Ecophysiology of Soursop Seedlings Irrigated with Fish Farming Effluent under NPK Doses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Ecophysiology of soursop seedlings irrigated with fish farming effluent under NPK doses” depicted the effects of different fertilizer rates on soursop seedlings under irrigation with fish farming effluent. The work is interesting and has a certain meaning to the soursop production. It can be seem that the authors did a lot of work in this study. However, some problems are obvious as below.

1. The abstract is lack of experimental data from the results.

2. The scientific name of soursop also should be mentioned in the abstract.

3. Why did the authors use this cultivar as the plant material?

4. It is suggested to divide the 2. Materials and methods into several paragraphs with alone subtitles. Authors could refer to other published papers in MDPI or SCI.

5.  It is suggested to divide the 3. Results into several paragraphs with alone subtitles. Authors could refer to other published papers in MDPI or SCI.

6. Conclusions should not be stated in segments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have corrected the manuscript. We accepted and incorporated the reviewers' suggestions and revised the manuscript for clarity.

 

Thank you for your relevant comments and suggestions on the manuscript. All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in red text.

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research is relevant and interesting.

1. I would advise describe in more detail the biology and ecology of Annona muricata L.;

2. I advise splitting the "Materials and Methods" and "Discussion" into smaller chapters;

3. In the figures No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 it is not explained what the vertical bars indicated;

4. I recommend not to use old literature sources.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have corrected the manuscript. We accepted and incorporated the reviewers' suggestions and revised the manuscript for clarity.

 

Thank you for your relevant comments and suggestions on the manuscript. All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in red text.

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Despite the relevance and importance of the problem under study, I have a number of comments and recommendations for the manuscript.

  For what period of studies are the data presented?

2.      Why the use of fish farming effluents , and the use of different doses of NPK inhibited the optimal morphological development of Soursop plants.  The authors in this section should explain the results obtained.

3.      The Results section needs to be improved.

4.      Discussion section. Most of the information in this section corresponds to the Results section. The authors should compare their results with the results of other scientists in this direction of research.

5.      The conclusions of the research should be reviewed. Conclusions should be conciseness, taking into account the results of the research. in the conclusions section should be removed The numbers , this is information for section 3 and 4 (line 530-531)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have corrected the manuscript. We accepted and incorporated the reviewers' suggestions and revised the manuscript for clarity.

 

Thank you for your relevant comments and suggestions on the manuscript. All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in red text.

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I shared my opinions about the manuscript sustainability - 2922296 - “Ecophysiology of soursop seedlings irrigated with fish farming effluent under NPK doses”. The manuscript has important results for the use of fish farming effluent in the cultivation of soursop in the Brazilian semi-arid region. In the material and methods, some information needs to be improved as written in the manuscript. Some of the information in the figures should be in the text. There are some contradictions in the discussion. Doubts and comments in the manuscript.

 

Best regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have corrected the manuscript. We accepted and incorporated the reviewers' suggestions and revised the manuscript for clarity.

 

Thank you for your relevant comments and suggestions on the manuscript. All changes made to the manuscript are highlighted in red text.

Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully attended the valuable feedback provided by the reviewers , therefore, the publication may be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer

We have reduced the number of self-citations of the article as recommended.

Please check that citation 1 is from other authors.

Thank you very much for your kind suggestions.