Effectiveness of Agronomic Biofortification Strategy in Fighting against Hidden Hunger
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor
I have read the manuscript with interest and found that the authors comprehensively compiled the information on the biofortification of crops and carefully wrote it to be free of errors. However, the weakest point of the MS is that this topic has already been reviewed and discussed by many researchers. As compared to them, I never find any novelty except a few new references and updates to biofortified products. Hence, this review seems not adding any new information to the existing knowledge on the biofortification aspect or the authors have failed to justify its novelty in the abstract and introduction sections of the MS. Still many successful literatures on the development of multi-nutrient-rich cultivars and recently edited crops are not covered. There are at least 100+ review articles on biofortification published in reputed journals. At present what we need is a focused review for a journal like Agronomy. Therefore, before the MS is accepted for publication, I suggest the authors revise it thoroughly on any specific aspects like biofortification of any minerals or vitamins or proteins, etc. with highlighting novel aspects of the review, especially with reference to presenting the cost-economics of the biofortification strategies etc.
Quality of Engligh is okay
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I have read the manuscript with interest and found that the authors comprehensively compiled the information on the biofortification of crops and carefully wrote it to be free of errors. However, the weakest point of the MS is that this topic has already been reviewed and discussed by many researchers. As compared to them, I never find any novelty except a few new references and updates to biofortified products. Hence, this review seems not adding any new information to the existing knowledge on the biofortification aspect or the authors have failed to justify its novelty in the abstract and introduction sections of the MS. Still many successful literatures on the development of multi-nutrient-rich cultivars and recently edited crops are not covered. There are at least 100+ review articles on biofortification published in reputed journals. At present what we need is a focused review for a journal like Agronomy. Therefore, before the MS is accepted for publication, I suggest the authors revise it thoroughly on any specific aspects like biofortification of any minerals or vitamins or proteins, etc. with highlighting novel aspects of the review, especially with reference to presenting the cost-economics of the biofortification strategies etc.
Response 1: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now we blieve that the MS is substancially improved by adding more recent artilces from reputed journals, cost economics aspects are discribed (please see section 7 page 9), enviromental aspects are also included (please see section 5 page 8), nanoparticle impact included (please see section 5 page 8) etc.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review article deals with research on the effects of selected micronutrients on the yield and quality of selected crops. The article needs improvement before publication.
There is a lack of scientific information on the effects on plants of Zn, Se and Fe applied in nano form.
The authors should supplement the article with schemes.
The article has only one table with data on several studies on fertilizing three plants with zinc. Why is there no table with data on Se and Fe?
Much of the information is speculation, e.g. Line 130, Line 142, Line 149. The article should be facts alone, not conjecture.
Repetitions should be removed, e.g. Lines 84-86; 218-221
All abbreviations must be explained the first time.
The paper contains errors in the way literature is cited. For example...&...Lines 95, 110
Should be corrected: ...Iodine...Line 37; "and I It...Line 87;
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: There is a lack of scientific information on the effects on plants of Zn, Se and Fe applied in nano form.
Response 1: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now scientific information on the effects on plants of Zn, Se and Fe applied in nano form is included (please see section 5 page 8).
Point 2: The authors should supplement the article with schemes.
Response 2: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment. However, none of the authors have the skill with graphical schemes.
Point 3: The article has only one table with data on several studies on fertilizing three plants with zinc. Why is there no table with data on Se and Fe?
Response 3: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now additional table is included (please see section 3 page 3).
Point 4: Much of the information is speculation, e.g. Line 130, Line 142, Line 149. The article should be facts alone, not conjecture.
Response 4: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now the MS is improved based on facts (please see line 160, 164, 166)
Point 5: Repetitions should be removed, e.g. Lines 84-86; 218-221
Response 5: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and repetition are now subsituted (please see line 238)
Point 6: All abbreviations must be explained the first time.
Response 6: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and all abrevations are now explained for the first time.
Point 7: The paper contains errors in the way literature is cited. For example...&...Lines 95, 110
Response 7: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and litrature sitation is now corrected (please see line 99, 313)
Point 8: Should be corrected: ...Iodine...Line 37; "and I It...Line 87;
Response 8: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and erors are corrected (please see line 38, 91)
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript entitled “Effectiveness of agronomic biofortification strategy in fighting against hidden hunger” summarized the progress in combating micronutrient deficiencies in the agriculture field. The topic fits the scope of the journal. But shortages are obvious at the same time.
1. The text on selenium biofortification is not enough. Currently, biofortification with Se in crop cultivation is common. Literature on Se biofortification is abundant. The authors should enhance the statement on Se.
2. I suggest the authors add a figure to conclude the manuscript. In this way, the readers can better understand the article.
3. Section 5. Potential challenges to agronomic biofortification. Biofortification with microelements also poses risks to the comprehensive situation of crops, such as affecting the uptake of other elements, changing the rhizospheric microorganism, altering nutrient components, and influencing the ecosystem around the crops. Therefore, the authors should add a discussion on these issues here.
English is fine. Some minor spelling mistakes exist. Please check.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The text on selenium biofortification is not enough. Currently, biofortification with Se in crop cultivation is common. Literature on Se biofortification is abundant. The authors should enhance the statement on Se.
Response 1: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now information on selenium is improved/inhaced (please see line 119).
Point 2: I suggest the authors add a figure to conclude the manuscript. In this way, the readers can better understand the article.
Response 2: We strongly believe our conclusion with statement is simple and easliy understandable.
Point 3: Section 5. Potential challenges to agronomic biofortification. Biofortification with microelements also poses risks to the comprehensive situation of crops, such as affecting the uptake of other elements, changing the rhizospheric microorganism, altering nutrient components, and influencing the ecosystem around the crops. Therefore, the authors should add a discussion on these issues here.
Response 3: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and those issues are now included in section 5 (please see line 322-363).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The revised manuscript is not in tract change/highlighted. We are unable to track changes made by the authors in the revised version. Kindly send the revised version either in track change or highlighted one.
Author Response
I hope the editor will provide the MS with track changes!
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has been insufficiently revised. No graphical scheme showing the originality of the article compared to others. There are no data in the tables on the effect of nano zinc and nano selenium on crop yield. Topics on biofortification using nano fertilisers should be strongly presented. The tables present little data that appears random. What was the key in selecting the data for the tables? I encourage the authors to review the article critically.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The article has been insufficiently revised.
Response 1: We bleive that now the article is substansially revised with the points the reviewer raised
Point 2: No graphical scheme showing the originality of the article compared to others.
Response 2: We strongly bleive that graphical scheme has nothing to do with the originality of the article.
Point 3: There are no data in the tables on the effect of nano zinc and nano selenium on crop yield.
Response 3: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now additional data on the effect of nano Zn, Fe and Se fertilizer on crop yield as well as grain mineral concentration are included in each tables (please see Table 1, 2 and 3).
Point 4: Topics on biofortification using nano fertilisers should be strongly presented.
Response 4: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now the article is improved with topics on biofortification using nano fertilisers for all nano Zn, Fe and Se (please see line 116-119, 144-149, 200-206)
Point 5: The tables present little data that appears random. What was the key in selecting the data for the tables?
Response 5: Additional data are included in the tables and also 1 additional table is included. To select articles with suficient data that mentioned in each columns of the tables, data should be quantifyable/expressed with numbers etc to be included in the table. (please see Table 1, 2 and 3)
Point 6: I encourage the authors to review the article critically.
Response 6: We agreed with the reviewer’s comment and now the article is critically reviewed based on the reviewers commets.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The authors have substantially worked on the manuscript. It can be accepted in the present form.
