Green-Nano Manganese and Its Impact on the Growth, Yield, and Fruit Properties of Flame Seedless Grapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the comments and revisions in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript's overall quality of English is satisfactory but requires improvement in several areas to enhance readability . There are instances of awkward phrasing, grammatical errors, and unclear sentence structures that may hinder the reader's comprehension. Additionally, technical terms and abbreviations need to be defined clearly when first introduced. Careful proofreading and editing are recommended to address these issues, ensuring that the language is precise, concise, and consistent throughout the text. Improving these aspects will significantly enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 1                 

Comments 1: There is a lack of methodological details, such as the exact concentration of

manganese in the liquid phase and in the non-growth phase

Response 1: It is found in material and method. We are limited to 200 word in abstract

Comment 2 : Restructure the abstract to follow a logical sequence, starting with the objective,

methodology, results, and conclusions.

Response 2:  It was done as possible because we have two experiment in two department and we display every experiment separately.

 

Comments 3: Results are reported qualitatively without sufficient quantitative data, such as

production yields.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly done. Line: 28, 29

Comments 4: Clearly define any technical terms the first time they appear. For example, "OD (optical density) of cell biomass" .

Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly done. Line 22

Comments 5: The keywords should not repeat terms already present in the title to avoid redundancy and improve the specificity of the indexing of the article.

Response 5: Done. Revised as possible

Comments 6: Transitions between topics are abrupt and may confuse the reader. For example, the transition between the first paragraph on the importance of grapes and the second

paragraph on chemical fertilizers. Create smoother transitions by explaining how each

section relates to the main study.

Response 6: done look at the introduction .Thank you very much for your comment.

Comment7: In line 41, make it clear which fertilizers you mean. A general statement without a specific source is dangerous

Response7: revised. Thank you very much

Comment 8: In the following excerpt, add the references of this scientific community. This type of statement must be followed by citations. It must not be vague: Lines 43 – 45: “Due to

its nontoxicity, nutritional value, and ease of application, yeast has recently gained a lot

of attention in the academic community

Response 8: added

Comment 9: The aim of the study is not explicitly stated in the introduction. Although the text provides plenty of context about the importance of grapes, the problems with chemical

fertilizers, and the potential benefits of nanomaterials, it does not clearly specify what

the main objective of the study is in relation to the use of green nanomanganese. Please,

Make your goal clear

Response 9: Done. Thank you a lot for your comments.

Comment10: The working hypotheses are also not clearly stated. The text discusses many related topics, but does not explicitly state the specific assumptions being tested in the study.

Response10: done

Comment11: In line 82 the acronym "M/MO" should be defined when it first appears in the text.

Response11: I have changed the paragraph for simple transition.

Comment 12: There is no detailed information about the Saccharomyces cerevisiae sample, such as its identification code or relevant characteristics. Please provide more details

Response12: It is exit in Lines 92,93.

Comment13: The term "non-growth phase" is not explained

Response13: done line 98-100

Comment 14: The model of the spectrophotometer used is not specified.

Response14: done

Comment15: For yeast, there are not enough details on sample preparation and specific parameters of the equipment. I need the methodology to be more detailed.

Response15:In yeast preparation, we mentioned the specific media we used and incubated under suitable condition as any microbiological inoculation and incubation test, not more

Comment16: Lack of details on the preparation and application of the treatments: The concentration and method of application of the manganese solutions are unclear. Why were these concentrations used? This needs to be clarified in the text.

Response16: It is already exit in material and method.

Comment17: There is not enough information on the instruments used to measure vegetative and chemical variables. For soil analyses, the methodology for each variable needs to be

made clear.

Response17: I have already modified as possible.

Comment18: Include detailed information about the statistical software, such as the version used.

Response18: added

Comment19,20: In Figure 1, as the variation is very small, place the value at the top of each column and if possible, provide the statistical test comparing the treatments.

Lines 208 and 209 are part of Material and Methods

Response19, 20: This part is belonging to the results not material.

The value is already obvious in the figure.

According to the variation we mentioned this part bin the results.

Comment21: The description of the results is very general and does not give details of the specific values or statistical analyses.

Response21: The experiment is simple, it contains one factor. I have already described the best treatments and the control in the two seasons of the study.

Comment22: Lack of details on the variation in production parameters and fruit quality between seasons.

Response22: The experiment is simple, it contains one factor. I have already described the best treatments and the control in the two seasons of the study.

Comment23: Provide a detailed analysis of the variation in fruit production and quality parameters between different seasons and treatments.

Response23: The experiment is simple, it contains one factor. I have already described the best treatments and the control in the two seasons of the study.

Comment24: Reorganize the discussion to improve fluidity. Consolidate repeated information into a single section

Response24: done. Thank you for your comment.

Comment25: Lack of specific detail and in-depth discussion of the quantitative results presented

Response25: We have mentioned the quantities in results. In discussion we explain what had happened and the researches.

Comment26: Discuss the specific values and the statistical significance of the results. Example: "The concentration of manganese in yeast cells increased significantly (p<0.05) with higher

concentrations of manganese sulphate, reaching 99.93% higher accumulation at 0.4 g/l

compared to 0.0195 g/l.

Response26: It is already found.

Comment27: The discussion does not make an explicit link between the results and the initial

hypotheses presented in the introduction.

Response27: Done

Comment28: Comparisons with previous studies are mentioned, but not explored in depth.

Response28: It is already exists.

Comment29: The discussion lacks a detailed explanation of the underlying biological mechanisms that could explain the observed results.

Response29: Done

Comment 30: Incorrect or irrelevant information about the influence of zinc on the OD of yeast biomass, which was not discussed in the results.

Response: Revised .Thank you very much.

Comment31: The discussion of environmental impacts is brief and does not sufficiently explain how manganese-enriched yeast can reduce pollution.

Response32: We are not studying environmental impacts. We mentioned it in brief because it is advantage to using green nano.

Comment33: The authors should make clear in the conclusions the practical implications of the results and the main novelties. The authors have practically repeated the results

Response34: done at the end of conclusion

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1: Done in every language setting comment you can see in the manuscript.  We have revised the whole manuscript.

5. Additional clarifications

A lot of changes have been made in the manuscript to achieve what reviewer′s demand.

A lot of thanks for reviewer comments. It was very helpful.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried well to explain a two-year study, but the description of the manuscript is simple and needs to be improved significantly. Specifically, some advanced analytical techniques need to be incorporated in revised. Revise the manuscript for clarity and consistency. Ensure that technical terms are used correctly and consistently throughout the text. The specific comments are as below:

·       A rational statement describing the need of the research could be added at the start of the abstract.

·       Line 22: What is the value of yeast??? Add in parenthesis after 99.93%.

·       The introduction section, the significance of the work, novelty of the research, hypothesis and the clear objectives need to be elaborated.

·       In the introduction section, please include a brief literature review on the role of manganese in physiology of grapevines plants and emphasizes on the use of nano green manganese instead of traditional manganese supplements.

·       Describe YEPD.

·       Line 105: Why did you select these concentrations.

·       Have you adopted the procedure from literature for determination of Biomass concentration or this is your own derived methodology. If it is from literature, add citation.

·       The layout of the horticultural experiment needs to be added.

·       Table 1: What is the role of determination of soil chemical and physical properties?

·       The methodology for results extraction is simple. It is better to adopt some advanced analytical techniques in addition to simple ANOVA analysis. The results are also simple and obvious.

·       The crop response was better in 2022 compared with 2021. Why??

·       The discussion section is poor. Please add more citations from literature to support your findings. Please compare your findings with previous studies on manganese supplementation in grapevines.

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Comments 1: A rational statement describing the need of the research could be added at the start of the abstract.
Response 1:  We have modified. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made the change line 14    Comment 2: Line 22: What is the value of yeast??? Add in parenthesis after 99.93%. Response 2: Done
Comments 3: The introduction section, the significance of the work, novelty of the research, hypothesis and the clear objectives need to be elaborated.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly done.    Line: 49, 74, 75, 82, 85, 87, 88 Comments 4: In the introduction section, please include a brief literature review on the role of manganese in physiology of grapevines plants and emphasizes on the use of nano green manganese instead of traditional manganese supplements. Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly done. Line 81-85 Comments 5: Describe YEPD. Response 5: Done. line 102 Comments 6: Line 105: Why did you select these concentrations. Response 6: from the previous studies and our experiments in the lab during preparation the practical part in the research. Comment7: Have you adopted the procedure from literature for determination of Biomass concentration or this is your own derived methodology. If it is from literature, add citation Response7: it is in my developed methodology. Comment 8: The layout of the horticultural experiment needs to be added. Response 8: I have already done line 147-158. Comment 9: Table 1: What is the role of determination of soil chemical and physical properties? Response 9: Done. Line 138-140. Comment10: The methodology for results extraction is simple. It is better to adopt some advanced analytical techniques in addition to simple ANOVA analysis. The results are also simple and obvious. Response10: Simple because the experiment has one factor. We have distribute the treatments into blocks. Comment11: The crop response was better in 2022 compared with 2021. Why?? Response11: Due to temperature irregularities throughout the winter during the first year. Comment 12: The discussion section is poor. Please add more citations from literature to support your findings. Please compare your findings with previous studies on manganese supplementation in grapevines. Response12: Revised and modified.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:
Response 1: Done in every language setting comment you can see in the manuscript. We have revised the whole manuscript.
5. Additional clarifications A lot of changes have been made in the manuscript to achieve what reviewer′s demand.
A lot of thanks for reviewer comments. It was very helpful.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Are you sure the scientific name applies to the fruit name? 

Must provide references for lines 34 to 37

Must provide references for lines 41 to 48.

lines 41-42 are too vague. Same for lines 49-50

What do you mean with output in lines 54-55 do you mean the yield? Very vague language

Must provide several references for the statement in line 71

line 78 fix the writing

what do you mean with rely in bacteria for assistance? 

review line 81, repeated words

what does this means?M/MO NPs

did you use a sample or an strain when referring to Saccharomyces cerevisiae sample in line 92?

Why concentration was measure at 620 nm? Explain, provide reference

line 119 , did you measure amount or concentration?

line 138 you can just say soil samples were collected 

line 142, according to who?

why determining leaf area in only one leaf?

vegetative measurements must be improve redaction of this section, same for several others parts of the work.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear editor 

the work needs a lot of improvement regarding the language. 

For example, the authors wrote "By applying a Minolta chlorophyll meter" errors like this are around most paragraphs I have reviewed. 

Author Response

Reviewer3
Comments 1: Are you sure the scientific name applies to the fruit name?
Response 1:  Yes it is applied we work on flame grape variety.  Comment 2 : Must provide references for lines 34 to 37 Response 2: Done, line 38, 41
Comments 3: Must provide references for lines 41 to 48.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly done. Line: 49 Comments 4: lines 41-42 are too vague. Same for lines 49-50. Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly done. Line 44-48, 53-56 Comments 5: What do you mean with output in lines 54-55 do you mean the yield? Very vague language Response 5: yes, it means yield. I have revised line 60. Comments 6: Must provide several references for the statement in line 71 Response 6: I have changed the paragraph. Comment7: line 78 fix the writing Response7: I have changed the paragraph. Comment: what do you mean with rely in bacteria for assistance? Response: We didn't mention bacteria. Comment 8: review line 81, repeated words Response 8: I have changed the paragraph. Comment 9: what does this means? M/MO NPs Response 9: I have changed the paragraph. Comment10: did you use a sample or an strain when referring to Saccharomyces cerevisiae sample in line 92? Response10: It is already exit line: 92,93 Comment11: Why concentration was measure at 620 nm? Explain, provide reference Response11: It is already exit in our developed methodology. Comment: line 119, did you measure amount or concentration? Response: Concentration Comment 12: line 138 you can just say soil samples were collected Response12: Revised and modified. Line 142. Comment: line 142, according to who? Response: The soil physical and chemical characteristics were determined at the Soils and Water Research Department, National Research Centre, Egypt. Comment 13: why determining leaf area in only one leaf? Response13: Revised and modified. Line 162-164. Comments14: vegetative measurements must be improve redaction of this section, same for several others parts of the work. Response14: Revised
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:
Response 1: Done in every language setting comment you can see in the manuscript.  We have revised the whole manuscript.
5. Additional clarifications
A lot of changes have been made in the manuscript to achieve what reviewer′s demand. A lot of thanks for reviewer comments. It was very helpful.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors accepted the main suggestions. I therefore agree to the publication of this paper

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a significant work to incorporate the comments. Now, the manuscript could be considered for further processing towards publication.