Effects of Protein Hydrolysate Derived from Anchovy By-Product on Plant Growth of Primrose and Root System Architecture Analysis with Machine Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution is devoted to the important issue of utilization of wastes, here, for the production of biostimulants and evaluation of the effect on selected plant. The methodology of the experiment is well thought out, the results are clearly described, the scope of the Results description is adequate. The text is carefully prepared, without errors and typos. I only have a few minor comments to clarify the text.

Line 12 Consider specifying the number of irrigation doses as well

L13 Substantial or statistically significant

L16 The meaning of "root fork" may not be familiar to someone who is not involved in digital root analysis. Explain it here or at least in Methods.

L17 Specify from which input data the root traits were predicted (see L186-188, L81-82 or 94-95, 453-454).

L17, L180 The use of the term "rooting efficiency" doesn't seem quite appropriate; efficiency is usually associated with some activity (e.g. uptake of nutrients and water, metabolizing nutrients), which was not the object of the experiment. Consider using root traits, characteristics etc.

L20 The abbreviation "RSA" may not be familiar to all readers

L21The claim of "insight ......on a large scale" seems exaggerated given the scale of the experiment

L63-64 Are there literature data confirming that "Enhanced root development in a substrate is linked to improved growth, productivity, and yield", even in pots with limited space for root development?

L140 For future experiments, I recommend monitoring possible different water depletion in individual variants. Application of protein hydrolysates to the soil may affect soil evaporation and water uptake by plants in comparison with irrigation with tap water. At the same watering dose, different water depletion could affect growth and other traits.

L165 Based on my own experience, I am skeptical about the possibility of perfectly separating fine roots from fibrous peat.

L169 “incubated”? rather dried up

L188 Explain in more detail what forks and crossings of roots means

Table 3 Does the “plant weight” include the roots, please specify.

Table 4 and 5 Explain abb. SEM; there is enough space for showing standard deviations or std. errors

L297 Comma missing?

L356-7 ......agriculture models? Do you mean cropping systems?

418-419 “....root system serves as a comprehensive indicator of the plant’s response to water and nutrient absorption” a bit clumsy statement, root system is rather an indicator of plant response to water and nutrient availability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your efforts and valuable contributions to the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript “Effects of protein hydrolysate derived from anchovy by-product on plant growth of primrose and root system architecture analysis with machine learning” by Tütüncü et al., author investigates the impact of different (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 g/L) concentrations of protein hydrolysates on root system architecture and aboveground development of potted primrose, measured the dry weight, leaf area, number of leaves, chlorophyll content, number of flowers, and root system configuration of plants, the result have significant implications for enhancing primrose growth. Despite the numerous merits of this work, however, there are still some issues that need to be explained reasonably, as follows:

1.       In the Introduction, the Machine Learning (ML) section, suggest adding some research on machine learning in plants or roots, and what guiding significance these studies have for this study.

2.       Please pay attention to the writing form of the unit, such as milliliters, which should be mL, not ml.

3.       Line 151-153, author wright “five times 100 ml/pot at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 g/L concentrations…”, how are different concentrations of Protein Hydrolysate configured, using distilled water or tap water? The author also wrote “the control group were watered with 100 ml of tap water instead of FPH treatment”, will other substances in tap water not affect the experimental results?

4.       Line 174. The authors wrote: Experiments were conducted in a randomized plot design with 12 replications and a seedling in each replication. In this sense, the randomized complete block design is established in field conditions, when it is required to minimize soil variations; it is not used in pots kept in greenhouses, since the soil type is the same in all pots. If I am wrong, please argue and if there was any mistake, please correct it. In addition, the experimental design should be placed together with the application of 2.3 Application of Protein Hydrolysate, which is more convenient for readers to understand, rather than being placed together with data analysis.

5.       In the result, all data should be the same as Table 1, with standard error added after the data. If it is not convenient to add, appropriate reasons should also be given. In addition, the author selected two varieties and four different concentrations. It is recommended to add analysis of variance. If it is not convenient to add, please provide appropriate reasons.

6.       Table 5, Column 3: Root Length means Total root length or Tap root length? Please define clearly.

7.       Please use a unified format for the citation of references in the main text. Some places may use this format, eg Line 59-71, while others may use it generously, eg. Line 358. Please be consistent.

8.       Please check all references and follow the journal's requirements for layout.

The English writing is relatively fluent, but some parts may be difficult to read. Please verify and describe in a simple and understandable way.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your efforts and valuable contributions to the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf