Elicitors and Biostimulants to Mitigate Water Stress in Vegetables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

In the attached text I am sending the recommendations to be reviewed by the authors. Thank you very much for allowing me to be part of the reviewers of this work.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript and the kind suggestions you provided, which are valuable in improving our work. All your comments were considered and addressed, and the changes made were included in the attached document and the new version of the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Regards best.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Water stress responses in vegetables and trends in the use of elicitors and biostimulants for stress management and improvement of drought tolerance”. The objectives of this work were A) Make a compendium of the various water stress responses of plants reported in the literature, such as the morphological, physiological, biochemical, and molecular impacts, and its effect on crop yield and water use efficiency. B) Analyze agronomic and non-agronomic strategies, including elicitors and biostimulants, in managing water stress in vegetables, the trends, and the most relevant results obtained from the study conditions. C) Propose combinations between agronomic strategies and physical stressors to improve the effect as elicitor or biostimulant such as water stress alleviation, biomass production, and yield, and promote water stress tolerance. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in the journal Horticulturae and requires the following adjustments:

 

TITLE

 

- Exclude the words “response” and “trends”.

- The title is too broad. I suggest reducing. It could be something similar to “Elicitors and biostimulants to mitigate water stress in vegetables”. To review.

 

ABSTRACT

 

-. This section needs to be completely rewritten. The structure of the article is similar to the article (Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Conclusion). This was not done. The Abstract was written without most of the necessary information. Information about the study topic was provided, justifying the research. See other articles in the study area for reference.

- Replace the word “Water stress” in the keywords. It is present in the title.

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

- In the last part of the first paragraph there is a punctuation correction to be made. To review.

- It is mentioned several times in the text that water stress negatively affects crops. This only needs to be mentioned once. Remove and review this information repeated throughout the text.

- Rewrite the objectives. I suggest you make a simple and short objective. “The objective of the study was to analyze the effect of elicitors and biostimulants to mitigate water stress in vegetables.”

- Insert hypotheses before mentioning the objectives.

 

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

- Is the section titled Material and Methods or Methodology? See magazine rules.

- Were these just the databases or were there others? Quote them all.

 

TOPIC 3

 

- It is mentioned that parameters related to morphology are modified by water stress. These are growth parameters. Review and correct.

- In line 157 it is mentioned that the germination and development of seedlings are essential factors for plant growth. This is confusing. Rewrite this.

 

I suggest inserting a graphic figure with the benefits of elicitors and biostimulants on plants in general.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The first sentence of the conclusion needs to be observed. Drought is not an abiotic stress factor. Drought is a set of abiotic factors that will affect plant growth and development. To review.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript and the kind suggestions you provided, which are valuable in improving our work. All your comments were considered and addressed, and the changes made were included in the attached document and the new version of the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Regards best.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review manuscript with the title „Water stress responses in vegetables and trends in the use of elicitors and biostimulants for stress management and improvement of drought tolerance” is comprehensive and well written. Interesting and new approaches were highlighted for example the hormesis approach with physical eustressors and the positive effects that these stressors have to the morpho-physiological parameters and yield productivity of vegetable plants.

Only some suggestions I can recoomand such as:

The authors should follow the instructions of authors and make the manuscript text without extra spaces please see rows 50, 69, 83...148, 156 and so on until the end of the manuscript.

Please also arrange table 1 to fit in one page, this way the information will be more clear and accesible to comparation between crops. Also table footer can be improved a little, that is a Note: or a Legend: and then you can list the abreviations meaning.

For table 2 the same reccomandation

Figure caption should be under the figure not in the next page alone.

Table 3 is a disaster and accupied aprox. 6 pages. The strategies treated were Tillage, mulching, intercropping, nutrients, deficit irrigation and hormones/osmoprotectants . Perhaps it should be more comprehesive to insert all information graphically in 2 max 3 pages in separate figures for each strategy similar with figure 2 fo example

Also different font is present in figure 2. That is not Palatino Linotype.

Table 4 should fit alone in one page. It is difficult to read and understand information if is not arranged.

The conclusion section can be modified to comprise all important conclusions from each section described in the manuscript. Clear, pointly conclusions are essential for the review manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time reviewing our manuscript and the kind suggestions you provided, which are valuable in improving our work. All your comments were considered and addressed, and the changes made were included in the attached document and the new version of the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Regards best.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor, the authors have included all the suggestions made, which significantly improve the manuscript.

 

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear, The article has been corrected, as per previous suggestions. I recommend publishing it.