Soybean Response to Seed Coating with Chitosan + Alginate/PEG and/or Inoculation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Article Soybean reaction to seed coating and/or inoculation
Suggestion about the title. The word coating is very generic. It may be better to use
Soybean response to seed coating with chitosan + alginate/PEG and/or inoculation
I marked on the attached reviewed pdf many suggestions for change as well as questions
Line 39: Virulence =Virulence is a pathogen's or microorganism's ability to cause damage to a host.
The growth stage indication used Reference 46 is not very common. The most common is the reference
Fehr, W.R., C.E. Caviness, D.T. Burmood, and J.S. Pennington. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine Max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci. 11(6): 929–931.
Using V stages for leaf development and R 1 to R8 for reproductive stage. Use the most common description for growth stages.
In general the literature has been studied in detail. However, what I miss is explaining what the significance is of this research.
Although there are references to a paper with Chitosan what is special about this coating. How does it protect from low temperatures. This is the unique part of the research. What is the hypothesis that the coating will be beneficial. How is is supposed to work what conditions are most beneficial to see a response etc.
Using inoculant is not new and well documented. That there is variability between years is not new but common knowledge. Please make more clear why this research is new and exactly what the treatment was (rate, how much applied etc.) there is not enough information to repeat the experiment.
Some issues: Statistics. I do not quite understand how the statistics were done as the information was not enough. The author states that is was a split plot design (line 146) however I do not understand how the practical layout was in the field. If the split is a split in time than I am also not quite clear as the year is not replicated but a random event. Not sure how the statistics for year were done (no replication of year). Year is typically random so is rep. We typically do not describe that rep 1 was significantly different from rep 2. What model was used, how was an HSD test calculated if there was no replication of years. What are fixed and what are random effects etc. Base on what I know on the information given, I do not understand the year effects in the tables. Also there is no TF x Y so why are years important. The treatments are the stated objective. There is no objective on the effect of year. Line 111 to 114.
The objective stated that the hypothesis is that the coating will not limit the development o symbiotic bacteria etc. WHY use the coating if there is no expectation of a positive outcome. Please re-write the objectives.
In general there in not enough detailed information in the materials and methods. Actual number of rows, plot length, width, how was the plot seeded. How harvested. Some plants were removed for nodule count how were the plants removed and if removed how did this effect the yield. Was the whole 15 square meter harvested.
What I am missing is the discussion on why things happened the way they did. For instance the coating had more stand but what was the reason. Why is delayed emergence beneficial. In the US a lot of research is indicating that having earlier emergence will increase yield as there are more growing days before the change from vegetative to reproductive. There seem to be two competing factors. With coating fewer growing days early in the season but higher plant population. I am looking for this type of discussion.
In general the discussion section is long and I wonder if some of the statements could not be summarized in the lit review section. In the discussion section I would like to see how the current reported research has similar of different results.
In the literature there are many different kinds of coating applied to soybean it is difficult to understand which of the coating are similar to the coating used in this research. The author is very familiar with nodulation and coatings but it is hard for a reader to follow the thoughts of the author.
I would suggest the author reworks the document and re-submits the revised document. The main issues are statistics, more info on why research is important and what the coating is supposed to do, detailed info on materials and method and more clear discussion. See all my comments in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study was conducted for three seasons in Poland to demonstrate the effectiveness of the developed coating and commercial inoculant applied alone or in combination to soybean seeds. The manuscript is generally well written, and I do not have significant problems with the validity of the work. However, I suggest the author consider the following points for further consideration.
- L20: Please add one concluding sentence that summarizes the value or result of the work.
- L84 L101: The term “precision agriculture” does not make sense here. Using coated seeds is not a new technology and has no direct linkage with precision agriculture.
- L133: “Laboratory device” is not clear. Please give the name of the device and manufacturer information here.
- L139: This figure does not add any value to this manuscript, please delete it.
- L144-145: Please rewrite. The sentence is not clear, and we do not need the breeder’s information.
- L146: What was the main plat and what was the sub-plot factor in split-plot design, please clarify.
- L157: 60 seeds/m2 makes a total of 60,000/hectare, which does not sound realistic.
- L166-167: This method is not clear to me.
- L186: SPAD is leaf chlorophyll measurement.
- L180: How did you make sure 15%, please clarify. In the international market, soybean seeds are sold at 13% moisture, therefore, I suggest the author convert all the values to 13% moisture unless he/she has a certain argument.
- L204: It should be “seasonal weather condition…..”
- L205: Delete “results of”
- Table 1: Give the meaning of ABCD as Table footnote. Please give the actual p-values, not starts. This applies throughout the manuscript where applicable.
- Figure 3: I am not interested to see the difference among years. Please present the data/figure comparing ABCD for each year. And, this applies throughout the manuscript where applicable.
- Figure 3: Please remove the number value. Rather include the standard error (SE) for each bar. And, this applies throughout the manuscript where applicable.
- Figure 3: Please name the x-axis and y-axis. And, this applies throughout the manuscript where applicable.
- L250: Single soybean root?
- Discussion: Please give sub-headings. It is quite long and hard to follow.
- Conclusion: Please re-write the conclusion. As it stands, it simply looks like the reputation of results. I did not find any take-home message or “conclusion” of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The current paper has similarityies to the recently published paper Effect os seed coating on the yield of soybean (plant, soil and environment 67, 2021 (8);468-473 and is looking as some other aspects. However, the paper in plant and soil and env is not mentionde and the current paper is not put in the context of continued research.
Line 67 harmfulerous strike erous
Line 132 the yield size and quality of the seed.
Line 163 change to: the seed coat prevents the seeds from rotting. {the dissolving does not protect the seed so the work This is not correct}
Line 172. sp. z o.o, is a polish term
The English term would be Ltd
Ltd [written abbreviation] short for Limited; (used after the names of private (Limited Liability) companies).
Usually when a company is named we should include the town as well.
Line 599 late date, smaller in emergence {not correct english}
Change to: or later date, fewer plants emerged compared to the control….
Line 185 randomized blocks block design
Line 221 consider Ltd and include town and country.
Line 224 The number of bacterial nodules were counted and dry weight recorded at the beginning of flowering.
DID YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF NODULES WHEN COUNTING. THE Nodule SIZE OF INOCULATED seed it typically bigger than control.
Line 229 SPAD is not a direct leaf chlorophyll measurement it is an estimate change to:
(SPAD is estimating leaf chlorophyll)
Line 241 to 244. I am still not clear on the exact analysis. Did you do first analyze each year separately?
It does not appear so. So maybe add the obtained results were combined across years and statistically analysed.
What about considering random and fixed effects. No statement. Normally we have replication and year as random and treatment as fixed.
It appears you used years as fixed but as you compared the averages of years in the tables. I am still not sure that this is correct.
Table 2 instead of pieces m2 it should be: plants m2
Table 2 you changed the information in the ANOVA section. It appears to be the p-value but you need to state it
On the top is Treatment add T as in Treatment (T)
ANOVA
-----------------------p vaule--------------------
T ≤0.001 ≤0.001 ≤0.001 ≤0.001
On the bottom n.s.-non significant, according to Tukey’s honestly etc. However, I believe as you talk about the ANOVA it is the F-test you are reporting. Tukey compares means as in the top of the table.
Line 337 delete could. (redundant word)
Figure 2 and 3. Do not compare treatment across yeas (anova not significant????) different years. Please use mean comparison within each year only. Further, please insert Standard Error (SE) for each bar
Heading of figure 2 states see materials and methods. However, each table of graph should stand on its own and should be interpreted with all information presents. Therefore need explanation of treatments.
Same for Fig 3.
Table 4 see comments above for Table 2.
Line 433 17.5 pieces should be 17.5 nodules
In discussion need to include discussion about how the results of this research are supported by article effect of seed coating on the yield of soybean
Conclusion line 647-648. No observation in the research was made regarding the seed rotting. Therefore this is not a conclusion. Mention of seed rot should be done in the results section as a speculation.
The sentence Coating avoided ….. from rotting. Should be deleted. Not evidence presented.
references
Need to include paper effect of seed coating on the yield of soybean
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved. I have further suggestions to be considered by the author.
The author compared means across all years in Figures 2 and 3, which is not valid. We can compare A vs. A for different years but we can not compare A vs. B for different years. Therefore, please do the mean comparison within each year only. Further, please insert Standard Error (SE) for each bar.
Figure 1: (oC) should be in parenthesis. Please use the correct symbol.
Table 2: Density should be plants/m2, not pieces. Further "planting density" refers to the time of planting. So, I suggest using "plant population" after emergence, etc.
Page 7: LAI is leaf area index, so better say LAI values rather than "LAI index."
Table 4: Delete "the" (the number of....); for p-values due (.) not (,).
Figure 4: Insert Standard Error (SE) to each bar.
Page 12: The sub-heading "seed coating" does not look interesting. It should tell some meaning such as "Effect of seed coating" or ....?
It applies to all sections but especially for 4.5 under discussions, that discussions look just like a literature review. Discussions should be made by comparing your results vs. other results, and giving the scientific arguments why it has happened and why your results are still valid? Please rewrite.
Conclusion: No need to give justification in conclusions. Just give a summary of your work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
