A Comparison of the Effects of Several Foliar Forms of Magnesium Fertilization on ‘Superior Seedless’ (Vitis vinifera L.) in Saline Soils
, Lo’ay A. A. 2,*, Nadi Awad Al-Harbi 3, Salem Mesfir Al-Qahtani 3, Hitham M. Allam 4, Mohamed A. Abdein 5 and Zinab A. Abdelgawad 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled in "Effect of foliar Nanoparticles Magnesium Fertilization on Growth, Yield, and Quality of 'Superior Seedless' Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in Saline Soils" is very well written and suitable for publication in Coatings. However, some revisions below are necessary.
Introduction:
The production data is old (2016). You must enter the current grapes production.
"Tones" is in red color.
Line 54-53: "magnesium (Mg)" the abbreviation should be the first time it appears in the text. And then use only the abbreviation throughout the text.
Line 75: Use the abbreviation "light-harvesting complex II (LHCII)". Lowercase "The". "Arabidopsis thaliana" in italics.
Material and methods:
Line 118. change "750 grams" to "750 g".
Line 127: change "7.00 PM" to "7:00 PM".
Line 136: based on "who?
Results
Line 190. What is vérsion stage?
Lines 273-279: shows the F value of ANOVA interactions. Insert in all the interactions presented in the text.
Table 5: "MgSO4" and "cm2", correct the over or underwritten numbers. Row 432: "Mg2+".
Why didn't you present all the data in figure form but in table form? The figures are easier for the reader to understand.
Table 9. What does the color represent? Show the data that are significant "*" or "**".
Figure 2 of the principal component analysis is not in the text, so there is no way to correct this item.
Why did you do pairwise Pearson's correlation and also total with PCA?
Conclusion. Do not call out Figures in this item.
References: all suitable for the manuscript.
Author Response
The manuscript entitled in "Effect of foliar Nanoparticles Magnesium Fertilization on Growth, Yield, and Quality of 'Superior Seedless' Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in Saline Soils" is very well written and suitable for publication in Coatings. However, some revisions below are necessary.
Introduction:
The production data is old (2016). You must enter the current grapes production.
"Tones" is in red color.
Corrected and updated
Line 54-53: "magnesium (Mg)" the abbreviation should be the first time it appears in the text. And then use only the abbreviation throughout the text.
Corrected
Line 75: Use the abbreviation "light-harvesting complex II (LHCII)". Lowercase "The". "Arabidopsis thaliana" in italics.
Added
Material and methods:
Line 118. change "750 grams" to "750 g". Corrected
Line 127: change "7.00 PM" to "7:00 PM".Corrected
Line 136: based on "who? Rephrased
Results
Line 190. What is vérsion stage?
Was added the description (berry color starting)
Lines 273-279: shows the F value of ANOVA interactions. Insert in all the interactions presented in the text.
Rephrased
Table 5: "MgSO4" and "cm2", correct the over or underwritten numbers. Row 432: "Mg2+".
Why didn't you present all the data in figure form but in table form? The figures are easier for the reader to understand.
Was corrected and be consistent
Table 9. What does the color represent? Show the data that are significant "*" or "**".
The SAS Jump the letters presented the significantly among mains
Figure 2 of the principal component analysis is not in the text, so there is no way to correct this item.
Was added
Why did you do pairwise Pearson's correlation and also total with PCA?
The difference between treatment especially MG-nano application presented a clear difference between treatment
Conclusion. Do not call out Figures in this item. Corrected
References: all suitable for the manuscript. Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled "Effect of foliar Nanoparticles Magnesium Fertilization on Growth, Yield, and Quality of 'Superior Seedless' Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in Saline Soils" aims to determine, investigating the different foliar magnesium forms on 'Superior Seedless', the optimal magnesium fertilization for grape nutrition under soil salinity conditions. I appreciate the manuscript and the large amount of data presented. The paper is generally interesting and the subject too. However, the manuscript in its current status has some major problems. The first concern the title. Usually make a good title involves ensuring that the research should be interesting to the reader and predicts the goal of the paper. For these reasons, I consider "Effect of foliar Nanoparticles Magnesium Fertilization on Growth, Yield, and Quality of 'Superior Seedless' Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in Saline Soils" a generic title. I suggest you focus on the exciting results obtained with the use of Magnesium Fertilization Nanoparticles. Furthermore, I recommend to update the grapes data reported in the introduction. This section could be more interesting if supplemented with data related to the magnesium deficiency discovered in Egyptian soils. I suggest making the central part of the introduction (lines 52 to 76) smoother by eliminating some less important phrases and to report more references relating to the importance of magnesium in grape crops, possibly deleting those of bananas, pears and oranges. In addition, the sentence in line 97 could be rewritten. I believe the main objective is to determine the optimal form of magnesium for the grapes nutrition in conditions of soil salinity, by making a comparison between the different forms of foliar fertilization of magnesium. Secondly, in paragraph 2 the soil analysis methods are not specified. Both the percentage of clay, sand and silt should be corrected because the sum is 104 and the formatting of table 1 revised, some numbers are written with a decimal place and others with two. Finally, the main problem with this manuscript is the discussions. I suggest the authors to rewrite them by focusing on the results obtained. They are not very exhaustive. Often the same explanation is given for different results.
Other specific comments:
L.381: the two growing seasons are wrong
L.384: figures 2A and 2B are not present
L.492: this concept has already been expressed in the conclusions
L.501: improving the formatting of the bibliography
L. 202: it is recommended to insert the standard deviation. The firts harvesting year is wrong, it should be 2020 and, in the caption, capital letters are written twice in parentheses incorrectly.
Table 5 and 6: Check the standard deviation. For some theses it is always the same.
Author Response
Title
Changed
A Comparison of the Effects of Several Foliarly Forms of Magnesium Fertilization on 'Superior seedless' (Vitis vinifera l.) in Saline Soils
The introduction was checked and rephrased some parts
Table 1. Soil and irrigation-water traits analysis was a constant decimal number
L.381: the two growing seasons are wrong
Corrected
L.384: figures 2A and 2B are not present
Presented
L.492: this concept has already been expressed in the conclusions
L.501: improving the formatting of the bibliography
Updated style 2022
- 202: it is recommended to insert the standard deviation. The firts harvesting year is wrong, it should be 2020 and, in the caption, capital letters are written twice in parentheses incorrectly.
Corrected
Table 5 and 6: Check the standard deviation. For some theses it is always the same.
As for both tables were had a standard error
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents a lot of measured data, with the certain value. But it contains a lot of grammar and format problems (such as the highlighted words and sentences in attached manuscript). Requiring a major and careful modification.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Revwier
All grammatical and spelling mistakes were corrected in the whole manscript
(Vitis vinifera L.) corrected to Vitis vinifera
Improve to improves
Vitis to Vitis
Mg corrected to magnesium (Mg)
This phrase [which are produced from DNA and RNA] Wrong delated .
It play corrected to Plays
Despite this, the Mg shortage had no effect on Fv/Fm and other fluorescence metrics in Helianthus annuus plants under Mg deficiency conditions. A rise in the chlorophyll a/chlorophyll b ratio is typically reported [18]. The decrease in light-harvesting complex II ( LHC-II) abundance in Mg The absence of Arabidopsis thaliana leaves is caused by thylakoid membrane dysfunction [19]. Rephrased
[In a bath of warm tap water, the magnesium compounds were melted] rephrased
(flowering, fruit set, version, and at harvest time) corrected
Thank you for effects
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to only a few observations made in the reviewer report, without justifying the reason. For example, the data on grapes present in the introduction are not updated, the references in the bibliography still have some formatting errors, the sentence in line 97 has not been rewritten, figure 1 has not been modified, etc. For these reasons, I believe that the manuscript cannot be published in its current status.
Author Response
Thank you for your effort
I found three main comments I deal with
the data on grapes present in the introduction is not updated
The introduction was updated with references:
1, 4, 8, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 14, 25
the references in the bibliography still have some formatting errors
All references were checked and we used the style 2022
The sentence in line 97 has not been rewritten
Rephrased
figure 1 has not been modified
As for this comment: I miss understanding
coming to in the previous round I found the ''Missing Figure 2A and B present in the text and added both in the round one. As for figure 1, I made more clear and representative
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
