Effect of Amino Acid and Titanium Foliar Application on Smooth-Stalked Meadow Grass (Poa pratensis L.) Macronutrient Content

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, this study contains only one-year of data without repetition in time or space. Secondly, my main concern is the statistical analysis. It appears to me that this study was designed as a RCBD. With that being said, the ANOVA table presented in Table 1 shows no block or error 1. The df in the table indicated that these two terms were not included in the ANOVA, which is a mistake. Also for Table 2, dry matter yield interaction should be separated by multiple comparisons for both factors (biostimulant and cut). In comparison, the tissue nutrients should show treatment main effects, not the interactions since the interactions were not significant for those parameters based on Table 1.

A minor suggestion: include the author information in the Latin binomial when first mentioned.

Author Response

All comments were corrected as suggested by the reviewer. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript deals with the effect of amino acids, titanium or both on agronomic production of Smooth-Stalked Meadow Grass. the topic is of interest and the methods used are sounds.

Nevertheless, the most important shorcoming in this manuscript is the justification of choices done and the studcturation of the manuscript.

Some correlations done and presented have no logical sense.

further remarks

Add the main conclusions at the end of the abstract

Part Materails and experimental design L99-106. Please modify to a table to be clearer.Table 2 is very difficult to read and distinguish means from S.D. Please modify

Figures 2&3 what authors mean by this figure?  can understang the correlations between minerals and yield but between minerals??? I do not understand.

Author Response

All comments were corrected as suggested by the reviewer. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made revisions based on my previous suggestions. The only thing that I want to mention is the revision of Table 2. I suggested multiple comparisons for dry matter yield last time, which means to separate the dry matter yield data by biostimulants and by cut simultaneously in two directions. In a table it means separating this set of data by for example, columns for cuts and rows for biostimulants. I am not sure if the authors fully understood it. By saying that, the revised Table 2 for this set of data is not better than the original one in my opinion. On the other hand, the revised Table 2 is appropriate for nutrient data as they are influenced by treatment main effects of both biostimulant and cut, but not the interaction of them. It seems like the best solution is to separate these two sets of data into two tables with one for dry matter yield interaction, and one for nutrient treatment main effects.   

Author Response

We split Table 2 into two: one for dry matter with interactions (and marginal means) and the other for "nutrient treatment main effects". We added "multiple comparisons" to the latter as suggested by the Reviewer. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved their manuscript by considering positively the remarks. The manuscript is clearer now.

some minor modifications are necessary. For example it could be better to merge tables 3 and 4.

some typological mistakes should be corrected in the text

Author Response

We combined Tables 3 and 4.

Reviewer No. 2: "some typological mistakes should be corrected in the text." changed to soil classified as Chernozem Haplic

Author Response File: Author Response.docx