Growth and Yield Potential of New Sugarcane Varieties during Plant and First Ratoon Crops
, Budi Hariyono, Mohammad Cholid, Fitriningdyah Tri Kadarwati, Budi Santoso, Djumali and Subiyakto
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript entitled “Growth and Yield Potentials of New Sugarcane Varieties during Plant and First Ratoon Crops” by Riajaya et al. is a novel attempt to investigate the growth and yield potentials of newly released varieties of sugarcane 11 in PC-RC1 in a dry land. After a careful review, I found this manuscript interesting and suitable for publication in the Sustainability MDPI. The work was carried out with appropriate design and the results presented are acceptable for reproducibility. Only I have pointed out some grey points which needs to be addressed as minor revision. My specific comments are:
1. Line 12: Provide full form of PC-RC.
2. There are several other abbreviations in the abstract as well as other parts which are not justified at their first use.
3. CO2 and H2O, etc. are not written correctly (2 should be as a subscript).
4. The introduction is weak. Extend it to not less than 700 words covering, the problem, stats, factors affecting growth and yield of sugarcane, need of this study, hypothesis, and finally objectives,
5. Line 42: Something is missing at the start of the sentence.
6. Divide “materials and methods into numerous subheadings.
7. The degree sign of geocoordinates is not correctly written.
8. Line 65: What are “setts”?
9. Authors need to conduct any test of statistical significance with a post-hoc test to compare different growth and yield parameters.
10. Improve the comparison of results with other studies and give logical scientific reasons behind the trend of the obtained results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers;
We thank you for your suggestions and recommendations for our articles. Here we attach the results of the revision.
Kind regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Very good job on the paper. It is well written and presented, scientifically sound, and logical. However, it needs some restructuring or editing of sentences/words, etc. The Conclusion section MUST be improved with more information. Most of the information there belongs to the Results & Discussion section. Please take a look at my comments on the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers;
We thank you for your suggestions and recommendations for our articles. Here we attach the results of the revision.
Kind regards
