Effects of Boron and Zinc Micro-Fertilizer on Growth and Quality of Jujube Trees (Ziziphus jujuba) in the Desert Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research was well carried out, but require major revision

My comments are in the attached manuscript 

- Authors should know that the experimental design in this study was never mentioned 

- The experimental design would inform the type of analysis, which still bring confusion in the present study 

- Authors presented a range of optimal boron and zinc application for the crop. It can't be so, an exact value must be determined using the appropriate approach 

- Authors presented the same r-square values for different equations. It can't be so. Please, look into this and revise appropriately 

- How the response surface was generated must be reported, which has to do with the type of experimental design used 

- What is the interaction between the boron and zinc application on the crop ? very important to this study but not captured 

- Other comments are in the attachment 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The research was well carried out, but require major revision

My comments are in the attached manuscript 

- Authors should know that the experimental design in this study was never mentioned 

- The experimental design would inform the type of analysis, which still bring confusion in the present study 

- Authors presented a range of optimal boron and zinc application for the crop. It can't be so, an exact value must be determined using the appropriate approach 

- Authors presented the same r-square values for different equations. It can't be so. Please, look into this and revise appropriately 

- How the response surface was generated must be reported, which has to do with the type of experimental design used 

- What is the interaction between the boron and zinc application on the crop ? very important to this study but not captured 

- Other comments are in the attachment 

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript. These comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The suggestions are replied as follows.

1. Authors should know that the experimental design in this study was never mentioned.

Response: The experimental design section is in section 1.2 of the manuscript, which we have reorganized. See section 1.2 of the revised manuscript.

2. The experimental design would inform the type of analysis, which still bring confusion in the present study 

Response: We reorganized the experimental design section to further clarify the objectives and specific details of the experimental design. See section 1.2 of the revised manuscript.

3. Authors presented a range of optimal boron and zinc application for the crop. It can't be so, an exact value must be determined using the appropriate approach 

Response: In this study, the weight coefficients of yield and three quality indexes were calculated by entropy weight method, and the exact optimal application amounts of boron and zinc micro-fertilizer were obtained.

4. Authors presented the same r-square values for different equations. It can't be so. Please, look into this and revise appropriately 

Response: r-square for all four equations are given in the revised manuscript. See section 2.6 of the revised manuscript.

5. How the response surface was generated must be reported, which has to do with the type of experimental design used 

Response: Excess boron can affect cell differentiation and elongation of root meristem, leading to lignification and root necrosis. Excessive zinc will inhibit the elongation of plant roots, inhibit the absorption of other nutrients in the soil by plant roots, destroy the permeability of cell membranes, and inhibit the respiration of plants. Therefore, the optimal application of trace elements must be optimized. We added this to the introduction. See lines 74-79 of the revised manuscript

6. What is the interaction between the boron and zinc application on the crop ? very important to this study but not captured 

Response: Zinc is conducive to the formation of chlorophyll in plants, can promote photosynthesis, and is conducive to protein synthesis. Boron can promote the synthesis and transportation of sugars in plants and provide energy for plant photosynthesis. Therefore, when these two elements act at the same time, the effect of promoting growth and improving quality is more obvious.

7. Other comments are in the attachment 

Response: The comments in the annex have also been revised individually.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the critical examination of the paper, I noticed that there are some major drawbacks in the logical and scientific explanations of the results in the present manuscript, due to the same, the article failed to meet the overall quality and requirement to publish as Original Research article in this journal.  

I found that authors investigated the effect of boron and zinc micro-fertilizer on growth and quality of jujube trees in the desert area considering several parameters or indices such as length of the fruit branch, leaf area index, and fruit longitudinal/transverse diameter, net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance, intercellular CO2 concentration, yield and water use efficiency, soluble sugar content, titratable acid content, and flavonoid content etc.

Unfortunately, None of these results were efficiently linked to the supporting literatures and discussed properly under the Discussion section. General explanations were provided which is repeated already briefed in the introduction part. I strongly suggest authors rework on the manuscript keeping only the significant results or outcomes under the Results section rather than unnecessary explanations. I observed that there are lot of growth and quality parameters in the manuscript but Authors failed to utilize the same in the discussion part. Authors may discuss the results in 3 headings… Effect of B and Zn on 1. Growth parameters, 2. Yield 3. Quality parameters. I believe that there is a scope to discuss these wonderfully in this manuscript but I don’t know authors failed here. Unless discussing these outcomes, it is hard to conclude the quality of the draft.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer's valuable comments, which are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The revision has been marked in red in the manuscript. The response to the comment are as follows.

Comment: Unfortunately, None of these results were efficiently linked to the supporting literatures and discussed properly under the Discussion section. General explanations were provided which is repeated already briefed in the introduction part. I strongly suggest authors rework on the manuscript keeping only the significant results or outcomes under the Results section rather than unnecessary explanations. I observed that there are lot of growth and quality parameters in the manuscript but Authors failed to utilize the same in the discussion part. Authors may discuss the results in 3 headings… Effect of B and Zn on 1. Growth parameters, 2. Yield 3. Quality parameters. I believe that there is a scope to discuss these wonderfully in this manuscript but I don’t know authors failed here. Unless discussing these outcomes, it is hard to conclude the quality of the draft.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We reconsidered the discussion section and discussed the effects of boron and zinc on plant growth, yield, and quality respectively. In addition, we re-summarize the conclusion to make it more concise.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose a study to determine the effect of different doses of boron and zinc on the development and quality of jujube trees. I think it is an interesting experiment, although I have some main problems regarding materials and methods, especially with the statistical analysis. I leave a list of my comments below:

 

Line 70 A citation would be needed here

Line 101 If the measurements were made specifically for these  experiments, the methods used should be noted

Line 169 The methods should be cited. Providing more information about the sample preparation for the different tests would be very useful.

203 The procedure for the statistical analysis is not correctly explained. If I am getting it right, the authors used a parametric test for the significance (ANOVA) and a non-parametric test for the multiple comparisons. This may not make much sense. The authors should have conducted normality and homocedasticity tests before analyzing the dataset. Mixing parametric and non-parametric techniques significantly reduces the impact of their results.

Line 236 The figures should show the standard error of each treatment. More importantly, the authors should present a way to assess the statistical differences between treatments, such as using letters as they did in Table 1. The same comment applies to figures 3 to 6.

Line 293 In my opinion, the table should include, at least, a summary of the statistical analysis, including the degrees of freedom, the F-value, and the p-value. This comment applies to any of the results that are statistically analyzed. At the same time, if a parameter showed no significant differences, the letters are not necessary.

Line 491 Except for the dosage recommendation, the discussion lacks depth and the authors do not really discuss their results but rather extend the introduction. With that same information stated in this section, the authors should discuss the effects of the biofortification treatments on their results, trying to connect them while comparing with other similar studies. As it is, I could not consider this as a proper discussion.

 

Line 526 The conclusions should be shorter, the authors do not need to summarize all the results but to expose the main directions and the applicability of said results for both the agricultural activity and future research.

 

Kind regards

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript. The changes are marked in red in the revised version. My replies to the comments are as follows. 

1. Line 70 A citation would be needed here

Response: References have been added here

2. Line 101 If the measurements were made specifically for these  experiments, the methods used should be noted

Response: The relevant descriptions of the determination of soil physical and chemical property indexes have been added in the revised manuscript. (1.3.5 section)

3. Line 169 The methods should be cited. Providing more information about the sample preparation for the different tests would be very useful.

Response: References have been added here

4. 203 The procedure for the statistical analysis is not correctly explained. If I am getting it right, the authors used a parametric test for the significance (ANOVA) and a non-parametric test for the multiple comparisons. This may not make much sense. The authors should have conducted normality and homocedasticity tests before analyzing the dataset. Mixing parametric and non-parametric techniques significantly reduces the impact of their results.

Response: We test the normal distribution of the data and find that many data are indeed not normal. For non-normal data, difference analysis can only be carried out by means of non-parametric test.

5. Line 236 The figures should show the standard error of each treatment. More importantly, the authors should present a way to assess the statistical differences between treatments, such as using letters as they did in Table 1. The same comment applies to figures 3 to 6.

Response: We have added error lines to the figures.

6. Line 293 In my opinion, the table should include, at least, a summary of the statistical analysis, including the degrees of freedom, the F-value, and the p-value. This comment applies to any of the results that are statistically analyzed. At the same time, if a parameter showed no significant differences, the letters are not necessary.

Response: We supplement the statistical analysis table. See Supplementary materials Table S3.

7. Line 491 Except for the dosage recommendation, the discussion lacks depth and the authors do not really discuss their results but rather extend the introduction. With that same information stated in this section, the authors should discuss the effects of the biofortification treatments on their results, trying to connect them while comparing with other similar studies. As it is, I could not consider this as a proper discussion.

 Response: We reorganized the discussion section and added some comparisons.

8. Line 526 The conclusions should be shorter, the authors do not need to summarize all the results but to expose the main directions and the applicability of said results for both the agricultural activity and future research.

Response: We described the conclusion in a more summative way.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, the manuscript presents interesting information regarding the improvement of crop yields under the influence of boron and zinc sprays in dry areas, which by the continuous climate change can be applied to more and more cultivated areas. As for technical issues related to the manuscript, there is a problem with the numbering of individual sections and subsections, I would suggest improving this. As for the content of the manuscript itself, I have the following suggestions:

L3 I would suggest supplementing with a Latin name

L30-31 How do they improve the quality of the soil? In my opinion, this is an unfinished statement.

L97-102 Soil properties are given under reference to the manuscript of other Authors i.e. I understand that the Authors did not make soil determinations? In addition, in the manuscript to which reference is given, I did not find information on soil quality.

L136-142 Are these recommendations of the fertilizer manufacturer? If so, suggests writing it down, e.g., in the form: "The specific methods of spraying microfertilizers according to the manufacturer's recommendations are as follows."

L215 according to the information provided in the materials and methods section, significant differences were just recognized at p<0.05, so once again, providing the same value does not do much. I would suggest stating the exact p-value in the various places in the manuscript

L226-235 In my opinion, these lines should not be in the Results section only in the Discussion section with appropriate references to other research papers by other Authors

L251-252 In my opinion also these sentence should not be in this section

L270-272 In my opinion also this sentence should not be included in this section

L279-287 In my opinion, these lines should not be in the Results section only in the Discussion section with appropriate references to other research papers by other Authors

L345-355 Analogous to the previous suggestion

L491 In my opinion, this section is inadequately structured. The mechanisms determining the improvement of productivity and quality when using boron and zinc are admittedly given. However, there is no reference to any other research work in this field, a comparison of the tendencies obtained to those obtained in field studies by other Authors. In addition, the Authors in the results section state that the use of high doses caused a deterioration of the obtained effects, which is also not mentioned in this section. I would suggest significantly rebuilding this section or attempting to combine this section with the Results section with appropriate additions.

L526 This section is largely a repetition of the Results section. Only item (3) in my opinion should actually be in this section. I would suggest a very brief summary of the results one or two sentences, in turn indicating a possible perspective for further field research and point (3) as recommendations for agricultural practice.

Good luck

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reviewer's valuable comments, which are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The revision has been marked in red in the manuscript. The one-to-one responses to the comments are as follows.

1. L3 I would suggest supplementing with a Latin name

Response: The Latin name of jujube tree was added to the title of the revised manuscript.

2. L30-31 How do they improve the quality of the soil? In my opinion, this is an unfinished statement.

Response: The jujube tree, a prominent species in arid desert regions of China, exhibits exceptional drought and cold tolerance traits along with robust adaptability. It plays a pivotal role in combating land desertification and enhancing the ecological environment. (see L30-33 in revised manuscript)

3. L97-102 Soil properties are given under reference to the manuscript of other Authors i.e. I understand that the Authors did not make soil determinations? In addition, in the manuscript to which reference is given, I did not find information on soil quality.

Response: Here we wanted to cover the soil of the whole area. But in fact, we have the measured data of the test site, and we have modified this part of the content into the test data of the test site in the revised draft. (see L114-119)

4. L136-142 Are these recommendations of the fertilizer manufacturer? If so, suggests writing it down, e.g., in the form: "The specific methods of spraying microfertilizers according to the manufacturer's recommendations are as follows."

Response: The spray method of micro fertilizer is suggested by the manufacturer (Hubei Caiqing Micro Fertilizer Co., LTD.). (see L153-154)

5. L215 according to the information provided in the materials and methods section, significant differences were just recognized at p<0.05, so once again, providing the same value does not do much. I would suggest stating the exact p-value in the various places in the manuscript

Response: This part of the content has been modified in the revised manuscript to give the accurate p-value.

6. L226-235 In my opinion, these lines should not be in the Results section only in the Discussion section with appropriate references to other research papers by other Authors

Response: The sentence has been deleted and expressed in general in the discussion section.

7. L251-252 In my opinion also these sentence should not be in this section

Response: The sentence has been deleted and expressed in general in the discussion section.

8. L270-272 In my opinion also this sentence should not be included in this section

Response: The sentence has been deleted and expressed in general in the discussion section.

9. L279-287 In my opinion, these lines should not be in the Results section only in the Discussion section with appropriate references to other research papers by other Authors

Response: The sentence has been deleted and expressed in general in the discussion section.

10. L345-355 Analogous to the previous suggestion

Response: The sentence has been deleted and expressed in general in the discussion section.

11. L491 In my opinion, this section is inadequately structured. The mechanisms determining the improvement of productivity and quality when using boron and zinc are admittedly given. However, there is no reference to any other research work in this field, a comparison of the tendencies obtained to those obtained in field studies by other Authors. In addition, the Authors in the results section state that the use of high doses caused a deterioration of the obtained effects, which is also not mentioned in this section. I would suggest significantly rebuilding this section or attempting to combine this section with the Results section with appropriate additions.

Response: We combined the results of the study and referred to the conclusions of other researchers, reorganized and wrote the discussion section.

12. L526 This section is largely a repetition of the Results section. Only item (3) in my opinion should actually be in this section. I would suggest a very brief summary of the results one or two sentences, in turn indicating a possible perspective for further field research and point (3) as recommendations for agricultural practice.

Response: We rewrote the conclusion.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved. However, I recommend minor revision as indicated below

- Please, erase sub-heading 1.2.1

- Please, erase sub-heading 1.2.2 

- Let section 1.2 continue without putting a sub-heading

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has been significantly improved. However, I recommend minor revision as indicated below

- Please, erase sub-heading 1.2.1

- Please, erase sub-heading 1.2.2 

- Let section 1.2 continue without putting a sub-heading

 

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. Specific one-to-one responses are below.

Comment 1: Please, erase sub-heading 1.2.1

Response: We have erased sub-heading 1.2.1.

Comment 2: Please, erase sub-heading 1.2.2 

Response: We have erased sub-heading 1.2.2.

Comment 3: Let section 1.2 continue without putting a sub-heading

Response: We let section 1.2 continue without sub-heading.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried their best to incorporate. But still, connecting the discussion with the existing effective results and supporting the literature needs to be well established. 

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript again, and the specific reply is as follows.

The revised parts of the manuscript have been marked in red in the text.

 

Comment 1: The authors tried their best to incorporate. But still, connecting the discussion with the existing effective results and supporting the literature needs to be well established. 

Response: We further improved the discussion part, and further enriched and improved the comparative analysis with the existing relevant research results. (see discussion section)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I acknowledge the important improvements made by the authors to address the comments provided by the reviewers.

 

However, in my view, the statistical analysis remains flawed. There should be a dedicated statistics subsection within the Materials and Methods section, accurately detailing the analysis conducted. Additionally, I appreciate the authors for including the p-value of the Kruskal-Wallis tests to assess the significance of the dataset. Nonetheless, the authors have not incorporated a post-hoc analysis of this data (such as the Mann-Whitney or Dunn's test). In this sense, this analysis is only shown in Table 1 for Pnmax, but no information provided about which post-hoc analysis has been made to obtain these differences.

Without this analysis, it is difficult to determine which of the treatments show significant differences. To my understanding, this limits enormously the impact of the study, especially taking into account that one of the main goals of the experiment was to determine the best biofortification treatments.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on the manuscript. The specific comments are given below.

Comment 1: However, in my view, the statistical analysis remains flawed. There should be a dedicated statistics subsection within the Materials and Methods section, accurately detailing the analysis conducted. Additionally, I appreciate the authors for including the p-value of the Kruskal-Wallis tests to assess the significance of the dataset. Nonetheless, the authors have not incorporated a post-hoc analysis of this data (such as the Mann-Whitney or Dunn's test). In this sense, this analysis is only shown in Table 1 for Pnmax, but no information provided about which post-hoc analysis has been made to obtain these differences.

Without this analysis, it is difficult to determine which of the treatments show significant differences. To my understanding, this limits enormously the impact of the study, especially taking into account that one of the main goals of the experiment was to determine the best biofortification treatments.

Response: We do have a section on statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods section (see 2.5 subsection). Additionally, we added more post-hoc analysis of the data in the revised manuscript. (see Figure 2, Figure 5, and Figure 6).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your response to the previous round of reviews and the changes made to the manuscript.

With regard to the current one, I have the following comments.

Correction of chapter numbers in the manuscript should be made.

L156 I suggest not giving the specific name of the company (remove the parenthesis)

L308-310 I suggest putting information in the text of the sentence that this is a result above p>0.05 (additionally, despite putting the information in brackets)

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The one-to-one reply to the topic is as follows:

Comment 1: Correction of chapter numbers in the manuscript should be made.

Response: We have corrected the chapter numbers.

Comment 2: L156 I suggest not giving the specific name of the company (remove the parenthesis)

Response: We have remove the specific name of the company.

Comment 3: L308-310 I suggest putting information in the text of the sentence that this is a result above p>0.05 (additionally, despite putting the information in brackets)

Response: We have put the information in the text of the sentence.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf