Assessment of Biostimulant Derived from Moringa Leaf Extract on Growth, Physiology, Yield, and Quality of Green Chili Pepper
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
congratulations on the manuscript, nice work, but there are some suggested parts for modification. I will announce them below:
Some parts of the Introduction chapter need to be modified. The part about chili peppers discussed in the very first part is not coherent with the other parts and, in my opinion, this should not be the starting point of the article. I recommend writing this topic a little further down and making it more coherent with the rest of the text in the chapter.
I do not recommend including diagrams and table sections in the Results where no significant difference can be shown. The relevant parts can be mentioned in the text, but do not put too much emphasis on it.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Did you determine composition of MLE?.
Please improve figures resolution
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study assessment of biostimulant derived from moringa leaf extract on growth, physiology, yield, and quality of green chili pepper, thus providing a scientific basis for chemical fertilizer reduction, has some However, there are some problems in the article that need to be revised extensively before it can be considered for acceptance, as follows.
1. The abstract section lacks quantitative information and it is suggested to add specific research data to support it.
2. The preamble of the article suggests to restate your scientific hypothesis and scientific questions?
3. the amount of biostimulants used is not seen in the 2.4. Experimental Procedures section?
4. In the Analysis of Results section, all the graphs with incorrectly labeled variance letters are suggested to be further confirmed.
5. The specific experimental data of this study is not seen in the Discussion section, and it is suggested to add the experimental data of this study, because the data is the basis for comparison with other researchers.
6. The conclusion section of the article suggests adding important data results from this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The use of natural substances, including those derived from plants, as stimulators of plant growth and development plays an important role in modern plant cultivation technology. Therefore, the search for plant species that could fulfill this function and contribute to improving the quality characteristics of mainly food plants is very justified. In this context, the article is innovative, moreover, it has a cognitive and utilitarian value. The subject of the article corresponds well with its content. I have doubts as to whether one-year field studies provide the basis for reliable conclusions. The authors include information on the hydrothermal conditions of the conducted experiment, but do not take them into account in the analysis of the results. Weather conditions determine the effect of the preparations (biostimulators) used, so they cannot be ignored. In addition, I believe that especially chapter 2. Material and methods needs to be absolutely supplemented and clarified.
Detailed comments are provided in the comments below:
Abstract
Line 11-16 - „seed priming” - complete (seed soaking)
Introduction
Lines 37-39 - huge interest in biostimulants and only 1 citation? And biostimulators in the cultivation of, for example, horseradish - also a seasoning vegetable, potato belonging to the Solanace family, like peppers, and other plants consumed by humans, e.g. buckwheat, etc. Please provide more new citations (2019-2023).
Materials and Methods
Lines 77-78 - Weather conditions not worked out. Figures 1a and 1b are illegible (in principle, a table would be better). The weather conditions in field crops are very well characterized by the Sielianinow hydrothermal coefficient (K). These dependencies can also be presented in one clear drawing. The more so that the experiment was carried out only during one growing season.
Line 100 - Specify the characteristics of the Tanjung-2 variety (characteristics, resistance to pathogens, pests, growing conditions…). For what purpose were the seeds surface sterilized? The seed material was not certified? (from the seed center). Had the seed material not been decontaminated, it might have been found that soaking in the MLE solution promotes better health of chilli pepper seedlings.
Line 107 – Complete at what stage of development the plants were planted in the field. It should be understood that there were 6 plants in one repetition, i.e. only 24 plants in the combination.
Line 109 - Please explain 800 kg/ha of NPK - is this due to plant needs and soil quality?
Please write if any care and protective treatments were used during the growing season.
Line 111 – Write what doses of MLE per ha were used in the experiment..
Line 113 – Indicate whether all plants (192 pieces) have been harvested?
Line 116 – From the above (line 111) it follows that the height assessment of…. Made after 3 MLE foliar applications - this should be included in the methodology.
Line 127 – Specify on what amount of fruit (from how many plants) physical quality was determined (maybe samples were taken randomly? How large was the sample?)
Line 135 - Complete as above
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
The manuscript entitled Assessment of Biostimulant Derived from Moringa Leaf Extract on Growth, Physiology, Yield, and Quality of Green Chili Pepper presents information about moringa leaf extracts used as biostimulants in chili pepper seeds and plants. The topic is sound, however, there are issues that the authors must attend to in order to improve the manuscript. Below are the comments.
-Line 16. What are the units of the tested rates?
-Lines 88-89. What was the rationale for using fresh moringa leaves? What was the rationale for using 30 g of plant material and 300 mL of distilled water? Why not carry out the extraction with organic solvents?
-Lines 91-92. Why is essential to consider the dilutions 1:10, 1:20, and 1:30? Why these values?
-Line 93. What is GA3?
-What is the rationale for showing Fig. 1? The figure must be included as supplementary material.
-Line 107. How long take from sowing to transplanting?
-Line 111. What was the volume sprayed to every plant?
-Line 113. How long take from transplanting to harvesting?
-Line 139. What is TCA?
Lines 140-141. 0.45 mM filter? Revise the same issue in the manuscript.
-Lines 141-144. Describe deeply the HPLC method. Was it isocratic? What was the detector? How long take the elution? It is not clear how the ammonium dihydrogen phosphate could separate molecules from a C18 column since the separation is based on the polarity of the compounds. Was the column normal or reverse phase?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The article has been carefully revised according to the previous review comments, and I think it has reached the level of publication and recommend acceptance.
Author Response
Thank you very much. We truly appreciate to Reviewer for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript.
Reviewer 5 Report
I fully accept the revised version.
Author Response
Thank you very much. We truly appreciate to Reviewer for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript.
Reviewer 6 Report
The manuscript has been improved and almost all the comments have been addressed. I have minor comments related to unanswered points.
-What is the rationale for using a solid-to-liquid ratio of 1:10 (30 g of vegetal material and 300 mL of solvent)?
-What is the rationale for showing the weather information? How could help such information to other researchers replicate the experiments?
-Response to point 10. Revise the form of expressing the units for the filter pore size. Was it mM (millimolar) or µm (micrometer)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 6 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments.
