Influence of Various Forms of Foliar Application on Root Yield and Technological Quality of Sugar Beet

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The contribution is devoted to important questions of sugar beet root quality as affected by foliar application of silicon. The three-year experiment was carefully prepared and performed, detailed description of methods and materials enable repeatability and comparison with data of other authors. The experimental data are mostly well documented, presented and analyzed.

 

I have only a few comments and recommendations

 

Abstract

1. 13 The term “...combinations of foliar application ...” is confusing, ambiguous, it may suggest a mixture of the silicon forms were applied. The “combination” is used throughout the manuscript (including “control combinations”), please consider using standard terms “treatment, variant”
2. 17 “...was varied.” better ...Was different or varied.

 

Introduction is rather brief, but more research papers are cited in Discussion. You should mention what is mechanism of silicon in plants improving growth and yield under stress but also optimal conditions; the item is not properly discussed.

1. 22 What means No. 28?

 

l.37 Specify the depth of layer soil samples were taken

1. 54 Figure 1 – correct misprint in Y axis text (“Coefficeint”)

– specify what Hydrothermal (not hydrotermical) coefficient was used, the one of Selyaninov?

1. 56 Better to specify the coordinates of the meteorological station, the sentence is clumsy, without meaning
2. 66 “,,In total, soil was applied...” unclear, clumsy

 

1. 81 Is there some special reason to use dm3 instead of litre?
2. 97 and others – The authors refer to many Polish Standards, however, the publications are hardly available for most readers; add some details here and elsewhere
3. 125 How was the calculation derived? Can you cite relevant paper or norms?

 

Results and Discussion

Add results of analysis of variance, the significance of the effects of year and treatment is important, not only significant difference among treatment means

l.168-169 Check English (“on”)

Figure 2 – Correct ...”...under the columns...”, upper indexes in legends are not correctly displayed

1. 203 Check the text (“....carried out positive effect..”).

Tab. 6 What was the silicon form in ref. 36?

 

References

The reference No. 10 is not correctly spelled.

I recommend to write the titles of contributions originally in Czech (No. 9 and 10) or other languages in English and to note the text is in Czech (Polish, German...)  

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General

This manuscript reports on the effectiveness of foliar application of silicon-containing products in the form of orthosilicic acid, a mixture of orthosilicic and polysilicic acid and calcium silicate on the root yield, their technological quality, biological sugar yield and pure sugar yield. The results found that foliar application increased the root yield, biological sugar yield and the pure sugar yield, as compared to the control. The differences between the individual treatments in terms of these characteristics were slight and insignificant. The results have certain significances on developing a new method for sugar beet production; however, there are certain areas which need to be clarified further in the manuscript such as the expression is not clear, making me wonder if I could understand it very well or not, probably, I may have poorly understood at some of the points for ambiguous statements. Also it is worth explaining how did the authors operate their experiment. The methods of measuring sucrose, α-amino nitrogen, and so on. 

 The detail comments about this paper are listed as follows.

Major:

1. The hypotheses of this MS did not match the postulation. More information should be added in the “Introduction” part.
2. The experimental design had some confounding factors, irrigation frequency, irrigation amount, nitrogen applied time and amount.
3. Details on the measurement should be added.
4. Sugar beet was sown on April 11 in 2018, and harvested on September 6 in 2018, the total growth duration was 148 days, which decreased 47 and 21 days, compared with 2017 and 2019, please discuss the potential reasons in the “Discussion” part.
5.  “Discussion” is weak constructed; the authors should focus on the hypotheses and important results of this study.
6. The information of the cultivars in this study should be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, you should address my comments highlighted across the text, tables and figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript Number: agriculture-1279884

Title: “Influence of various forms of foliar application on root yield and technological quality of sugar beet”

 

The topic is interesting covering several subject areas highlighted by the journal, however, I suggest the authors to improve the paper in terms of grammatical language, proper citation, organization for better readability, and, most importantly, improvement concerning the Introduction, Results and Discussion sections. In particular, a more scientific discussion is needed.

Below, some comments useful to improve the quality of the paper:

 

1. Keywords should not be repeated in the title. Please, verify and correct.
2. The significance of the study should be mentioned clearly in the abstract section.
3. The introduction is insufficient to provide the state of art in the topic. How this work is different from the available data? The originality and novelty of the paper need to be further clarified. What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made in this study?
4. The objectives of the study need further clarification in the introduction section.
5. Justify the novelty in introduction and discussion, as well.
6. L42-44: Data reported should be deleted: Data are presented in Table 1.
7. Improve the results section. Actually is too coincisive.
8. Improve the discussion section by adding a more scientific discussion. Authors are suggested to add discussion by explaining trends in the obtained results along with the possible mechanisms behind the trends.
9. It is strongly recommended to add a subsection, 'practical implications of this study,' outlining the challenges in the current research, future work, and recommendations, before the conclusion.
10. Currently, the conclusions contain both the concluding marks and recommendations. The future work-related points can be grouped under the subsection as mentioned above. Conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper.
11. Check and correct grammatical errors throughout the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has been improved following my suggestions.