Next Article in Journal
First Report of Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. in Cotton, Maize and Sorghum in Greece and Problems with Its Management
Previous Article in Journal
Biofortification of Common Wheat Grains with Combined Ca, Mg, and K through Foliar Fertilisation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Sowing Date on Bioactive Compounds and Grain Morphology of Three Pigmented Cereal Species
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Biofortification of Sweetcorn with Iodine: Interaction of Organic and Inorganic Forms of Iodine Combined with Vanadium

Agronomy 2021, 11(9), 1720; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091720
by Marlena Grzanka 1,*, Sylwester Smoleń 1,*, Łukasz Skoczylas 2 and Dominik Grzanka 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2021, 11(9), 1720; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091720
Submission received: 9 July 2021 / Revised: 14 August 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published: 28 August 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please receive my review to the manuscript entitled “Biofortification of sweet corn with iodine: interaction of organic and inorganic forms of iodine combined with vanadium in a pot experiment” By  Grzanka et al. 2021”

Generally, the manuscript is well-written, and information is useful for the scientific communities and corn growers. The authors claimed that corn grains can be fortified by Zn fertilizer at certain concentration in combination with vanadium, and they presented their results. The authors need to address some items. For example, the label of X axis of all figures does not exist; Table 6 indicated contents of Ca, K, Mg, P, and S in grain, leaves, and roots of sweetcorn, but the columns of the table did not show any of these nutrients; I would delete  “in a pot experiment” from the title.  I am suggesting minor revision to the manuscript. Please let me know if you have questions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript is very interesting. The experiment was well performed and the results achieved are very interesting. In general, is almost satisfactory however there are still some errors. My specific comments, that I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript.

Line 55 – ‘ailments’

Figure 1 – Image quality should be improved

3.6. - Add the period ‘.’ to make all subtitles coherent

Table 4 and 5- I suggest simplifying results. Visually it is very confused and the reader quickly loses interest. Perhaps only showing results from a few treatments or reducing the elements will help.

Reference 2 – please confirm authors in capital letters

Taking into consideration the topic investigated and the importance of the théme I believe that the manuscript is of potential interest for readers. However, the manuscript needs a thorough review before being published.

Best wishes. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop