The Effect of Foliar Application of an Amino Acid-Based Biostimulant on Lawn Functional Value

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read with interest of MS "The effect of foliar application of an amino acid biostimulant on lawn functional value" The authors undertook a very difficult task. They chose commercial preparation with very different composition for evaluation.
The results proposed are in part new. Nevertheless, due to the very complex effect of biostimulants that has yet to be untangled, the MS is interesting. The work is very interesting because of its practical significance.

The MS, however, presents several lacks.

In Introduction
A definition of a biostimulator should be provided.

In M&M
Lines 65-66: The name of the research station is incorrect. I haven't found "University of Agriculture in Prusy".
Line 74: Please provide FAO soil classification.
Throughout the manuscript, it should be called AGRO-SORB® Folium a biostimulator. The name fertilizer is often used.
Lines 97-98: Please indicate what the chemical composition was tested and how it was tested. The info "data confirmed by chemical analysis" is not sufficient.
Why was the full composition of AGRO-SORB® Folium not provided?
The following elements are included in the composition of the biostimulator: B, Mn, Zn, N.
Table 1: There is no average long-term rainfall and temperature. If the authors have long-term data, please present them in Table 1.

In Discussion
There is no discussion about the influence of the content of the elements (B, Mn, Zn, N) in the biostimulator on the examined features.

Author Response

All comments of the reviewer were taken into account. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
I approached the article presented to me with great interest, which concerned the effect of foliar application of an amino acid biostimulant on lawn functional value. The article is very interesting, but the authors did not avoid a few mistakes.
First of all, I suggest changing the title of the publication The effect of foliar application of an amino acids based biostimulant on lawn functional value.
In my opinion, the introduction is too short and does not fully reflect the essence of the entire article. It lacks the latest definition of biostimulants. I recommend you to read: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2019:170:FULL&from=EN
In addition, the introduction lacks references to the literature that would indicate the positive effect of amino acid-based bio-stimulants on the quality of lawns. This would constitute a justification for the Authors' research.
In the introduction, biological products are mentioned among fertilizers. However, biostimulants are not fertilizers.
Line 59 - This is the first time I hear about the phrase "Biostimulant Coalition". The authors meant the European Biostimulants Industry Council?
Line 62 - Please replace "how they work" with mechanism of action
Line 63 - Amino acids based product
Line 67 - please replace react with response
Line 74 - Please change the statement "very good soil"
Line 77 - What recommendations did the authors mean? (literature)
Line 87 - According to the manufacturer's information, AgroSorb Folium is a biostimualtor, please provide the manufacturer's information next to the name
Line 89 - please replace fertilizer with biotimulant
Line 93 - 100 g
Line 115 - A separate subsection for the assessment of lawns, not an element of weather conditions
Table 1 - no long-term averages for rainfall and temperature
Line 140 and 169 - biostimulant
Line 97 - Please explain the statement "the data confirmed ...". Have the Authors conducted any research on the biostimulator scald? If so, please put them in the appropriate sections of the article. If not, please quote the source from which these data come
Line 218 - Amino acids based product
As far as the discussion is concerned, I lack the elements explaining the observed improvement in the examined properties of lawns. There are too many short references to the results of other Authors in the discussion, which makes it difficult to find and maintain the substantive meaning in this section. In my opinion, the discussion should be improved in terms of possible mechanisms, and not only the observed dependencies of other researchers

Author Response

All comments of the reviewer were taken into account.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors met the review requests. In my opinion, in this form the work is improved; now it is clearer and more complete.

Author Response

All comments of the reviewer were taken into account.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In my opinion the MS was corrected and its improved version can be publish

Author Response

All comments of the reviewer were taken into account.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx