. No units of measurement specified.

Summary

Too fragmented. What is this fruit extract? Please generalize the acquired knowledge more, emphasize the main results.

Do you recommend this technology to practitioners? What are the issues that need to be investigated more in the future regarding biostimulants? 

Concluding remarks

In general, the article is really interesting; it is devoted to such an important issue as new fertilizing technologies and the effectiveness of the use of biostimulants in fruit growing in unstable climatic conditions. Biostimulants manufactured from materials of natural origin, as seaweed extracts, are considered to be environmentally friendly and could be important component in sustainable plant cultivation. Also, an important fact is that the research was conducted in the long term.

I recommend accepting this article in Applied Sciences after minor but careful revision. I suggest making an effort for improving the scientific quality of the present paper, as data material obtained in this study could be really interesting for scientists in the field of agronomy and plant physiology, as well as for practitioners.

Author Response

Thank you very much for a very professional review. All your comments have been a great support in order to improve the quality of work. All comments have been made in the work. thank you very much for your huge contribution to our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author please adhere to the tamplet of journal.

Design of experiment is not mentioned in methodology.

Conclusion is missing.

Only two treatments in your study, what about error degree of freedom in ANOVA.

State the number of replication in methodology.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing and pointing out comments to be supplemented.

1. Experimental design is not mentioned in the methodology.
In the methodology from lines 104 - 154, a detailed research program is described showing the differences between the control and the use of biostimulation.

2. No conclusion.
answer line 503-506 The use of biostimulation technology is highly recommended for practitioners. The above studies show a significant, significant increase in qualitative and quantitative parameters from viticulture.

3. Only two treatments in your study, what about the degree of freedom of error in ANOVA.
answer. For the statistical analysis, the values that contained (mean values + standard deviation) were taken into account. The analysis performed was actually univariate alanization. In the first part, we analyze the significant differences between the control and the applied biostimulation. We wanted to check whether there are significant differences between these combinations or not. Is the use of biostimulation significantly different from the lack of eggs on the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the vine. The second part of the table analyzes significant differences between the analyzed years of experience.

4. Enter the number of repetitions in the methodology.
added in lines 103-104

Within each combination, randomly analyzed characteristics from 100 vines were tested.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Authors investigated the effect of Seactiv Complex based on seaweed extracts and N Pro technology on the yield and its components of apple trees for ten years. They showed that biostimulant technology significantly increased apple yield in most of studied years. Also they showed the positive effect of fertilization technology on apple trees in adverse weather conditions during their research. The study was well-designed and analyzed. There is some suggestion to improve it

- Add error bar and delete horizontal lines in the charts.

- Check the significance of Number of apples on the tree pcs and yield in table 2. Delete the end row.

- In table 2: put the footnote and write that different letter for each traits shows the significant difference.

- In Fig. 3: put cut line to show the number of clusters.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing:
Ad 1. the number of apples on a tree pcs is a parameter that allows, in a very practical sense, to determine the quality of the crop, while the yield allows you to determine the size of the tree and the area unit
  Ad.2 The last row remained in the table, only a description of the row was added, i.e. A*B, which says about the interaction of factor A with Factor B
-Ad 3 Table 2 corrected as suggested by the reviewer
- Ad 4 Fig. 3: corrected as suggested by the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I believe that you have done some minor revision, while the main concern is the lacks of novelty of manuscript, so I reject the manuscript.

Good luck

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for improving the manuscript.

minor spell check is required