The Effects of Reduced Mineral Fertilisation Combined with the Foliar Application of Biostimulants and Fertilisers on the Nutrition of Maiden Apple Trees and the Contents of Soil Nutrients
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The values in percentages have been mentioned in the abstract. It will give a fairly good idea of the clear impact of biostimulants' effect on nutrient uptake. If possible kindly improve the presentation of figures in Fig 1 and 2. The legends are not very much clear. It is always a good practice to acknowledge those who helped in the study directly or indirectly.
Author Response
Figures 1 and 2 were abandoned due to large diferences in for individual unit macro and micronutrients
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes an experiment with biostimulants and fertilisers and their effect on nutrient concentration in apple trees. My main concern with the paper is that biostimulants may also contein minerals and nutrients, and I see no control of that effect. Without this, I don't think the study is worthy of publication. However, the paper is also badly written and I don't always understand what is meant, so it is possible that more has been done than I know. In this case, there paper need thourough edting and improvement.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
In response to the objections of reviewer no. 2, I answer
All changes were made as suggested by the reviewer.
Only two line charts were not changed into bar charts due to the multiplicity of factors (7 combinations of foliar treatments, 4 apple cultivars) and the differentiation of macro and micronutrient units. These two line charts have been removed from the publication. These results are included in the tables as average value.
The experiment with two different doses of mineral fertilization is difficult to perform in a random block system but only in a system of parallel strips (plots). The full dose was used in one strip, and half the dose in the other strip. The half dose strip was much wider as 6 combinations of foliar treatments were randomly distributed over it. There were also four varieties of apple trees. There was only a control combination with four apple varieties in the full dose strip. A total of 28 combinations were compared.
The comparison of the nutrient content in the soil was made only between the two doses of mineral fertilization. The foliar treatments with biostimulants and fertilizers had no effect on the nutrient content of the soil, but only on the nutrient content of the leaves
The results of the growth of apple maiden trees were presented in an earlier publication and they were referred to in the publication under consideration. Together, these two publications constitute the totality of the experimental results.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is relevant and has special significance in the context of getting higher productivity and quality products with alternate options. In this regards the use of biostimulants can help a lot. A good amount of work was refereed in the manuscript on a similar line elsewhere in the world. The findings may be very useful for the orchard growers. However, some observations for further improvement have been suggested as below.
The title can be modified and a more clear, concise title may be prepared, title seems to include the objective of the study. Some parts of the title can be better mentioned in the text of the manuscript as the objective of the study. No data have been provided in the abstract. Like the sentence " foliar application of two fertilizers increased the leaf content of phosphorus
and calcium" here the data on P and Ca be given. Some sentences have been mentioned with insufficient data like the very first sentence claim "Half of the dose of mineral fertilizer applied into the soil decreased its acidity and salinity" but the data to support this statement is missing from the text. And this much change in soil EC is really possible with mineral fertilization, please recheck the values
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
The paper, aimed to investigate The Effect of Reduced Mineral Fertilisation Combined with the Foliar Application of Biostimulants and Fertilisers on the Nutrition of Maiden Apple Trees and the Content of Soil Nutrients”
I regret to inform you that I do not consider the quality of the work sufficient for publication in an international scientific journal and I suggest rejecting the manuscript. The reasons for my decision are:
- The statistical analysis is not logic. How the same value takes different letters in the statistical analysis. Please check Table 4
- It is impossible to find NH4 and NO3 in trace amounts in the experimental soil , it is doesn’t make sense and can not give us normal growth to plants
- The results are not clear and the data are pretty close to give us a clear significant and reliable trends for divers investigated treatments
- Although this study was established on apple trees, there are no data on fruits and their quality properties
- The composition of biostimulants is unknown in this study and a lot of details are required in the M&M section
- The discussion is too long and it is just considered as a comparison between a number of previous studies without a real explanation for results
- The manuscript presents other weak points which you can see it in the attached pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of this research paper deal with a very intereting topic such as the use of plant biostimulants which are considered an effective and green tool to improve NUE which is one of the 4 agronomical claims of plant biostimulants. I have several major concerns related to the experimentral design, the soundness of the results and the conclusions. The authors compared 7 treatments a control untreated control 4 commercial plant biostimulants and two foliar fertilization treatments. The experimental design is not well described and hard to follow. The authors claimed that a two years experiment was conducted while the factor year was not treated as it was mentioned during the statistical analysis. THe full characterization of the 4 biostimulants used are not reported so it is hard to elucidate the main molecular and physiological mode of actions. The results section is very weak even the discussion probably due to the lack of data since only the mineral analysis in terms of macro and microminerals are reported so the discussion is very speculative. The paper from my humble point of view is preliminary and additional experiments should be conducted under full and half fertilization regimes as reported by the authors in the conclusion section in order to elucidate the effects of these biostimulants under both optimal and suboptimal nutrient conditions.
