Effects of Different Foliar Fertilizer Treatments on Fruit Quality of the Korla Fragrant Pear
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most of the reviewer’s comments. All sections are quite good. The discussion is not rich now, only 34 references were cited in manuscript.
You must check your manuscript very carefully and correct any errors e.g. no superscript or subscript, etc.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Editor ,
We feel very grateful for your professional review of this article. Several problems that you point out need to be solved are very valuable. According to your requirements and suggestions, we have made extensive changes to the previous article. The specific changes are shown in the new article. In order to facilitate your review, we use red fonts for the modified part. We have responded to your comments in the attachment. We hope that the amendments can be accepted, again thank you for your efforts, I hope you are happy every day, look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors address a topic of interest in the area of agriculture, such as the application of fertilizers, the innovation of the manuscript lies in the foliar application of various fertilizers on the quality of the Korla fragrant pear fruit, as well as its activity. enzymatic. Although the application of fertilizers foliar is a common practice in the agricultural sector, the enrichment of the fertilizer with calcium-magnesium suggests a modification of the quality and enzymatic activity in Korla fragrant pear, which is used as an adjuvant treatment in sclerosis. The article requires information such as: What would be the activity of just applying calcium-magnesium foliar? What would be the activity of the foliar application of the fertilizer with calcium enrichment and what would be the activity of only the addition of the fertilizer with magnesium? In the methodology section, it would be necessary to expand the information on the enzymatic activities (ranges of curves, type of equipment used, etc.) The information in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 is deficient for understanding. It is recommended to provide the information necessary to understand or interpret the figure (what the arrows indicate, what the numbers, letters, etc., mean). Correlation Table 1 is also deficient in information for its understanding. It is necessary to add information for its understanding. The conclusion is too general, it is suggested to focus a little more based on the results obtained.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Editor ,
We feel very grateful for your professional review of this article. Several problems that you point out need to be solved are very valuable. According to your requirements and suggestions, we have made extensive changes to the previous article. The specific changes are shown in the new article. In order to facilitate your review, we use red fonts for the modified part. We have responded to your comments in the attachment. We hope that the amendments can be accepted, again thank you for your efforts, I hope you are happy every day, look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Corrections are in the attached paper.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear Authors,
Corrections are in the attached paper.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Editor ,
We feel very grateful for your professional review of this article. Several problems that you point out need to be solved are very valuable. According to your requirements and suggestions, we have made extensive changes to the previous article. The specific changes are shown in the new article. In order to facilitate your review, we use red fonts for the modified part. We have responded to your comments in the attachment. We hope that the amendments can be accepted, again thank you for your efforts, I hope you are happy every day, look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have enriched the manuscript by taking into consideration the observations made previously by the reviewers. As expressed previously (first review) the manuscript addresses a topic of interest and innovation in the area. It is considered that the results shown in this manuscript will be of interest to the readers of the journal. The description of the images and the results have improved considerably. The conclusions are supported by the results.
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
Please see my comment in the file, and please improve the manuscript according to my comments.
All the best!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors:
We feel very grateful to you for your professional review of this article. Several problems that you point out need to be solved are very valuable. According to your requirements and suggestions, we have made extensive changes to the previous article, and the specific changes are shown in the new article. We have responded to your comments in the attachment. We hope that the amendments can be accepted, thank you again for your efforts, and look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: The opening sentence (line 11-13) is somehow confusing and should be revised. Is calyx responsible for the hardness of the Korla fragrant pear? The opening sentence should indicate that. The appropriate punctuations are to be used.
Is it persisten-calyx or persistent calyx? The two are used interchangeably and authors should kindly make a correction. Check Lines 12, 15, 23, 30, 34,…
Line 24: production practice of what?
Line 28: …. thin and juicy fruit.
Line 28: remove “are” … they suffered from….
Line 68: 24 year old? Are authors referring to the fruit or the three of the fruit? This should be indicated to avoid confusion.
Line 78-79: What is the difference between the 6 samples and the 30 fruits collected?
Line 102 to 116: Are the procedures presented for the cellulose and amylase activities standard or an invention from the authors? If they are standard procedures, authors should provide appropriate reference(s).
Authors are encouraged to improve on the language of presentation to ensure easy flow for the readers.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Authors are encouraged to improve on the language of presentation to ensure easy flow for the readers.
Author Response
Dear Editors:
Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to resubmit it for your consideration. We hope that the revision is acceptable, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject of the manuscript is consistent with the scope of the Journal.
The keywords correspond with the scope of the research.
I think the paper needs some corrections:
1) the research hypotheses are not formulated,
2) add detailed information about soils at the sampling site (type, textural composition, elements content, etc.),
3) add information about analytical quality control,
4) add references to analytical methods to Materials and Methods section,
5) add references to statistical methods to Materials and Methods section,
6) add the results of statistical analysis to Figures with data,
7) add the latest references to your manuscript to Discussion section (the discussion is poor now, only 25 references were cited in manuscript),
8) standardize References section,
9) correct grammatical errors, add necessary spaces or remove unnecessary spaces.
10) format all sections of the manuscript according to Instructions for Authors.
You must check your manuscript very carefully and correct any errors and complete any missing data.
Author Response
Dear Editors:
Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to resubmit it for your consideration. We hope that the revision is acceptable, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not provide a file indicating how the reviewer's comments were addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors are encouraged to improve on the language of presentation to ensure easy flow for the readers.
Author Response
Dear Editor: We greatly appreciate your professional review of this article. The several issues you pointed out that need to be addressed are very valuable. Based on your requests and suggestions, we have made a lot of changes to the previous article. Please see the new article for details. We have responded to your comment in the attachment. We hope that the amendment will be accepted, thank you again for your efforts, and look forward to hearing from you soon.Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed only few of the reviewer's comments. The authors have not corrected or addressed several of my suggestions.
I think the paper needs some corrections:
1) add research hypotheses to paper,
2) add detailed information about soils at the sampling site (textural composition, elements content, etc.),
3) add information about analytical quality control,
4) add the latest references to your manuscript to Discussion section (the discussion is poor now, only 28 references were cited in manuscript).
Author Response
Dear Editor ,
We feel very grateful to you for your professional review of this article. Several problems that you point out need to be solved are very valuable. According to your requirements and suggestions, we have made extensive changes to the previous article, and the specific changes are shown in the new article. We have responded to your comments in the attachment. We hope that the amendments can be accepted, thank you again for your efforts, and look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed only few of the reviewer's comments. The authors have not corrected several of my suggestions.
I think the paper needs some corrections:
1) the research hypothesis should be at the end of the introduction; now at the end of the introduction is the scope of research, correct it,
2) add detailed information about soils at the sampling site (textural composition, elements content, etc.); it is not now,
3) add information about analytical quality control; it is not now,
4) add the latest references to your manuscript to Discussion section (the discussion is poor now, only 30 references were cited in manuscript).
Author Response
Dear Editor ,
We feel very grateful to you for your professional review of this article. Several problems that you point out need to be solved are very valuable. According to your requirements and suggestions, we have made extensive changes to the previous article, and the specific changes are shown in the new article. We have responded to your comments in the attachment. We hope that the amendments can be accepted, thank you again for your efforts, and look forward to hearing from you soon.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Yuan Zhuang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
