Genotypic Response of Finger Millet to Zinc and Iron Agronomic Biofortification, Location and Slope Position towards Yield

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript contains interesting research findings. However, it requires considerable supplementation and improvement. The description of weather conditions is far from sufficient. It is necessary to provide data from both years of the study and from a multi-year period. The description of soil conditions needs to be supplemented with soil characteristics.

Comments

Line 19 etc., correct kg ha^-1

Line 30, correct Keywords:

Line 73, 74, please add figure with location of test sites

Line 78, (Supplementary Material 1)? Not found

Line 84 etc., correct kg ha^-1

Line 114, Calcium, potassium, boron, sulphur and iron content - what forms? Available?

Line 117, correct mg kg^-1

Line 129, please give full details of the statistical software producer, P=0.05? 

Line 149, Figure 1, correct yield, kg ha^-1

Line 154, Figure 2, correct yield, kg ha^-1

Line 159, Figure 3, correct biomass, dt ha^-1

Line 164, Figure 4, correct biomass, dt ha^-1

Line 222, (Wafula et al., 2016)?

 

References, please remove publications older than 10 years and especially from the last century.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The manuscript contains interesting research findings. However, it requires considerable supplementation and improvement. The description of weather conditions is far from sufficient. It is necessary to provide data from both years of the study and from a multi-year period. The description of soil conditions needs to be supplemented with soil characteristics.

 

 

Response 1: We blieve that the manuscript is now significantly improved and supplemented. We provide weather data from both years of the study and from a multi-year period. Soil conditions is now supplemented with soil characteristics.

 

Point 2:

Line 19 etc., correct kg ha^-1

Line 30, correct Keywords:

Line 73, 74, please add figure with location of test sites

Line 78, (Supplementary Material 1)? Not found

Line 84 etc., correct kg ha^-1

Line 114, Calcium, potassium, boron, sulphur and iron content - what forms? Available?

Line 117, correct mg kg^-1

Line 129, please give full details of the statistical software producer, P=0.05? 

Line 149, Figure 1, correct yield, kg ha^-1

Line 154, Figure 2, correct yield, kg ha^-1

Line 159, Figure 3, correct biomass, dt ha^-1

Line 164, Figure 4, correct biomass, dt ha^-1

Line 222, (Wafula et al., 2016)?

References, please remove publications older than 10 years and especially from the last century.

 

Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2. (in red)

Line 19 corrected to kg ha^-1

Line 30, correct to Keywords:

Line 73, 74, figure with location of test sites is added

Line 78, Supplementary Material 1 is now added

Line 84 etc., corrected to kg ha^-1

Line 114, form od calcium, potassium, boron, sulphur and iron content is discribed

Line 117, correct to mg kg^-1

Line 129, full details of the statistical software producer as well as the probability level is added 

Line 149, Figure 1, correct to yield, kg ha^-1

Line 154, Figure 2, correct to yield, kg ha^-1

Line 159, Figure 3, correct to biomass, dt ha^-1

Line 164, Figure 4, correct to biomass, dt ha^-1

Line 222, in text references is corrected to number referencing

We blieve that the references is now significantly improved

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is original and interesting. It is well structured and written. Please review the suggestions and comments that appear in the body of the manuscript. The manuscript is accepted for publication with minimal changes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The manuscript is original and interesting. It is well structured and written. Please review the suggestions and comments that appear in the body of the manuscript. The manuscript is accepted for publication with minimal changes.

 

 

Response 1: Suggestions and comments that appear in the body of the manuscript are adressed point by point.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper aimed to investigate the influence of genotypic differences to zinc and 1iron agronomic biofortification responses among yield of finger millet, and provide useful data, but the design of the experiments and the presentation of results exist several problems, here are some of the comments:

1.      In the introduction part, the authors failed to mention why Fe and Zn are important to plants, also, it is suggested to introduce some successful cases about how specific biofortification treatments improve the crops’ yield (or quality)

2.      The temperature condition of the experiment sites was missed.

3.      In 2.2, the authors mentioned that the experiments were repeated in Arsi Negelle, and only one season’s data for Gojjam, but in other parts of the paper, such as Figure 1, the author didn’t explain the data come from which season, or average data were used.

4.      The discussion part failed to give any deep insight into the factors within different locations or slopes to affect the yield.

Some minor points about grammar and spelling

1.      Line 60, change hectare to hectares

2.      Line 94, change applied to were applied

3.      Line 105, change stored to were stored

4.      Line 202, change seen to was seen

5.      Line 205, change effect to the effect

6.      Line 222, change fertilizaton to fertilization

7.      Line 251, change enhances to enhance

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: In the introduction part, the authors failed to mention why Fe and Zn are important to plants, also, it is suggested to introduce some successful cases about how specific biofortification treatments improve the crops’ yield (or quality)

 

 

Response 1: Importance/biological role of Fe and Zn to plant is described in the introduction section. Some successful cases about how specific biofortification treatments improve the crops’ yield and/or quality were included in the introduction section.

 

Point 2: The temperature condition of the experiment sites was missed.

 

Response 2: The temprature data of both experimental site is now included in material and method section.

 

Point 3: In 2.2, the authors mentioned that the experiments were repeated in Arsi Negelle, and only one season’s data for Gojjam, but in other parts of the paper, such as Figure 1, the author didn’t explain the data come from which season, or average data were used.

 

Response 3: Data for Figure 1 and 2 in now explaind that the data is the average data for the two season.

 

Point 4: The discussion part failed to give any deep insight into the factors within different locations or slopes to affect the yield.

 

Response 4: We blieve that now the discussion part is significantly improved and give deep insight into the factors within different locations or slopes to affect the yield.

 

Point 5: Some minor points about grammar and spelling

Line 60, change hectare to hectares

Line 94, change applied to were applied

Line 105, change stored to were stored

Line 202, change seen to was seen

Line 205, change effect to the effect

Line 222, change fertilizaton to fertilization

Line 251, change enhances to enhance

 

Response 5:

Line 60, hectare is change to hectares

Line 94, applied is changed to were applied

Line 105, stored is changed to were stored

Line 202, seen is changed to was seen

Line 205, effect is changed to the effect

Line 222, fertilizaton is changed to fertilization

Line 251, enhances is changed to enhance