Lipid and Yield Evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii by the Influence of Chitosan-IBA, in Conditions of the Sonora Desert
, Pablo Preciado-Rangel 1,2, Reyna Roxana Guillén-EnrÃquez 1, Francisca Sánchez Bernal 2, Ramon Jaime Holguin-Peña 3, Carlos Borbón-Morales 4 and Edgar Omar Rueda-Puente 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewed manuscript entitled “ Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” is an original research study and after revision may be published in the journal.
Following are the detailed suggestion for the Authors:
line 31, should be „Salicornia bigelovii Torr.”
line 32-33, should be „its height ranges between 35-50 cm”
line 43, should be „[3,4]”
line 52, should be „ammonium nitrate, and the seasonal”
line 67, change „[8;9;10;11;12;13]” to „[8-13]” - based on this, change the citations throughout the manuscript
line 72, „López-Corona et al. (2019)” - should the citation be as follows „López-Corona et al. [6]” - based on this, change the citations throughout the manuscript
Please re-insert table 1, shifted in relation to the text - based on this, change tabels throughout the manuscript
Table 2, change the title to „Present conditions in the different phenological stages of Salicornia bigelovii seed production from cuttings”
line 115, should be „(Table 1)”, end this sentence with a period
Explanation of abbreviations used in table 3 should be provided
Units in table 3 should be corrected, as indicated „dS·m-1” - based on this, change the units throughout the manuscript
line 139, 141, should be „(47 L·m-2)”
What methods to analyze the protein, moisture and ash content in seeds were used?
Was one-way or two-way analysis of variance used? Were cycles included in the statistical analysis?
line 190, replace semicolon (;) with period (.) - based on this, change it throughout the manuscript
Table 4 - please specify the standard deviation, for fresh and dry root weight.
line 212, provide the results for "interaction of cycle * treatments" in Table 4. Also it would be worth providing LSD for "interaction of cycle * treatments" - based on this, correct the results throughout the manuscript
Table 5, 6,7 - please specify the standard deviation
line 275, replace comma (,) with period (.) in „(1,441 g m-2)”
line 330, 441, should be „IBA”
line 334, 336, should be „1000 mg kg-1”
line 339, „On the other hand, the biostimulant effect…”- sentence little understood, please correct
in conclusions, remove „(P <0.05)”, „(g·m-2)”
Conclusions should be more concise. Also it is worth presenting recommendations for conducting research in the indicated direction.
Author Response
Hermosillo, Sonora, México. February 17, 2021
Dr. Renesmee Zhang and Reviewer 1
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Journal Agronomy
Dear Dr. Renesmee and reviewer(s).
According the Manuscript Manuscript ID agronomy-1116538, entitled:
“Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” which we submitted to Journal Agronomy, has been changed considering the comments of the reviewer(s).
We have carefully read the comments and suggestions from the section editor’s and from the reviewers.
We really want to express our deep thankfulness for the reviewers and for you. We truly are indebted to all of you for valuable help to improve the paper.
At the final of this document, we offer a table indicating the changes according to the requests.
We are sending to you four attachments:
1.- ARTICLE denominated: english-edited-27034 SHOWING CHANGES 16 FEB 2021PLEASE USE "Track Changes" function*………….
2.- ARTICLE denominated: english-edited-27034 CON CAMBIOS REALIZADOS 16 FEB 2021 NEW VERSION in word and pdf (2 documents)….this document is the resoult that when we finished all observations, we sent to English editing of Agronomy
3.- Cover letter with observation to reviewers
The next figure, is only to verify that when we finish all changes (observations from reviewers), we sent the document to English editing of Agronomy.
The authors hope this satisfy the standard to be accepted by the editorial advisory board.
Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to hearing from your soon again, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
- EDGAR O. RUEDA PUENTE
https://erueda04.wixsite.com/misitio
|
REVIEWER |
LINE |
ANSWER |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 31, should be „Salicornia bigelovii Torr.” |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 32-33, should be „its height ranges between 35-50 cm” |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 43, should be „[3,4]” |
In all document we realized this observations Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 52, should be „ammonium nitrate, and the seasonal” |
Ídem…we check and corroborate in all document….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 67, change „[8;9;10;11;12;13]” to „[8-13]” - based on this, change the citations throughout the manuscript |
Ready…..Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 72, „López-Corona et al. (2019)” - should the citation be as follows „López-Corona et al. [6]” - based on this, change the citations throughout the manuscript |
Yes…..thanks we did…..Considered. Thanks for this observation
|
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Please re-insert table 1, shifted in relation to the text - based on this, change tabels throughout the manuscript |
Thanks for this observation. Yes we did |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Table 2, change the title to „Present conditions in the different phenological stages of Salicornia bigelovii seed production from cuttings” |
Ídem…. We did….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 115, should be „(Table 1)”, end this sentence with a period |
Ready!!!!
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Explanation of abbreviations used in table 3 should be provided |
One more time. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Units in table 3 should be corrected, as indicated „dS·m-1” - based on this, change the units throughout the manuscript |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 139, 141, should be „(47 L·m-2)” |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
What methods to analyze the protein, moisture and ash content in seeds were used? |
Included in text
|
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Was one-way or two-way analysis of variance used? Were cycles included in the statistical analysis? |
An analysis of variance of the variables was conducted in the two established cycles, and a multiple comparison of means was performed using the one-way Tukey test (between cycles (2018-2019 / 2019-2020) and between treatments and year * treatments), with a 95% significance level. All the analyses were performed using the SAS statistical package. The normality of the data for each response variable was verified using the Kol-mogorov-Smirnov Test.
|
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 190, replace semicolon (;) with period (.) - based on this, change it throughout the manuscript |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Table 4 - please specify the standard deviation, for fresh and dry root weight. |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 212, provide the results for "interaction of cycle * treatments" in Table 4. Also it would be worth providing LSD for "interaction of cycle * treatments" - based on this, correct the results throughout the manuscript |
In all document we realized this observations Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Table 5, 6,7 - please specify the standard deviation |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 275, replace comma (,) with period (.) in „(1,441 g m-2)” |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 330, 441, should be „IBA” |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 334, 336, should be „1000 mg kg-1” |
In all document we realized this observations Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
line 339, „On the other hand, the biostimulant effect…”- sentence little understood, please correct |
Paragrapgh changed and edited by English edited of Agronomy |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
in conclusions, remove „(P <0.05)”, „(g·m-2)” |
Ready!!..thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 1 |
Conclusions should be more concise. Also it is worth presenting recommendations for conducting research in the indicated direction. |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents results on the effect of the biostimulants chitosan and the uaxin IBA on growth and yields of a halophyte Salicornia bigelovii , a plant with high potential benefits under dry and salty growing conditions.
This manuscript contains some very interesting data, and in this sense it deserves to be published. However, the presentation and manuscript preparation are outright sloppy and messy. Just to point out a single example: something as standard as IBA is at times spelled out in English, at some other times in Spanish.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that authors put no effort in manuscript preparation, as if they did not care. Perhaps they count on the reviewers or the editors to do their job for them. Unfortunately, I do not look at this as my responsibility. Instructions to Authors clearly spell out whose job it is to prepare manuscripts properly.
So, given that the data are interesting my recommendation is that the manuscript be returned for a major revision.
Specific comments
Language
Not being a native speaker I am not inclined to suggest any linguistic improvements. However, there are deficiences which should be removed as certain text parts remain incomprehensible. In some places verbs are missing. The sentences are often „multi-leveled” and difficult to follow. Some examples are highlighted in yellow in the text.
Title:
The acronym of indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) must be standarized in the manuscript. The Spanish version of IBA (AIB) appears not only in the title and the tables but co-exists with IBA in the text. Even in a short paragraph 5. Conclusions both versions can be found.
Abstract
Abstract must be rewritten and supplemented with more information on results.What does it mean „in the seed of…” (verse 20); maybe „on seed production” but more parameters tested are listed below. The last sentence is not a logic continuation of the previous one: Why „50% chitosanc’ is mentioned here and not „100%” whose effect was „highlighted” above?
Introductio
Salicornia bigelovii – use the full name only when first given; later – S. bigelovii (verse 35)
Verse 43: a citation missing;
Verse 67: and the whole text: comas betweeen the numbers of cited literature.
Verse 72, 86, 157, 159 and further in the text: wrong way to cite the reference,
Material and methods
Verse 81 and further: wrong recording of temperature
Verse 86 – a verb is missing.
Verse 95; :what is p/v?
Verse 112: how were the cuttings obtained (from???)
Verse 115 – Table 1 shoud be mentioned here and not Table 2 which has nothing in common with prerooting. Dots at the end of a sentence – here and in the whole text.
Verse 118: photosynthetically active radiation is PAR! In English, please.
Table 1 - The concentration/dose units must be standarized here and in the whole text according to the international system SI;
Why such doses of IBA were used? Generally, when looking for an optimal concentration several cpncentrations are tested , differing by 2x, 5x or 10x and not barely by 1/3 as in this case. What doest it mean : g/kg? Kg of what? In rooting powders it is % of IBA in a (talcuum) powder (w/w), in the auxin water solutions – mg per solvent volume (w/v). What was a solvent here? How were the solutions for immersing the cuttings prepared? What is 100% chitosan? A detailed description of preparing the experimental solutions must be provided.
Table 2. Months – with capital letter, all in English
Verse 126: what is „a column”? A row – maybe.
Verse 131: Table 3. All the values within the table should be round up to the same decimal point; what does it mean: sandy, loam? Were there two different growing media with different structure but identical mineral compositon?
Verse 141: what is „dda” ?
Verse 146; where do 10 plants at day 180 come from if 12 plants were used in a treatment? Seed collection lasted till day2 30 – from which plants if 10 (out of 12) were destroyed for root system evaluation after day 180?
Verse 148: incomplete phrase; probably missing: „was determined after sectioning…”
Verse 164-165: plants were sown into microbasins? They were planted there. Propagated by cuttings!
Results
The information on percentage of rooted cuttings should be given in the first place!
Verse 201: the abbreviation ddt should be in English (dat); it appears in the English version only once in verse 213.
Verse 217, Tabel 4: why the statisctic has not been done for the earlier observations and only for 180 days after transplantation?
Verse 246: tables 5-7 – standard deviations of the values are missing;
Verse 278: proximal or proximate?
Verse 280: appreciated – this word does not fit here
Verse 294, 315: the sentence needs a correction
Verse 300-301: an example of the multi-storeyed sentence
Verse 306-311: should be re-written in a simpler way
Verse 317: wrong way of recording the citations.
Verse 386-387; 403-404 incomprehensible sentences;
Verse 418: remained actively – should be: remained active.
References: recording of the references must be checked and adjusted to the editor’s recommendations.
Author Response
Hermosillo, Sonora, México. February 17, 2021
Dr. Renesmee Zhang and Reviewer 2
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Journal Agronomy
Dear Dr. Renesmee and reviewer(s).
According the Manuscript Manuscript ID agronomy-1116538, entitled:
“Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” which we submitted to Journal Agronomy, has been changed considering the comments of the reviewer(s).
We have carefully read the comments and suggestions from the section editor’s and from the reviewers.
We really want to express our deep thankfulness for the reviewers and for you. We truly are indebted to all of you for valuable help to improve the paper.
At the final of this document, we offer a table indicating the changes according to the requests.
We are sending to you four attachments:
1.- ARTICLE denominated: english-edited-27034 SHOWING CHANGES 16 FEB 2021PLEASE USE "Track Changes" function*………….
2.- ARTICLE denominated: english-edited-27034 CON CAMBIOS REALIZADOS 16 FEB 2021 NEW VERSION in word and pdf (2 documents)….this document is the resoult that when we finished all observations, we sent to English editing of Agronomy
3.- Cover letter with observation to reviewers
The next figure, is only to verify that when we finish all changes (observations from reviewers), we sent the document to English editing of Agronomy.
The authors hope this satisfy the standard to be accepted by the editorial advisory board.
Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to hearing from your soon again, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
- EDGAR O. RUEDA PUENTE
https://erueda04.wixsite.com/misitio
|
REVIEWER |
LINE |
ANSWER |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
This manuscript contains some very interesting data, and in this sense it deserves to be published. However, the presentation and manuscript preparation are outright sloppy and messy. Just to point out a single example: something as standard as IBA is at times spelled out in English, at some other times in Spanish. |
Considered all observations!!..thanks for all observation.
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we ask for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
It is difficult to avoid the impression that authors put no effort in manuscript preparation, as if they did not care. Perhaps they count on the reviewers or the editors to do their job for them. Unfortunately, I do not look at this as my responsibility. Instructions to Authors clearly spell out whose job it is to prepare manuscripts properly. |
We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we request for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
So, given that the data are interesting my recommendation is that the manuscript be returned for a major revision. |
We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we ask for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Specific comments |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Language |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Not being a native speaker I am not inclined to suggest any linguistic improvements. However, there are deficiences which should be removed as certain text parts remain incomprehensible. In some places verbs are missing. The sentences are often „multi-leveled” and difficult to follow. Some examples are highlighted in yellow in the text. |
Considered all observations!!..thanks for all observation.
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Title: |
Title was changed, donsidering |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The acronym of indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) must be standarized in the manuscript. The Spanish version of IBA (AIB) appears not only in the title and the tables but co-exists with IBA in the text. Even in a short paragraph 5. Conclusions both versions can be found. |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Abstract |
we did some changes Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Abstract must be rewritten and supplemented with more information on results.What does it mean „in the seed of…” (verse 20); maybe „on seed production” but more parameters tested are listed below. The last sentence is not a logic continuation of the previous one: Why „50% chitosanc’ is mentioned here and not „100%” whose effect was „highlighted” above? |
we did some changes Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Introduction |
Ídem…we check and corroborate in this topic….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Salicornia bigelovii – use the full name only when first given; later – S. bigelovii (verse 35) |
Ready…..Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 43: a citation missing; |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 67: and the whole text: comas betweeen the numbers of cited literature. |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 72, 86, 157, 159 and further in the text: wrong way to cite the reference, |
In all document we realized this observations Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Material and methods |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 81 and further: wrong recording of temperature |
Considered all observations!!..thanks for all observation.
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 86 – a verb is missing. |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 95; :what is p/v? |
weight / volumen
this oration was changed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 112: how were the cuttings obtained (from???) |
So sorry …. Oration was changed
See line 108-109 |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 115 – Table 1 shoud be mentioned here and not Table 2 which has nothing in common with prerooting. Dots at the end of a sentence – here and in the whole text. |
So sorry …. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 118: photosynthetically active radiation is PAR! In English, please. |
All words in spanish was changed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Table 1 - The concentration/dose units must be standarized here and in the whole text according to the international system SI; |
Ready.
Thanks for all observations |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Why such doses of IBA were used? Generally, when looking for an optimal concentration several cpncentrations are tested , differing by 2x, 5x or 10x and not barely by 1/3 as in this case. What doest it mean : g/kg? Kg of what? In rooting powders it is % of IBA in a (talcuum) powder (w/w), in the auxin water solutions – mg per solvent volume (w/v). What was a solvent here? How were the solutions for immersing the cuttings prepared? What is 100% chitosan? A detailed description of preparing the experimental solutions must be provided. |
In line 87-108, we changed and rewrite the method carried out. We apologize for the mistakes that were shown in the first document but we value and greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments in this regard. Each and every one of your views was considered and the document was sent to Agronomy's English edition department .......... we hope that this new version satisfactorily meets each of the recommendations requested by you and by the Honorable Agronomy ..... respectfully, authores. |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Table 2. Months – with capital letter, all in English |
Ídem…we check and corroborate in all document….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 126: what is „a column”? A row – maybe. |
Changed by row |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 131: Table 3. All the values within the table should be round up to the same decimal point; what does it mean: sandy, loam? Were there two different growing media with different structure but identical mineral compositon? |
Yes…..thanks we did…..Considered. Thanks for this observation
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 141: what is „dda” ? |
we check and corroborate in all document….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 146; where do 10 plants at day 180 come from if 12 plants were used in a treatment? Seed collection lasted till day2 30 – from which plants if 10 (out of 12) were destroyed for root system evaluation after day 180? |
We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we requested for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 148: incomplete phrase; probably missing: „was determined after sectioning…” |
Considered all observations!!..thanks for all observation.
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 164-165: plants were sown into microbasins? They were planted there. Propagated by cuttings! |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Results |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The information on percentage of rooted cuttings should be given in the first place! |
It was not a variable that was considered in this study |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 201: the abbreviation ddt should be in English (dat); it appears in the English version only once in verse 213. |
Ídem…we check and corroborate in this aspect….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 217, Tabel 4: why the statisctic has not been done for the earlier observations and only for 180 days after transplantation? |
We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we requested for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 246: tables 5-7 – standard deviations of the values are missing; |
Ready…thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 278: proximal or proximate? |
Oration changed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 280: appreciated – this word does not fit here |
we did some changes Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 294, 315: the sentence needs a correction |
we did some changes Thanks for this observation
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 300-301: an example of the multi-storeyed sentence |
Ídem…we check and corroborate in this topic….Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 306-311: should be re-written in a simpler way |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 317: wrong way of recording the citations. |
Ready.
Thanks for all observations |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 386-387; 403-404 incomprehensible sentences; |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 418: remained actively – should be: remained active. |
Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
References recording of the references must be checked and adjusted to the editor’s recommendations. |
Al references were verified. And changed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Results |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The information on percentage of rooted cuttings should be given in the first place! |
It was not a variable that was considered in this study |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 201: the abbreviation ddt should be in English (dat); it appears in the English version only once in verse 213. |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 217, Tabel 4: why the statisctic has not been done for the earlier observations and only for 180 days after transplantation? |
An analysis of variance of the variables was conducted in the two established cycles, and a multiple comparison of means was performed using the one-way Tukey test (between cycles (2018-2019 / 2019-2020) and between treatments and year * treatments), with a 95% significance level. All the analyses were performed using the SAS statistical package. The normality of the data for each response variable was verified using the Kol-mogorov-Smirnov Test.
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 246: tables 5-7 – standard deviations of the values are missing; |
In all tables were included |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 278: proximal or proximate? |
Oration changed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 280: appreciated – this word does not fit here |
Ready…thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 294, 315: the sentence needs a correction |
One more time. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 300-301: an example of the multi-storeyed sentence |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 306-311: should be re-written in a simpler way |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 317: wrong way of recording the citations. |
Included in text
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 386-387; 403-404 incomprehensible sentences; |
One more time. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Verse 418: remained actively – should be: remained active. |
Considered. Thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
References: recording of the references must be checked and adjusted to the editor’s recommendations. |
Yes, we did. Thanks for this observation |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript describes the effects of chitosan and indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) on root length, root weight, number of shoots, and the seed yield of Salicornia bigelovii under field conditions in Sonora, Mexico. The approach is not so novel, indeed the authors have published something similar (ECOPHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY OF Salicornia bigelovii (TORR.) BY EFFECT OF CHITOSAN-AIB EFFECT UNDER SONORA DESERT CONDITIONS) Polibotánica 2020, 49: 75-92.) In the article “Rooting of plant cuttings of Salicornia bigelovii (Torr.) by chitosanasa bioproduct of marine origin” the impact of chitosan and indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) on root length, fresh weight, dry weight of the root, number and length of shoots of Salicornia bigelovii was studied. So, it is not clear what new information are bringing current results? The hypothesis of study is missing. The objectives of the study is poor in the current state, please clearly justify the importance and relevance of the current study.
I would recommend taking into account the next points I detail below, that I hope will improve the quality of this work.
The manuscript would benefit considerably from improvements in word selection.
Line 2. The title is incorrect and too similar to the title of the previous work. AIB or IBA? The same abbreviation should be used throughout the work.
Line 21 How chitosan was applied? 50% and 100% - what the authors mean?
Line 22. …0.937 and 1.25…- why such concentrations? IBA was used in grams per kilogram. It is not clear what kilogram? Substrates? What was the method of mixing IBA in such a small dose?
Line 26. Just one sentence in the summary regarding the results is definitely not enough.
Line 29. More keywords should be given.
Line 47. [5] - this item is for Cucurbita and chitosan
Line 95. Acetic acid was also used in the control?
Line 98. Could you add some information of MW and DD of chitosan?
Line 186. Please add information if you have tested for normal distribution and variance homogeneity. In the tables, the results are the average over two years?
Lines 188 - 192 For what purpose these results are presented?
Line 294. P <= and not >= as you have used it here (the same problem Line 297, Line 248)
Lines 317-327. This was not the purpose of the research
Lines 363-379 Missing references
Author Response
Hermosillo, Sonora, México. February 17, 2021
Dr. Renesmee Zhang and Reviewer 3
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Journal Agronomy
Dear Dr. Renesmee and reviewer(s).
According the Manuscript Manuscript ID agronomy-1116538, entitled:
“Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” which we submitted to Journal Agronomy, has been changed considering the comments of the reviewer(s).
We have carefully read the comments and suggestions from the section editor’s and from the reviewers.
We really want to express our deep thankfulness for the reviewers and for you. We truly are indebted to all of you for valuable help to improve the paper.
At the final of this document, we offer a table indicating the changes according to the requests.
We are sending to you four attachments:
1.- ARTICLE denominated: english-edited-27034 SHOWING CHANGES 16 FEB 2021PLEASE USE "Track Changes" function*………….
2.- ARTICLE denominated: english-edited-27034 CON CAMBIOS REALIZADOS 16 FEB 2021 NEW VERSION in word and pdf (2 documents)….this document is the resoult that when we finished all observations, we sent to English editing of Agronomy
3.- Cover letter with observation to reviewers
The next figure, is only to verify that when we finish all changes (observations from reviewers), we sent the document to English editing of Agronomy.
The authors hope this satisfy the standard to be accepted by the editorial advisory board.
Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to hearing from your soon again, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
- EDGAR O. RUEDA PUENTE
https://erueda04.wixsite.com/misitio
|
REVIEWER |
LINE |
ANSWER |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
This manuscript describes the effects of chitosan and indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) on root length, root weight, number of shoots, and the seed yield of Salicornia bigelovii under field conditions in Sonora, Mexico. The approach is not so novel, indeed the authors have published something similar (ECOPHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY OF Salicornia bigelovii (TORR.) BY EFFECT OF CHITOSAN-AIB EFFECT UNDER SONORA DESERT CONDITIONS) Polibotánica 2020, 49: 75-92.) In the article “Rooting of plant cuttings of Salicornia bigelovii (Torr.) by chitosanasa bioproduct of marine origin” the impact of chitosan and indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) on root length, fresh weight, dry weight of the root, number and length of shoots of Salicornia bigelovii was studied. So, it is not clear what new information are bringing current results? The hypothesis of study is missing. The objectives of the study is poor in the current state, please clearly justify the importance and relevance of the current study. |
In line 75-80, you can see the general objective of the study where the lipid profile of polyunsaturated fatty acids in salicornia seed was focused on the effect of IBA and Chitosan. Below you can also appreciate the hypothesis .. Your appreciation is very important to us and we were able to change the title of the document, just as you and other reviewers suggested ..... it was a study that compared to previous ones (like you indicates it), it was also used to evaluate variables that coincide with the previous ones. However, this one in particular carried out its entire production cycle of salicornia, which ranges from 9 to 11 months. Appearance that the research you denote does not have. There are no studies related to the fatty acid profile in salicornia seed with the interaction of IBA and CHitosan, and that is why it is a novel study. We apologize for the mistakes that were shown in the first document but we value and greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments in this regard. Each and every one of your views was considered and the document was sent to Agronomy's English edition department .......... we hope that this new version satisfactorily meets each of the recommendations requested by you and by the Honorable Agronomy ..... respectfully, authores. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
I would recommend taking into account the next points I detail below, that I hope will improve the quality of this work. |
Ready.
Thanks for all observations |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The manuscript would benefit considerably from improvements in word selection. |
When we changed all obervations, the document was sent to English editing of Agronomy
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 2. The title is incorrect and too similar to the title of the previous work. AIB or IBA? The same abbreviation should be used throughout the work. |
Corrected
Considering your fine observations, we changed title |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 21 How chitosan was applied? 50% and 100% - what the authors mean? |
In line 87-108, we changed and rewrite the method carried out. Each and every one of your views was considered and the document was sent to Agronomy's English edition department |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 22. …0.937 and 1.25…- why such concentrations? IBA was used in grams per kilogram. It is not clear what kilogram? Substrates? What was the method of mixing IBA in such a small dose? |
We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we ask for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 26. Just one sentence in the summary regarding the results is definitely not enough. |
Abstract were rewrited We apologize for these oversights .... in this new version we ask for your consideration and we believe that you will be satisfied with the work done |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 29. More keywords should be given. |
READY..More words were included |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 47. [5] - this item is for Cucurbita and chitosan |
Ready…thanks for this observation |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 95. Acetic acid was also used in the control? |
no |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 98. Could you add some information of MW and DD of chitosan? |
INCLUDED IN 1ST PARAGRAPH OF DISCUSSION. The molecular weight of the chitosan obtained is 6.22x105 g / mol, and the standard deviation of 5x103 [21]. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 186. Please add information if you have tested for normal distribution and variance homogeneity. In the tables, the results are the average over two years? |
YES, WE DID. WE tested for normal distribution and variance homogeneity AND In the tables, the results are the average over two years. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Lines 188 - 192 For what purpose these results are presented? |
IN DISSUSSION IS INCLUDED The yield obtained for the chitosan extraction process in the present study could be compared with authors such as Hernández Cocoletzi et al. [20], De la Paz et al. [29] and Vargas and Taquez [30], who obtained similar yields, who have considered this extraction process as an effective method where a percentage of obtaining can be obtained with an efficient synthetic transformation [21]. It has been reported that some of the factors that influence chitosan yields are: raw material, method used, temperature, reaction time and concentration of solvents [20,31]. Therefore, the method used in the present study can be considered optimal for the effective obtaining of chitosan from marine sources. Likewise, it has been reported that chitin and chitosan yields vary among species, being higher in crab and shrimp [20]. Chitosan generally represents about 70% of the chitin of the species [31,32]. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Line 294. P <= and not >= as you have used it here (the same problem Line 297, Line 248) |
Considered this observation |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Lines 317-327. This was not the purpose of the research |
Considering the result obtained in section 3.1. According to the way we obtained chitosan, we wanted to show what other experiences have done and achieved. In the discussion section it is engaged. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Lines 363-379 Missing references |
Corrected all references |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After reviewing the final version of the maunuscript, I see that the authors have put a lot of effort into improving the manuscript. In my opinion, this manuscript is an interesting study and I recommend publishing it in the Agronomy.
Author Response
Hermosillo, Sonora, México. February 22, 2021
Dr. Renesmee Zhang and Reviewer´s
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Journal Agronomy
Dear Dr. Renesmee and reviewer(s).
According the Manuscript Manuscript ID agronomy-1116538, entitled:
“Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” which we submitted to Journal Agronomy, has been changed considering the comments of the reviewer(s).
Againly We have carefully read the comments and suggestions from the section editor’s and from the reviewers.
We really want to express our deep thankfulness for the reviewers and for you. We truly are indebted to all of you for valuable help to improve the paper.
The authors hope this satisfy the standard to be accepted by the editorial advisory board.
Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to hearing from your soon again, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
- EDGAR O. RUEDA PUENTE
https://erueda04.wixsite.com/misitio
Reviewer 2 Report
The original version was messy and it took me an inordinate amount of time to list all the issues requiring attention. The so-called „revised” version is nowhere near the minimum standard. The authors focused only on the simplest technical errors but even in this aspect they are not consequent, writing the same terms and abbreviations in different ways. The example is already in the title itself and the other are highlighted in the text (like: Par – should be PAR, Hr – RH). No language improvement can be seen, for example: 2 last sentences of Abstract are incomprehensible, some further in the text - marked in yellow.
There are however, substantive issues which remain unresolved:
- the method used by the authors to obtain the IBA-containing rooting powder is improper; mixing two powdery products in so different concentrations (auxin and talcuum) would not ensure an even auxin concentration. IBA should be mixed with talcumm in a liquid form, the mixture then dried, crushed and sieved.
- the percentage of rooted cuttings is not given.
- why plants are still ‘sown” into basin if they were propagated by cuttings (verse 183)?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hermosillo, Sonora, México. February 22, 2021
Dr. Renesmee Zhang and Reviewer´s
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Journal Agronomy
Dear Dr. Renesmee and reviewer(s).
According the Manuscript Manuscript ID agronomy-1116538, entitled:
“Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” which we submitted to Journal Agronomy, has been changed considering the comments of the reviewer(s).
Againly We have carefully read the comments and suggestions from the section editor’s and from the reviewers.
We really want to express our deep thankfulness for the reviewers and for you. We truly are indebted to all of you for valuable help to improve the paper.
At the final of this document, we offer a table indicating the changes according to the requests.
We are sending to you four attachments:
1.- CHOWING CHANGES in pdf
2.- NEW VERSION CHANGES MADE 22 Feb 2021 WORD and pdf (2 documents)….
3.- Cover letter with observation to reviewers
The authors hope this satisfy the standard to be accepted by the editorial advisory board.
Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to hearing from your soon again, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
- EDGAR O. RUEDA PUENTE
https://erueda04.wixsite.com/misitio
|
REVIEWER |
LINE |
ANSWER |
|
|
|
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The original version was messy and it took me an inordinate amount of time to list all the issues requiring attention. The so-called „revised” version is nowhere near the minimum standard. |
We are very grateful for each and every one of the fine observations made in the documentp pdf ..... you can verify that they have been considered to the letter |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The authors focused only on the simplest technical errors but even in this aspect they are not consequent, writing the same terms and abbreviations in different ways. The example is already in the title itself and the other are highlighted in the text (like: Par – should be PAR, Hr – RH) |
In new versión yours observations has been considereds |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
No language improvement can be seen, for example: 2 last sentences of Abstract are incomprehensible, some further in the text - marked in yellow. |
..... you can verify that they have been considered to the letter |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
the method used by the authors to obtain the IBA-containing rooting powder is improper; mixing two powdery products in so different concentrations (auxin and talcuum) would not ensure an even auxin concentration. IBA should be mixed with talcumm in a liquid form, the mixture then dried, crushed and sieved. |
In new versión point 2.1. you can se new readaction in method. It was rewrited |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
why plants are still ‘sown” into basin if they were propagated by cuttings (verse 183)? |
Thanks for this observation…..it was changed by trasplanted word |
|
|
|
|
|
2----considering your document pdf |
----considering your document pdf |
|
|
|
title |
Changed and considered your recomendation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Abtract |
summary was readjusted |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Keywords |
Words included |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Introduction |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Introduction 34-79 |
We are very thanksfully for all work dear reviewer…… Although the document was sent to the English Departament of publisher, we consider that ALL YOUR OBSERVATIONS should be included AND ALL WERE ASIGNED |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
2. Materials and Methods |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Materials and Methods
|
As in the introduction, considerable changes were detected and all were considered in the writing of the paragraphs |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Obtaining chitosan and preparation of indole butyric acid -IBA- |
The requested changes were made both in the obtaining of the chitosan and the preparation of the IBA. We recognize that we have mishandled one of the units… .we are infinitely grateful for this observation, as it enriches us in rectifying and correcting our fault. Thanks again
One reference was included an all references were traveled |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Table 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
All the changes offered from you to us in the pdf document were developed. We hope that all these changes that you have enriched us, for the reviewer 3 are also well seen |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Points: 2.4., 2.5., 2.6., 2.7., 2.8 |
in each one of the paragraphs we detected all your recommendations and they were carried out in new version... the references were scanned by including number 7 |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Results |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
3.1. |
in the previous version there was a paragraph related to the production - yield of chitosan obtained .... this section was included in materials and methods to better describe the method of obtaining chitosan and how 100 and 50% are represented
The current versión, start with root length |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Points 3.2., 3.3., 3.4., 3.5., 3.6., 3.7. and 3.8. |
in each one of the paragraphs we detected all your recommendations and they were carried out in new version... Standar deviation was included in all tables en datas Names of productos evaluated are in uppercase
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Discussion |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
4.1., line 348- 498 |
Each of the paragraphs was meticulously checked (pdf) and thus a new version was developed considering your observations ..... the references crossed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Conclusions |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Line 464- 477 |
each of the observations were carried out .... the conclusions were rewritten considering their observations |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
References |
considering a new reference, the numbers changed .... very kind for all your observations |
|
|
|
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The authors did not correct the work carefully. It is still unknown what 50 or 100% chitosan means. The lack of such basic data as an application method undermines the credibility of the research.. |
considering all the observations of the 3 reviewers in each of the phases, You have certainly enriched the document. In this new stage, we have once again considered NEW REVIEWER 2 OBSERVATIONS ..... Also Dear reviewer numer 3, WE CARIIED OUT ALL YOUR OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERED IN TOTALITY FORM...... Something very important that has happened is that your observations sensitize us as applicators research, how to write a document. We appreciate each of the observations dear Dr. reviewer number 3 ...
Accondirng to Obtaining chitosan and preparation of indole butyric acid -IBA-The requested changes were made both in the obtaining of the chitosan and the preparation of the IBA. We recognize that we have mishandled one of the units… .we are infinitely grateful for this observation, as it enriches us in rectifying and correcting our fault. Thanks again
One reference was included an all references were traveled
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
I encourage the authors to correct the manuscript very carefully, because the research was interesting and it is worth presenting their results in a manner that does not raise any doubts.
|
We are very grateful for all your fine comments, as we recognize that the quality of the document has grown significantly ...... very kind to all |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The results are still not discussed in the abstract. What is QUI? Either chitosan name or abbreviation should be used (whole paper).
|
In this new version you will be able to appreciate a new way of showing the results which are discussed in the discussion section, these are also rewritten .... assimilated, the word in capital QUI, its meaning has been indicated in text and in the tables .... his observation of abbreviating chitosan was also considered as long as the text relates to the evaluated treatment. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
What is chitosan-iba? The abbreviation of the hormone should be written in capital letters. |
The word QUI-IBA were written in capital letters, according to your observation .... only in title they appear in lower case by the editorial standard |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Should be removed from the conclusion p <0.05. Why is the name chitosan for example "Chitosan-IBA” capitalized?
|
was eliminated P <0.05 in conclusión
The word QUI-IBA were written in capital letters, according to your observation .... only in title they appear in lower case by the editorial standard
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The first sentence in the abstract should be corrected as the authors studied the impact of either chitosan, or IBA or a combination of both |
combining your observations and those of the reviewer 2, this section was corrected |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not correct the work carefully. It is still unknown what 50 or 100% chitosan means. The lack of such basic data as an application method undermines the credibility of the research. The results are still not discussed in the abstract. What is QUI? Either chitosan name or abbreviation should be used (whole paper). What is chitosan-iba? The abbreviation of the hormone should be written in capital letters. Should be removed from the conclusion p <0.05. Why is the name chitosan for example "Chitosan-IBA” capitalized? The first sentence in the abstract should be corrected as the authors studied the impact of either chitosan, or IBA or a combination of both.
I encourage the authors to correct the manuscript very carefully, because the research was interesting and it is worth presenting their results in a manner that does not raise any doubts.
Author Response
Hermosillo, Sonora, México. February 22, 2021
Dr. Renesmee Zhang and Reviewer´s
Assistant Editor
E-Mail: [email protected]
Journal Agronomy
Dear Dr. Renesmee and reviewer(s).
According the Manuscript Manuscript ID agronomy-1116538, entitled:
“Chitosan-aib evaluation in Salicornia bigelovii under Sonoran desert conditions” which we submitted to Journal Agronomy, has been changed considering the comments of the reviewer(s).
Againly We have carefully read the comments and suggestions from the section editor’s and from the reviewers.
We really want to express our deep thankfulness for the reviewers and for you. We truly are indebted to all of you for valuable help to improve the paper.
At the final of this document, we offer a table indicating the changes according to the requests.
We are sending to you four attachments:
1.- CHOWING CHANGES in pdf
2.- NEW VERSION CHANGES MADE 22 Feb 2021 WORD and pdf (2 documents)….
3.- Cover letter with observation to reviewers
The authors hope this satisfy the standard to be accepted by the editorial advisory board.
Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to hearing from your soon again, I remain.
Sincerely yours,
- EDGAR O. RUEDA PUENTE
https://erueda04.wixsite.com/misitio
|
REVIEWER |
LINE |
ANSWER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The authors did not correct the work carefully. It is still unknown what 50 or 100% chitosan means. The lack of such basic data as an application method undermines the credibility of the research.. |
considering all the observations of the 3 reviewers in each of the phases, You have certainly enriched the document. In this new stage, we have once again considered NEW REVIEWER 2 OBSERVATIONS ..... Also Dear reviewer numer 3, WE CARIIED OUT ALL YOUR OBSERVATIONS AND CONSIDERED IN TOTALITY FORM...... Something very important that has happened is that your observations sensitize us as applicators research, how to write a document. We appreciate each of the observations dear Dr. reviewer number 3 ...
Accondirng to Obtaining chitosan and preparation of indole butyric acid -IBA-The requested changes were made both in the obtaining of the chitosan and the preparation of the IBA. We recognize that we have mishandled one of the units… .we are infinitely grateful for this observation, as it enriches us in rectifying and correcting our fault. Thanks again
One reference was included an all references were traveled
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
I encourage the authors to correct the manuscript very carefully, because the research was interesting and it is worth presenting their results in a manner that does not raise any doubts.
|
We are very grateful for all your fine comments, as we recognize that the quality of the document has grown significantly ...... very kind to all |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The results are still not discussed in the abstract. What is QUI? Either chitosan name or abbreviation should be used (whole paper).
|
In this new version you will be able to appreciate a new way of showing the results which are discussed in the discussion section, these are also rewritten .... assimilated, the word in capital QUI, its meaning has been indicated in text and in the tables .... his observation of abbreviating chitosan was also considered as long as the text relates to the evaluated treatment. |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
What is chitosan-iba? The abbreviation of the hormone should be written in capital letters. |
The word QUI-IBA were written in capital letters, according to your observation .... only in title they appear in lower case by the editorial standard |
|
REVIEWER 3 |
Should be removed from the conclusion p <0.05. Why is the name chitosan for example "Chitosan-IBA” capitalized?
|
was eliminated P <0.05 in conclusión
The word QUI-IBA were written in capital letters, according to your observation .... only in title they appear in lower case by the editorial standard
|
|
REVIEWER 3 |
The first sentence in the abstract should be corrected as the authors studied the impact of either chitosan, or IBA or a combination of both |
combining your observations and those of the reviewer 2, this section was corrected |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The original version was messy and it took me an inordinate amount of time to list all the issues requiring attention. The so-called „revised” version is nowhere near the minimum standard. |
We are very grateful for each and every one of the fine observations made in the documentp pdf ..... you can verify that they have been considered to the letter |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
The authors focused only on the simplest technical errors but even in this aspect they are not consequent, writing the same terms and abbreviations in different ways. The example is already in the title itself and the other are highlighted in the text (like: Par – should be PAR, Hr – RH) |
In new versión yours observations has been considereds |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
No language improvement can be seen, for example: 2 last sentences of Abstract are incomprehensible, some further in the text - marked in yellow. |
..... you can verify that they have been considered to the letter |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
the method used by the authors to obtain the IBA-containing rooting powder is improper; mixing two powdery products in so different concentrations (auxin and talcuum) would not ensure an even auxin concentration. IBA should be mixed with talcumm in a liquid form, the mixture then dried, crushed and sieved. |
In new versión point 2.1. you can se new readaction in method. It was rewrited |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
why plants are still ‘sown” into basin if they were propagated by cuttings (verse 183)? |
Thanks for this observation…..it was changed by trasplanted word |
|
|
|
|
|
2----considering your document pdf |
----considering your document pdf |
|
|
|
title |
Changed and considered your recomendation |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Abtract |
summary was readjusted |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Keywords |
Words included |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Introduction |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Introduction 34-79 |
We are very thanksfully for all work dear reviewer…… Although the document was sent to the English Departament of publisher, we consider that ALL YOUR OBSERVATIONS should be included AND ALL WERE ASIGNED |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
2. Materials and Methods |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Materials and Methods
|
As in the introduction, considerable changes were detected and all were considered in the writing of the paragraphs |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Obtaining chitosan and preparation of indole butyric acid -IBA- |
The requested changes were made both in the obtaining of the chitosan and the preparation of the IBA. We recognize that we have mishandled one of the units… .we are infinitely grateful for this observation, as it enriches us in rectifying and correcting our fault. Thanks again
One reference was included an all references were traveled |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Table 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
All the changes offered from you to us in the pdf document were developed. We hope that all these changes that you have enriched us, for the reviewer 3 are also well seen |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Points: 2.4., 2.5., 2.6., 2.7., 2.8 |
in each one of the paragraphs we detected all your recommendations and they were carried out in new version... the references were scanned by including number 7 |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Results |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
3.1. |
in the previous version there was a paragraph related to the production - yield of chitosan obtained .... this section was included in materials and methods to better describe the method of obtaining chitosan and how 100 and 50% are represented
The current versión, start with root length |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Points 3.2., 3.3., 3.4., 3.5., 3.6., 3.7. and 3.8. |
in each one of the paragraphs we detected all your recommendations and they were carried out in new version... Standar deviation was included in all tables en datas Names of productos evaluated are in uppercase
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Discussion |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
4.1., line 348- 498 |
Each of the paragraphs was meticulously checked (pdf) and thus a new version was developed considering your observations ..... the references crossed |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Conclusions |
|
|
REVIEWER 2 |
Line 464- 477 |
each of the observations were carried out .... the conclusions were rewritten considering their observations |
|
REVIEWER 2 |
References |
considering a new reference, the numbers changed .... very kind for all your observations |
|
|
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
