Effect of Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Seedling Age and Cultivation Method on Seedling Quality, Photosynthetic Parameters and Productivity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In title, the scientific name should be italicized.
In title use either the scientific name or common name.
Focus on the novelty of your work in the first line of the abstract.
Line 47, Weston states [8], stated not states.
The language must be revised by an expert or professional in language editing.
The rational and novelty must be well presented.
The aim of the work must be improved.
Lines 79-80, details of this part of M&M must be mentioned in details.
Schematic representation of M&M should be provided to clear this section.
The discussion should be improved to give insight of your work.
The conclusion is not well written.
Should be revised with an expert or native language speaker.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the article and your valuable comments. Your comments have been taken into account and corrections have been made.
Answers to the comments of the referees of the manuscript entitled “Effect of annual pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedling age and cultivation method on seedling quality, photosynthetic parameters and productivity” by J. Jankauskienė et al.
Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the paper are grateful for the article review and positive comments. We agree with your comments and have taken them into account and made corrections.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:
Point 1. In title, the scientific name should be italicized.
Response 1: Thank you for your attention. We corrected it.
Point 2. In title use either the scientific name or common name.
Response 2: Corrected to Annual peppers
Point 3. Focus on the novelty of your work in the first line of the abstract
Response 3: Corrected:
The age of the seedlings affects not only the quality of the seedlings but also the yield. The age of the seedlings of sweet peppers grown in a greenhouse and the method of their cultivation have been little studied. Therefore the aim of this research was to determine the effect of these agrotechnological tools (direct seeding or transplanting) on sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedling quality and crop yield.
Point 4. Line 47, Weston states [8], stated not states.
Response 4. Thank you for your attention. Corrected.
Point 5. The rational and novelty must be well presented.
Response 5. Corrected:
A lot of research has been carried out to determine the age of different types pepper seedlings grown in the field, but there is little data on the optimum age of sweet pepper grown in the greenhouse and on whether they should be transplanted or sown directly.
Point 6. The aim of the work must be improved.
Response 6. Corrected:
To evaluate the influence of various seedlings age and establishment methods on the quality of sweet pepper seedlings, physiological processes and determine the influence of these agrotechnological tools on plant yield in greenhouses.
Point 7. Lines 79-80, details of this part of M&M must be mentioned in details. Schematic representation of M&M should be provided to clear this section.
Response 7. The trial treatments were as follows : a0xb0; a0xb1; a0xb2; a1xb0;a1xb1;a1xb1.
I apologise if I do not understand your comment.
Point 8. The discussion should be improved to give insight of your work.
Response 9: We corrected it in the article.
Point 9. The conclusion is not well written.
Response 10. Corrected in the article.
The age and growing method of sweet pepper seedlings influenced biometric, physiological parameters of sweet pepper seedlings, phenological stage, as well marketable and total yield of the plants. The 60-days-old seedlings (both sown directly and grown by transplanting) were 1.3-1.7 times taller, had more leaves and 1.4–1.9 times larger leaf area than the 50- and 40-days-old seedlings. The chlorophyll index and content of dry matter was also highest in the leaves of these seedlings. However, the highest photosynthetic parameters were found in the leaves of 40- days-old seedlings (both sown directly and grown by transplanting). Sweet peppers whose seedlings were planted at the age of 60 days, and which were sown directly began to flower and started fruiting earlier than peppers whose seedlings were planted at the age of 50 and 40 days. The total yield of sweet peppers whose seedlings were planted in the greenhouse at the age of 60 days, and which were sown directly was 12.1–13.4% higher than that of plants whose seedlings were sown directly and planted at the age of 50 and 40 days.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose a study to determine the effect of seedling age and cultivation method (direct seeding or transplanting) on Capsicum annuum L. seedling quality and crop yield. I think it is an interesting experiment, although I have some main problems regarding materials and methods, specially with the statistical analysis. I leave a list of my comments below:
Line 74: I am unsure about the growing conditions. Half of the seeds were sown directly into pots, but what happened to the other half? Were those seeds grown in vitro for 10 days before being transplanted to pots? What were the conditions of these seeds during those 10 days?
Line 88: There seems to be something missing in this sentence.
Line 89: The sentence should read, "The soil had been..."
Line 89: In addition to the fertilization program for the soil, it is important to analyze the prior conditions, not only regarding nutrients but also the soil properties.
Line 158: Why did the authors use One-way ANOVAs to study the effect of two different factors (type of sowing and time before transplanting)? Wouldn't it be more useful to use two-way ANOVAs to study the effect of both factors on each parameter? In any case, I would like to see, at least, the levels of significance for each parameter.
Line 185: Were all the plants within each "treatment" made to start flowering and harvested on the same day? If not, the standard deviation should be included in the table.
Line 198 (Figures): The line that joins the bar and the significance letters should be removed. There is an option in Excel to not show them when formatting the data labels.
Line 304-307: This information is interesting, but as it is currently expressed, it would be better suited for the introduction rather than the discussion. In general, I find that the discussion is not well structured, as the authors' results and the exposition of other experiments are not well integrated, and the relationships are not clearly explained. A rewriting of this section would be helpful.
I don't see any major problems with English
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review of the article and your valuable comments. Your comments have been taken into account and corrections have been made.
Answers to the comments of the referees of the manuscript entitled “Effect of annual pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedling age and cultivation method on seedling quality, photosynthetic parameters and productivity” by J. Jankauskienė et al.
Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the paper are grateful for the article review and comments. We agree with your comments and have taken them into account and made corrections.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:
Point 1. Line 74: I am unsure about the growing conditions. Half of the seeds were sown directly into pots, but what happened to the other half? Were those seeds grown in vitro for 10 days before being transplanted to pots? What were the conditions of these seeds during those 10 days?
Response 1: The growing conditions were the same for all seedlings. One part of the seeds was sown directly into pots filled with peat substrate, the other part of the seeds was sown in rows in a box and after 10 days from germination these seedlings were transplanted into pots.
Point 2. Line 88: There seems to be something missing in this sentence.
Response 2: Corrected:
The scheme for planting sweet peppers seedlings in a greenhouse was 70x40 cm (70 cm between rows, 40 cm between plants).
Point 3. Line 89: The sentence should read, "The soil had been..."
Resoponse 3: Thank you for your attention. We corrected it.
Point 4. Line 89: In addition to the fertilization program for the soil, it is important to analyze the prior conditions, not only regarding nutrients but also the soil properties.
Resoponse 4: Soil conditions of the experiment: clay loam, pH 6.3, EC – 1.7 mS/cm, humus 2.2%, nitrogen - 120 mg L-1, phosphorus- 25 mg L-1, potassium – 167 mg L-1, calcium – 147 mg L-1, magnesium- 29 mg L-1.
Point 5. Line 158: Why did the authors use One-way ANOVAs to study the effect of two different factors (type of sowing and time before transplanting)? Wouldn't it be more useful to use two-way ANOVAs to study the effect of both factors on each parameter? In any case, I would like to see, at least, the levels of significance for each parameter.
Resoponse 5: Thank you for your attention. Sorry for the mistake. We corrected it in the article.
Point 6. Line 185: Were all the plants within each "treatment" made to start flowering and harvested on the same day? If not, the standard deviation should be included in the table.
Resoponse 6: All seedlings were planted in greenhouses at the same time. 50- and 40-days-old seedlings began to flower and started fruiting at the same time. Only sweet peppers whose seedlings were planted at the age of 60 days, began to flower, and started fruiting earlier than peppers whose seedlings were planted at the age of 50 and 40 days.
Point 7. Line 198 (Figures): The line that joins the bar and the significance letters should be removed. There is an option in Excel to not show them when formatting the data labels.
Resoponse 7: Thank you for your attention. We corrected it.
Point 8. Line 304-307: This information is interesting, but as it is currently expressed, it would be better suited for the introduction rather than the discussion. In general, I find that the discussion is not well structured, as the authors' results and the exposition of other experiments are not well integrated, and the relationships are not clearly explained. A rewriting of this section would be helpful.
Resoponse 8: We agree with you. We have rewritten this chapter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In abstract you speak about sweet pepper while you changed the title tp annual pepper.
The introduction needs more information about the effect of seedling age on the quality of yield. More information must be added, I see the introduction is not sufficient.
In materials and methods section, add a figure represent your treatments.
I have no concerns about language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the paper are grateful for the article review and positive comments. We agree with your comments and have taken them into account and made corrections.
Answers to the comments of the referees of the manuscript entitled “Effect of annual pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedling age and cultivation method on seedling quality, photosynthetic parameters and productivity” by J. Jankauskienė et al.
Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the paper are grateful for the article review and positive comments. We agree with your comments and have taken them into account and made corrections.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:
Point 1. In abstract you speak about sweet pepper while you changed the title tp annual pepper.
Response 1: Following a comment by one of the reviewers, we changed in the title ‘sweet pepper’ to ‘annual pepper’. In our opinion, sweet pepper would be better in the title, as research has been carried out on sweet pepper. However, sweet pepper is an annual plant.
Point 2. The introduction needs more information about the effect of seedling age on the quality of yield. More information must be added, I see the introduction is not sufficient.
Response 1: Our aim was to estimate the effect of seedling age on seedling quality and yield, so therefore we did not discuss about this in the introduction. Furthermore, our results showed that the age of the seedlings did not have a significant effect on the internal quality of the fruit (Table 4).
We inserted a sentence in the introduction:
‘Most of the researchers have investigated the influence of the age of pepper seedlings on the biometric parameters of the seedlings and on yield. Not much data has been found on the effect of seedling age on fruit quality. Saxena and Singh [11] indicated that the age of pepper seedlings had no effect on the total soluble solids in the fruits. The internal quality of the fruit varies according to the variety.’
Point 3. In materials and methods section, add a figure represent your treatments.
Response 1: The experimental scheme was as follows:
|
a0xb1 |
a1xb0 |
|
a0xb0 |
a1xb2 |
|
a0xb2 |
a1xb1 |
|
a1xb2 |
a0xb1 |
|
a1xb0 |
a0xb2 |
|
a1xb1 |
a0xb0 |
|
a0xb1 |
a1xb1 |
|
a0xb2 |
a1xb0 |
|
a0xb0 |
a1xb2 |
Note: A factor: a0 - sown directly, a1 - transplanting, B factor: seedling age - b0 - 60 days, b1 – 50 days, b2 – 40 days. 1st replication; 2nd replication; 3rd replication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The researchers have reuploaded their study with the aim of investigating the impact of seedling age and cultivation method (either direct seeding or transplanting) on the quality of Capsicum annuum L. seedlings and the resulting crop yield. While I maintain my interest in the experiment, I believe that the primary issues persist and that makes the manuscript unfit for publication.
In relation to the statistical analysis, was the significance consistently greater than 0.01 (indicated as either non-significant or *)? Regardless, when the interaction is not statistically significant, the use of letters should be avoided, and outcomes should not be treated as significant (e.g., ascorbic acid, total yield). I perceive this as a substantial oversight that should be avoided at this level.
At line 235 where the figures are presented, the connection between the bar and the letters denoting significance should be eliminated. This connection remains present in most of the figures.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The new additions to the manuscript appear hastily included and lack a coherent structure. The quality of the English language usage is generally subpar.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author's of the paper are grateful for the article review and comments. We have taken them into account and made corrections. We've answered your questions.
Answers to the comments of the referees of the manuscript entitled “Effect of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedling age and cultivation method on seedling quality, photosynthetic parameters and productivity” by J. Jankauskienė et al.
Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the paper are grateful for the article review and comments. We have taken them into account and made corrections.
Response to Reviewer Comments:
Point 1. In relation to the statistical analysis, was the significance consistently greater than 0.01 (indicated as either non-significant or *)? Regardless, when the interaction is not statistically significant, the use of letters should be avoided, and outcomes should not be treated as significant (e.g., ascorbic acid, total yield). I perceive this as a substantial oversight that should be avoided at this level.
Response 1: A confidence level of 95% (p 0.05) is commonly used in agricultural experiments. Therefore, when performing the statistical significance of factor effects, we limited ourselves to whether it is statistically significant at p 0.05 or not significant at all. Because the factors had different effects on different parameters, we performed both a two-way ANOVA on the data and fisher test of the factors (A, B and their interaction) to know which had the strongest effect on each parameter.
Poin 2. At line 235 where the figures are presented, the connection between the bar and the letters denoting significance should be eliminated. This connection remains present in most of the figures.
Response 2: Thank you for your attention. We corrected it.
Poin 3. English language proofreading.
Response 3: English corrected by the English language editor.
Sincerely,
- Jankauskienė and co-authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
"The authors have not yet corrected the errors found in the previous versions of the manuscript concerning statistics. I don't understand why they claim to have adjusted p < 0.05 to signify the significance of the data. I am aware that this value of alpha (not p) is commonly used in agriculture. However, when p < 0.05, it can be denoted as *, **, or ***, depending on the exact p-value, and these distinctions provide substantial insights into the validity of the experiments. This is why I inquired about the rationale for exclusively using *.
Furthermore, the authors persist in labeling some results as nonsignificant, as indicated in the "summary" of the ANOVA (Ascorbic acid, total yield). However, they subsequently discuss these very results as if they were significant, both in the tables (with letters for the Fisher Test) and in the text. Due to this inconsistency, it is difficult to perceive even a basic understanding of the data analysis from the authors' presentation. This issue is readily apparent in the discussion, which remains overly simplistic, and many of the conclusions lack support from their own data."
