Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) Aqueous Extract: Hormesis and Biostimulant Activity for Seed Germination and Seedling Growth in Vegetable Crops
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript intitled “Evaluation of Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) aqueous extract as a potential biostimulant to promote seed germination and seedling growth in vegetable crops” submitted for publication in agriculture section from MDPI journals, report new results about the biostimulant effect extract from leaves Mugwort, which was tested on vegetables seeds to induces growth responses. The results evidenced positives effects in the growth variables determined in some crops, responses associated with the extract concentration, as well as organ vegetal studied. Overall, the manuscript is well written, it been clear and objective. However, I would like to do some commentaries and suggestion to the authors for improving of the document.
Title: The authors should consider short it and utilize words with more impact in the interested readers.
Introduction: From my perspective, the introduction focus in the main elements associated with the biostimulant thematic, as their potential, why they are important and why is it need to generate results about them. However, why did you begin the argumentation with the hormetic effect? I hoped that a high discussion about this in the results and discussion section. What are evidence do you need to affirm a possible hormetic effect in your study?
Page 2 line 63: “infests roadsides”, I think this term is not more correct to refer to those plants. I suggest to the authors check it in the weed science area.
Materials and Methods
How many time the seeds treated were keep in the dark condition?
About the extract preparation, I consider important cite the bibliography reference.
I suggest to the authors include the experimental design, as well as the repetitions number and the experimental unit.
Results and Discussion
In the M&M section, the authors said that the experiment was repeated three times. I would be interesting show statistics evidence of each one of them. For example, showing a variance homogeneity test among the experiments.
If you have pictures of the final result of the experiment, you should consider to add it in the manuscript.
Figure 1. From my perspective, the values higher to 100% are not correct utilized (Could you visualize a 120%?) Therefore, I would suggest to the authors looking other numeric scales to show the results. For example, scales -1 to 1 when zero (0) is the control treatment, beside the data interpretation would be easier.
Page 4 Line 162: “species unaffected”, from my perspective the extract negatively affects the growth. So, unaffected word is not used correctly, check it.
About the b, a, and f parameters from the non-linear regression, do they have any physiological interpretation?
Page 7 Line 237 to 240: Are there evidence about the biological activity related of these metabolites with any phytohormones? I consider important make a discussion about this based on others research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to review this research. The manuscript entitled „Evaluation of Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) Aqueous Extract as a Potential Biostimulant to Promote Seed Germination and Seedling Growth in Vegetable Crops” have described the biostimulatory effects of the aqueous extract of aerial biomass of mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) on seed germination and seedling growth of several vegetable crops (onion, carrot, tomato, rapeseed, cauliflower and lettuce), in order to be applied as a potential biostimulant. The subject of the manuscript is topical.
1. Тhe title is clear and precise, as is the abstract;
2. The introduction is clear;
3. The used methods are accurate;
4. Тhe figures and tables are well described;
5. The results are well presented and described.
There are some technical errors in the text and the references. Please check them. The length, quality and language of the paper are adequate. I recommend minor corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
Mention the concentration of aqueous extract. Also add the importance/chemical composition of Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) Aqueous Extract in abstract.
Line 10: to be used.
Line 17: petri dish.
Introduction
Introduction is not properly managed. It must be improved with scientific approach. It contains a lot of irrelevant material. Write up looks poor. There are many typo/spell mistakes. It needs extensive language improvement.
Materials and methods
Line 105: What is BBCH? Always write full name when using first time.
Line 120: how many seeds per petri dish? What do you mean by 140-mm petri dishes? Mention proper dimensions.
Line 123: From five to eight, unclear.
Line 125: 20℃, no space between the value and degree. Follow the format throughout the manuscript.
Line 126: 10 days after sowing or after germination of first seed? Unclear. There are protocols to record the data of germination parameters.
Materials and method section needs improvement to ensure the repetition study. When treatments/aqueous extracts were applied?
Results and Discussion
Aqueous extract concentrations, given in figure, are not matching with concentration discussed in material and method section. Recheck it very carefully. Concentrations in the figure are 0.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 10.0 and 12.5 % w/v while in the material and method section they are as following; 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.56, 3.13, 6.25 and 12.5.
Discussion portion is too short and not explained with logical approaches. No mechanism is explained or discussed to reveal the stimulatory impact of mugwort aqueous extract.
Conclusion
It is too lengthy. It may be improved accordingly. Normally, conclusions are quantified and concise. This section contains the finding of study, and recommendation and suggestion for further experimentation. Authors have cited the reference in this section, not a scientific approach.
Overall, extensive English language improvement is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors:
The manuscript titled: Evaluation of Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) Aqueous Extract as a Potential Biostimulant to Promote Seed Germination and Seedling Growth in Vegetable Crops, has no chance of acceptance for the following reasons:
1. The authors should analyze the chemical composition of Mugwort extract using GC/MS to better understand the mechanism of stimulation or inhibition of vegetable crop growth by Mugwort plant aqueous extract. The GC/MS analysis helps to identify the dominant components in the plant extract.
2. The authors should include some weeds in their study because, according to the findings, the plant extract has an inhibitory rather than a stimulating effect. As a result, using this experiment on weed plants may be more beneficial than using it on cultivated crops.
3. Other parameters related to germination and seedling growth that the authors should investigate include germination speed, seed vigor, and dry weight.
4. The results are not well presented in the manuscript, for example, the authors do not clearly show the caluculation, explantation, and the concept of dose response parameters such as a, b, and f.
5. The authors prepared a series of plant extract dilutions but did not mention the statistical effect of plant extract concentrations on each vegetable crop individually.
6. There is an issue with the preparation of extract dilutions or concentrations; the authors mention the various concentrations with the unit w/v in figure 1. Because the various concentrations are prepared from the stock solution (resulting filtrate), the unit should be v/v.
7. Adding 7 ml of extract to a Petri dish with a diameter of 140 mm for ten days is a small volume, but it causes seedling dehydration in the final days of incubation. Furthermore, the number of filter papers is not specified in the manuscript.
8. Finally, there is no discussion or interpretation of the results. The authors do not interpret the mechanism of plant extract inhibition or stimulation effects.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is improved according to the comments and suggestion. However, there are some type mistakes/errors. The conclusion section is still too lengthy. This section contains the finding of study, and recommendation and suggestion for further experimentation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
No comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
