Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some major revisions are required. I hope you will provide me the updated version within stipulated time.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REWIEW 1

 

ABSTRACT

Comments 1: Line 24_ quality nutritional of green peppers subjected to water deficit.

Response:1 Suggestion accepted

Line 25-26_ four treatments composed by  combination of…

Suggestion accepted

 

Comments 2: Line 28-29_

Water deficit or water deficit mitigation treatments did not interfere with the physical-chemical

parameters (except vitamin C content) and physical color parameters (except L*) of green

peppers.

Response 2: Suggestion accepted

 

Comments 3: 32-33_ Under water deficit , ZnONPs or ZnSO4 applied via foliar spray, with or without PGPB,

increased the levels of Ca, P, Mg, and Fe in the fruits.

Response 3: Suggestion accepted

 

Comments 4: 33-35_ Applying Zn via 33 foliar sprays as ZnONPs or ZnSO4 mitigated the negative effects of

water deficit on the quality of pepper 34 fruits, which was enhanced by the Bacillus subtilis and

1. amyloliquefaciens inoculation.

Response 4: Suggestion accepted

 

INTRODUCTION

Comments 5: 138-39_ Fruit vegetables such as peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) are important sources of

vitamins and mineral nutrients in the human diet “Can you please confirm exactly where the

authors Bhardwaj et al. (2024) quote this?"

 

Response 5: The expression “such as peppers (Capsicum annuum L.)” expression was removed at the text was removed because the author of the article mentions fruit vegetables only general way.

 

 

Comments 6: 39-40_ In Brazil, green peppers are among 39 the ten most economically important vegetables,

which is predominantly sold in natura 40 [3]. “Sousa et al. 2023 mentioned one of the main

vegetables consumed in Brazil, therefore make the statement clear”

 

Response 6:The sentence was modified

 

 

Comments 7: Please look for small typo errors/grammatical mistakes and give more focus on punctual

conversation in entire manuscript

Response 7: It was done.

 

 

Comments 8: The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of applying zinc oxide nanoparticles,

associated or not with PGPB, on some physical-chemical parameters and mineral composition of  green pepper fruits, from plants grown under two irrigation levels.

 

Response 9: The sentence was ameliorate

 

 

M and M

Comments 9: It would be better, if you provide references for all expressions used in M&M section

 

Response 10: It was done for all expressions

 

DISCUSSION

Comments 10: While reading this session, I noted that punctual conversation is required from start to end. i.e.

4.1. Among the physical-chemical attributes (ascorbic acid content, pH, titratable acidity TA, soluble solids -SS and SS/TA ratio) and physical color parameters (L*, C* and Hue 387 angle),

only the acid content ascorbic acid and the L* parameter were affected by water 388 deficit and

Response 10: The sentences were ameliorates and  corrected

 

Comments 11: Comments 1: Line-389-390_ I think reference order is not correct. Please follow the order

Response 11: It was done.

 

Comments 12: Another error in the reference order; in my opinion, the discussion section's reference orders should be entirely changed. Kindly give it your full attention. You have referenced line 390 for 47, line 392 for 51, and line 395 for 49.

 

Response 12: It was done. The reference order has been corrected.

 

 

Comments 13: It would be great to include more recent references to the 4.2 section to discuss the current work during the previous three years, most of the references in this section are old

 

Response 13: The authors did not find more up-to-date specific references on the subject in discussion.

 

CONCLUSION

Comments 14: It would be better to enhance the appeal of the conclusion, for instance The study reveals significant findings regarding the effects of water deficit and zinc treatments on…

 

Response 14: It was done. The conclusions have been ameliorate

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

- How did the treatments influence the parameters studied (increase, decrease, etc.), are these changes significant or non-significant?Please be specific and indicate these changes with values, percentages, and so on, 

Introduction

- Page 2, line 65 : “Zn participates” instead of “Zn to participate”

- Page 2, line 76: “Bacillus amyloliquefaciens” instead of “B. amyloliquefaciens” (quote the whole name for the first time)

- Page 2, lines 82-84: “…plants, inoculating the soil…” instead of  “…plants the inoculating the soil…”, and delete “increases”

- Pay attention to mistakes, the text needs proofreading

Material and methods

- Page 4, line 131 ; what does DHA mean ?

- Page 4, line 133 ; what does Bio mean ? and “PGPB or via soil” ?? Correct it

- N.B. we write “via” in italics, correct it throughout the text

- Page 4, line 160 : “purity” instead of “urity”

Results

- Page 8: Results in table 2 lack ANOVA and subsequent tests to display significance letters for each parameter based on the treatments.

- For Figures 2 to 4, please replace the term "column" with "bar" in the titles. Some bars are missing uppercase letters to indicate their significance.

- For some parameters, you discuss increases or decreases without calculating the differences relative to the control group, especially when dealing with significant differences. Please take this into account

Discussion

-Page 12, line 449: “Highlights it is clear that treatments…” please correct this sentence

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs a minor revision by a native English speaker.

Author Response

REVIEW 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ABSTRACT

Comments 1:- How did the treatments influence the parameters studied (increase, decrease, etc.), are these changes significant or non-significant?Please be specific and indicate these changes with values, percentages, and so on, 

Response 1: The requested information has been included.

Introduction

Comments 2:- - Page 2, line 65 : “Zn participates” instead of “Zn to participate”

Response 2: Corrected

Comments 3:- - Page 2, line 76: “Bacillus amyloliquefaciens” instead of “B. amyloliquefaciens” (quote the whole name for the first time)

Response 3: Corrected

Comments 4:- - Page 2, lines 82-84: “…plants, inoculating the soil…” instead of  “…plants the inoculating the soil…”, and delete “increases”

Response 4: Corrected

Comments 5- Pay attention to mistakes, the text needs proofreading

Response 5: Text revised

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comments 6:- - Page 4, line 131 ; what does DHA mean ?

Response 7: Response: The acronym DHA was used to identify treatments related to alleviating water deficit, such as Water Deficit Attenuate. This was done to avoid repeating the expression all the time.

Comments 7:- - Page 4, line 133 ; what does Bio mean ? and “PGPB or via soil” ?? Correct it

Response 8: Defined and corrected in the text

Comments 8:- - N.B. we write “via” in italics, correct it throughout the text

Response 9: It was corrected  throughout the text

Comments 9:- - Page 4, line 160 : “purity” instead of “urity”

Response 9: Corrected

 

RESULTS

Comments 10:- - Page 8: Results in table 2 lack ANOVA and subsequent tests to display significance letters for each parameter based on the treatments.

Response 10: Corrected/included

Comments 11:- - For Figures  2 to 4, please replace the term "column" with "bar" in the titles. Some bars are missing uppercase letters to indicate their significance.

Response 11: Corrected/included

Comments 12:- - For some parameters, you discuss increases or decreases without calculating the differences relative to the control group, especially when dealing with significant differences. Please take this into account

Response 12: Corrected- information included

DISCUSSION

Comments 13:- -Page 12, line 449: “Highlights it is clear that treatments…” please correct this sentence

Response 13: sentence corrected

 

Comments 14:-The text needs a minor revision by a native English speaker.

 

Response 14: There has been an improvement in the text

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remarks on „Nano ZnO and bioinoculants mitigates effects of deficit irrigation on nutritional quality of green peppers”

Abstract

line 24 Instead of  ex-periment, write experiment.

line 29 What does L* mean in the Abstract?

 

Introduction

lines 65-67 In addition, to Zn participate  on in the synthesis of chlorophyll, the development of chloroplasts and the integrity of the cell membrane, providing protection, stability and structure.

 

Materials and Methods

line 110 Instead of preparation, the tillage would be better.

line 111 When was the soil sampling done?

Table 1. What was the concentration of CaCl₂ for measuring the soil pH?

               Give the amount of available nutrients (extracted K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Zn²⁺) in the unit of mg/kg, instead of cmolc dm^-3!  

lines 121, 126 Instead of experiment, use experimental.

line 133 T1= foliar ZnSO₄!

line 147 carried out is written twice!

line 150 What was the dose of NPK fertilizer in unit of kg/ha? (The further fertilizer doses are expressed in kg/ha!)

line 151 Further nitrogen and potassium fertilization….

line 153 carried out is not necessary!

lines 152-156 Nitrogen and potassium fertilizations were carried out via fertigation, according to the technical recommendations for the crop, with the first application being made with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha-1 of KCl carried out at 15 days after trans planting (DAT), the second with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha−1 of KCl at 30 days after transplantation, the third with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha−1 of KCl at 45 DAT and the fourth with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha−1 of KCl at 60 DAT.

Write this sentence in simplier way!

 

lines 159, 161 Use the ZnONPs uniformly! (in line 159: ZnONPs, in line 161: NPsZnO!)

line 161 ZnSO₄*7H₂O! (mark the crystal water correctly!)

line 163 What was the dose of bioinoculants when it was applied to the leaves and into the soil?

line 170 Neutral detergent it was used as adjuvant in the proportion concentration of 1 mL L⁻¹ in all foliar treatments.

line 173 Why was the Zn treatment (Zn dose) not the same in the T1, T2, T3 and T4 treatments? (When you applied to the leaves, you ensured 35 ml ZnSO4 solution per plant, and when you apllied into the soil, yous ensured 50 ml /plant (2,42 kg ZnSO₄/ha).

Write the method of treatments more clearly!

line 241 Vitamin C

line 250 How many fruits were reading per plots?

line 255 Were the vitamin C and titratable acidity (citric acid) expressed in dry or fresh weight (It should be written!)

lines 266, 270 sulfuric acid digestion

line 284 obtained in from the control treatment

 

Results

line 299 the fruit quality parameters…

line 302 The T4 treatment was not a leaf treatment (in the materials and methods it was written in other way!)

Table 2 It would be better to write control instead of Check!

The names of treatment are not the same as it was written in the materials and methods!

line 133: (T1 = ZnSO4, T2 = foliar NPsZnO, T3 = foliar NPsZnO + Bio, T4 = ZnSO4 via soil + 133 PGPB or via soil),

in table 2: T1 (NPZnO via leaf) T2 (NPZnO via leaf )+PGPB T3 (ZnSO4 via soil+PGPB) T4 (ZnSO4 via leaf)

What is the thrue?

Table 2 The results of stistical analysis are missing!

line 314 The 50% Etc irrigation level increased the L* value in treatment T1 (NPZnO via leaf) and decreased it in treatments T3 and T4 compared to what?

lines 305-315 and lines 323-334 The text is almost the same, what is the thrue?

Figure 2 It would be better to write control instead of Check!

Figure 2b Uppercase letters (Results of statistical analysis) are missing!

Figure 3 It would be better to write control instead of Check!

Figure 3 h Uppercase letters (Results of statistical analysis) are missing!

line 361 Under the 50% Etc irrigation level, the T2 treatment increased the contents of K, Mg, Fe and Mn, the T3 treatment increased the contents of Ca, K, Mg, P, B and Fe and the T4 treatment increased the Ca contents in G. What does G mean?

Under the 50% Etc irrigation level, the T2 treatment increased the contents of K… In control the letter is B, in T2 the letter is AB: The results are not different statistically!

the T3 treatment increased the contents of Mg…. In control the letter is B, in T3 the letter is AB: The results are not different statistically!

line 364 Under 100% Etc water supply, the T2 treatment increased the Zn contens…. The results of statistical analysis are missing!

line 373 Write the next sentence more clearly! At the irrigation level of 50%Etc, treat- 372 ments T2 and T3 increased the FQI value by 8 and 12%, respectively, in relation to the in 373 FQI in relation to the control, however, this treatment was similar to the T1, T2 and T3.

Figure 4. Use control instead of Check!

DISCUSSION

line 388 Instead of „only the acid content ascorbic acid” write ascorbic acid content!

lines 413-428  It is confusing what applies to the present results and those of other researchers!  

line 433 ADH treatments???

line 444, 448 What were the T2, T3 and T4 treatments? They are different as it was written in the material and methods! It is so disturbing and not understandable! Write this section again, more clearly!

line 470 What hypothesis was considered first? Write it!

line 473 You can not compare the effect of ZnONPs and ZnSO₄ solution directly, because the concentration of Zn was not the same in ther two treatments!

General remarks:

Most of the finding can not be followed, because in several cases the results of statistical analysis are missing and the treatments are defined differently in the material and methods section and the other parts of the article!

Author Response

 

REVIEW 3

 

Abstract

Comments 1: line 24 Instead of  ex-periment, write experiment.

Response: corrected

Comments 2: line 29 What does L* mean in the Abstract?

 Response: Changed to luminosity

 

INTRODUCTION

Comments 3: lines 65-67 In addition, to Zn participate  on in the synthesis of chlorophyll, the development of chloroplasts and the integrity of the cell membrane, providing protection, stability and structure.

 Response: Corrected

Materials and Methods

Comments 4: line 110 Instead of preparation, the tillage would be better.

 Response: Corrected

Comments 5: line 111 When was the soil sampling done?

 Response: Information was inserted into the text

Comments 6: Table 1. What was the concentration of CaCl₂ for measuring the soil pH?

 Response: Information was inserted into the text

 Comments 7: Give the amount of available nutrients (extracted K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Zn²⁺) in the unit of mg/kg, instead of cmolc dm^-3!  

 Response: It was changed to mg/kg

Comments 8: Comments 1: lines 121, 126 Instead of experiment, use experimental.

 Response: Corrected

Comments 9: line 133 T1= foliar ZnSO₄!

 Response: no question

Comments 10: line 147 carried out is written twice!

 Response: Corrected

Comments 11: line 150 What was the dose of NPK fertilizer in unit of kg/ha? (The further fertilizer doses are expressed in kg/ha!)

 Response: Corrected  

Comments 12: line 151 Further nitrogen and potassium fertilization….

 Response: Corrected

Comments 13: line 153 carried out is not necessary!

 Response: Corrected

 

Comments 14: lines 152-156 Nitrogen and potassium fertilizations were carried out via fertigation, according to the technical recommendations for the crop, with the first application being made with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha-1 of KCl carried out at 15 days after trans planting (DAT), the second with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha−1 of KCl at 30 days after transplantation, the third with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha−1 of KCl at 45 DAT and the fourth with 39.2 kg ha−1 of urea and 15.8 kg ha−1 of KCl at 60 DAT.

Comments 15: Write this sentence in simplier way!

 Response: the sentence was modified

Comments 16: lines 159, 161 Use the ZnONPs uniformly! (in line 159: ZnONPs, in line 161: NPsZnO!)

 Response: Corrected

Comments 17: line 161 ZnSO₄*7H₂O! (mark the crystal water correctly!)

 Response: Corrected

Comments 18: line 163 What was the dose of bioinoculants when it was applied to the leaves and into the soil?

Response: PGPB were not applied to the leaves, but only to the soil.  The text was modified

 

Comments 19: line 170 Neutral detergent it was used as adjuvant in the proportion concentration of 1 mL L⁻¹ in all foliar treatments.

Response: Corrected

Comments 20: line 173 Why was the Zn treatment (Zn dose) not the same in the T1, T2, T3 and T4 treatments? (When you applied to the leaves, you ensured 35 ml ZnSO4 solution per plant, and when you apllied into the soil, yous ensured 50 ml /plant (2,42 kg ZnSO₄/ha).

Comments 21: Write the method of treatments more clearly!

Response: The doses of Zn applied to the soil are naturally higher than those applied via leaves. For leaves, the dose should be lower due to the risk of burning due to salinity.  Furthermore, in the soil, doses must be higher due to their lower efficiency, due to interactions with the solid phase of the soil. Therefore, the application of Zn at lower doses than the soil is due to the expectation of greater efficiency via leaves.

 

Comments 22: line 241 Vitamin C

Response: Corrected

Comments 23: line 250 How many fruits were reading per plots?

Response: Information inserted in the text

Comments 24: line 255 Were the vitamin C and titratable acidity (citric acid) expressed in dry or fresh weight (It should be written!)

Information inserted in the text

Comments 25: lines 266, 270 sulfuric acid digestion   

Response: corrected

Comments 26: line 284 obtained in from the control treatment

Response: corrected

 Results

Comments 27: line 299 the fruit quality parameters…

Response: corrected

Comments 28: line 302 The T4 treatment was not a leaf treatment (in the materials and methods it was written in other way!)

Response: corrected

Comments 1: Table 2 It would be better to write control instead of Check!

Response: corrected

Comments 29: The names of treatment are not the same as it was written in the materials and methods!

Response: corrected

 

 

 

Comments 30: line 133: (T1 = ZnSO4, T2 = foliar NPsZnO, T3 = foliar NPsZnO + Bio, T4 = ZnSO4 via soil + 133 PGPB or via soil),

Comments 31: in table 2: T1 (NPZnO via leaf) T2 (NPZnO via leaf )+PGPB T3 (ZnSO4 via soil+PGPB) T4 (ZnSO4 via leaf)

What is the thrue?

Response: corrected in  table 2. The first sequence is correct (line 133)

Comments 32: Table 2 The results of stistical analysis are missing!

Response: It has been included

Comments 33: line 314 The 50% Etc irrigation level increased the L* value in treatment T1 (NPZnO via leaf) and decreased it in treatments T3 and T4 compared to what?

Response: corrected

Comments 34: lines 305-315 and lines 323-334 The text is almost the same, what is the thrue?

Response: The text has been corrected.

Comments 35: Figure 2 It would be better to write control instead of Check!

Response: It has been changed  in figures, table and text

Comments 36: Figure 2b Uppercase letters (Results of statistical analysis) are missing!

Response: It has been corrected

Comments 37: Figure 3 It would be better to write control instead of Check!

Response: It has been changed

Comments 38: Figure 3 h Uppercase letters (Results of statistical analysis) are missing!

Response: It has been corrected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments 39: line 361 Under the 50% Etc irrigation level, the T2 treatment increased the contents of K, Mg, Fe and Mn, the T3 treatment increased the contents of Ca, K, Mg, P, B and Fe and the T4 treatment increased the Ca contents in G. What does G mean?

Response: It has been corrected

Comments 40: Under the 50% Etc irrigation level, the T2 treatment increased the contents of K… In control the letter is B, in T2 the letter is AB: The results are not different statistically!

Response: There was an error inserting the capital letters in Figure 3b. This has been corrected.

Comments 41: the T3 treatment increased the contents of Mg…. In control the letter is B, in T3 the letter is AB: The results are not different statistically!

Response: There was an error inserting the capital letters in Figure 3c. This has been corrected.

 

Comments 42: line 364 Under 100% Etc water supply, the T2 treatment increased the Zn contens…. The results of statistical analysis are missing!

Response: results of statistical analysis included

Comments 44: line 373 Write the next sentence more clearly! At the irrigation level of 50%Etc, treat- 372 ments T2 and T3 increased the FQI value by 8 and 12%, respectively, in relation to the in 373 FQI in relation to the control, however, this treatment was similar to the T1, T2 and T3.

Response: The sentence was completely rewritten because it was very confusing.

Comments 45: Figure 4. Use control instead of Check!

Response: It has been corrected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

Comments 46: line 388 Instead of „only the acid content ascorbic acid” write ascorbic acid content!

Response: corrected

Comments 47: lines 413-428  It is confusing what applies to the present results and those of other researchers!  

Response: There was an improvement. Here, the authors indicated that their results contradict the findings of other researchers. Next, the scientific basis that explains the results of the other authors is presented. However, an example is presented that agrees with the results of the present work and then the theory that would explain the result that contradicts the findings of other authors is formulated.

Comments 48: line 433 ADH treatments???

Response: The acronym DHA was used to identify treatments related to alleviate water deficit, such as Water Deficit Attenuate. This was done to avoid repeating the expression all the time.

 

Comments 49: line 444, 448 What were the T2, T3 and T4 treatments? They are different as it was written in the material and methods! It is so disturbing and not understandable! Write this section again, more clearly!

Response: corrected in  table 2. The first sequence is correct (line 133)

Comments 50: line 470 What hypothesis was considered first? Write it!

Response: The hypothesis was included

Comments 51: line 473 You can not compare the effect of ZnONPs and ZnSO₄ solution directly, because the concentration of Zn was not the same in ther two treatments!

Response: Indeed, we recognize that direct comparison is not entirely adequate. However, in the present study, ZnONPs was applied via foliar application at a concentration of 100 mg Zn/L, while ZnSO4 was applied at a concentration of 1,000 mg Zn/L. This 10-fold difference was intentional because the authors wanted to know if ZnNPs would be more efficient than ZnSO₄, as has been observed in another study.

Uresti-Porras, J.-G.; Cabrera-De-La Fuente, M.; Benavidez-Mendoza, A.; Olivares-Sáenz, E.; Cabrera, R.I.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Effect of graft and nano ZnO on nutraceutical and mineral content in bell pepper. Plants 2021, 10, 2793. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10122793 

 

Semida, W.M.; Abdelkhalik, A.; Mohamed, G.F.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Abd El-Mageed, S.A.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F. Foliar application of zinc oxide nanoparticles promotes drought stress tolerance in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Plants 2021,   10, e421. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020421    

    

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As drought stress is among the most detrimental disasters for crops, crop drought disaster risk reduction is a very critical research issue, especially under the context of global water scarcity. In this work, the authors employed the green pepper as the research plant and established a variety of drought and drought-relieving treatments to examine the effectiveness of applying Nano ZnO and bioinoculants to relieve green pepper drought. On one hand, this is an experimental exploration with only one-year data and many non-significant results were found. On the other hand, I found that this is an interesting work with practical future, and this paper is generally well written. In conclusion, I consider that this paper may be accepted after major revisions. My comments and suggestions are as follows:

-Introduction section. Lines 54-71, the authors introduced the possible usage of ZnONPs in mitigating plant drought stress, but I cannot find if there is any investigation focusing on green pepper or similar crops. I think the authors should specifically described the previous studies employing ZnONPs for peppers, even not for drought but for other stresses. In other words, the backgrounds should highlight the parts regarding your study plants. For example, in lines 76-78, you introduced the pepper-relevant literature.

-Introduction section, from Line 85, you should summarize the research gaps in this research field, according to which your innovations can be put forward.

-The experimental designs (section 2.2) must be described more detailedly, especially for the four Treatments, T1 ~ T4. Four treatments were employed to test your assumptions, but you should describe why you designed like this. In particular, as described in Lines 132-132, the T4 is hard to understand, because I don’t know how you compared it with other treatments. Is it comparable to T1? But T1 is through foliar application and T4 is via soil.

-A serious problem is found in your Figures, that is, many uppercase (or lowercase) letters indicating Turkey’s test missed in many subfigure. Such as in Fig. 2b and Fig. 3. Honestly speaking, the way you illustrated your significant differences is not commonly seen, and I think it is not easily to understand because different groups are both included here. If I were you, I will separate them event more subfigures were constructed.

- Table 2. The non-significant results are displayed here. But the current version, which is full of numbers but without statistically significances, is hard for readers to know the differences among treatments. So, I suggest that you can add a new column to display the “relative value of T1 to T4 as compared with CK”.

-Figure 4. I am wondering why T4 did not relieve drought impact but T2 and T3 did, as demonstrated by the non-significance between 50%ETc and 100%ETc in T2 and T3

-Lines 483-484, I think this can be a key conclusion for your research and it is also one of you hypotheses (lines 91-92), but it was not emphasized in your Abstract.

-Finally, I know this paper focuses on fruit quality of peppers, but I still want to know if you have detected the significant results in terms of fruit yields? Did you have published these yield-related part before? If so, you could cite them and help explain your results regarding fruit quality.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

REVIEW  4

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As drought stress is among the most detrimental disasters for crops, crop drought disaster risk reduction is a very critical research issue, especially under the context of global water scarcity. In this work, the authors employed the green pepper as the research plant and established a variety of drought and drought-relieving treatments to examine the effectiveness of applying Nano ZnO and bioinoculants to relieve green pepper drought. On one hand, this is an experimental exploration with only one-year data and many non-significant results were found. On the other hand, I found that this is an interesting work with practical future, and this paper is generally well written. In conclusion, I consider that this paper may be accepted after major revisions. My comments and suggestions are as follows:

Comments 1:  Introduction section. Lines 54-71, the authors introduced the possible usage of ZnONPs in mitigating plant drought stress, but I cannot find if there is any investigation focusing on green pepper or similar crops. I think the authors should specifically described the previous studies employing ZnONPs for peppers, even not for drought but for other stresses. In other words, the backgrounds should highlight the parts regarding your study plants. For example, in lines 76-78, you introduced the pepper-relevant literature.

Response: This gap have been improved

Comments 2:  Introduction section, from Line 85, you should summarize the research gaps in this research field, according to which your innovations can be put forward.

Response: This gap has been improved. An additional text has been included

Comments 3:  The experimental designs (section 2.2) must be described more detailedly, especially for the four Treatments, T1 ~ T4. Four treatments were employed to test your assumptions, but you should describe why you designed like this. In particular, as described in Lines 132-132, the T4 is hard to understand, because I don’t know how you compared it with other treatments. Is it comparable to T1? But T1 is through foliar application and T4 is via soil.

Response: Included in the text

These treatments were defined considering some premises. The supply of Zn via foliar application should be more efficient than that via soil application, and therefore the dose of Zn via foliar application should be many times lower than that applied to the soil. This has also been considered by other authors. Likewise, it was considered that ZnONPs applied via foliar application would be the most efficient form of Zn supply for green pepper, compared to ZnSO4 via soil or foliar application. The biological component was to verify whether PGPB could increase the availability of Zn from the soil itself or in-crease the efficiency of Zn application via soil, in the form of ZnSO4, since this form of Zn is susceptible to precipitation reactions, decreasing the availability of Zn for plants. In addition, the PGPB component could act as an attenuator of water deficit due to the production of beneficial substances in the root zone of green pepper.

Comments 4:  A serious problem is found in your Figures, that is, many uppercase (or lowercase) letters indicating Turkey’s test missed in many subfigure. Such as in Fig. 2b and Fig. 3. Honestly speaking, the way you illustrated your significant differences is not commonly seen, and I think it is not easily to understand because different groups are both included here. If I were you, I will separate them event more subfigures were constructed.

Response: For better visualization and interpretation, the figures were modified. As in Table 2, the lack of letters in some bars would indicate that there was no significant difference. However, as was done in Table 2, the letters in all bars were included.

Comments 5:  Table 2. The non-significant results are displayed here. But the current version, which is full of numbers but without statistically significances, is hard for readers to know the differences among treatments. So, I suggest that you can add a new column to display the “relative value of T1 to T4 as compared with CK”.

Response: The results of the Tukey test were included

Comments 6:  Figure 4. I am wondering why T4 did not relieve drought impact but T2 and T3 did, as demonstrated by the non-significance between 50%ETc and 100%ETc in T2 and T3

Response: The text has been corrected

Comments 7:  Lines 483-484, I think this can be a key conclusion for your research and it is also one of you hypotheses (lines 91-92), but it was not emphasized in your Abstract.

Response: This gap has been improved. An additional text has been included

Comments 8:  Finally, I know this paper focuses on fruit quality of peppers, but I still want to know if you have detected the significant results in terms of fruit yields? Did you have published these yield-related part before? If so, you could cite them and help explain your results regarding fruit quality.  

Response: The authors consider this observation important. Unfortunately, it was not possible to include productivity data in this study. These data were used to prepare another manuscript that is still in the process of being processed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been appropriately revised according to the suggestions.

Author Response

The authors are very grateful to the reviewer for his contributions to improving the quality of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Remarks on „Nano ZnO and bioinoculants mitigates effects of deficit irrigation on nutritional quality of green peppers”

The revised manusript is much better, than the original. The most of the comments mentioned have been corrected, but some important are still remained:

 

 

line 90

 In the sentence below, the verb is missing! 

Although some studies have already tested the influence of nano ZnO as a water stress alleviator [10,12,15], the lack of information on the effects of ZnO and PGPB, associated or not, on the nutritional quality of fruit vegetables, such as green peppers, subjected to water deficit, especially at low concentrations compared to the conventional source, zinc sulfate.

The sentence would be better like this way:

Although some studies have already tested the influence of nano-ZnO as as a water stress alleviator [10,12,15], information is lacking on the effects of ZnO and PGPB, whether in combination or not, on the nutritional quality of fruiting vegetables such as green peppers exposed to water deficit, especially at low concentrations compared to the conventional zinc sulfate source.

Table 1.

Ca²⁺ (mg kg⁻¹ ) 1,577.6? What is the exact value?

CEC % The unit should not be %. Please check it!

Figure 1.

In the title: …….experimental area!

line 194

Neutral detergent it was used as adjuvant in the concentration of 1 mL L⁻¹ in all foliar treatments.

Table 2

in the results of TA: Why does it contain double AA?

lines 339-350, 352-363

The text in the lines of 339-350 is very similar to the text in the lines 352-363 Both text is about the Figure 2a and Figure 2b. They are not the same, but very similar. What is the true? 

lines 378-381

Repitition within the sentence!

 

The 50%Etc Irrigation level reduced the Mg (Figure 3c) and Fe (Figure 3f) contents in the control treatments, T1 and T4, the B contents (Figure 3e) in the T4 treatment and the Fe contents in the control treatments, T1 and T4. The water deficit reduced the levels of Mn (Figure 3g) and Zn (Figure 3h) in treatments T1 and T4.

lines 328,329, 342, 348, 355 and so on.....

Treatments are still incorrectly described (compared to the material and method) 

T1 (ZnONPs via leaf)?

T3 treatment ((ZnSO4 via soil+PGPB)? 

T4 treatment (ZnSO4 via leaf)?

The treatments mentioned in the Materials and methods section and in the further sections are not the same! It is not possible to follow the results correctly!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment: line 90

1 In the sentence below, the verb is missing! 

Although some studies have already tested the influence of nano ZnO as a water stress alleviator [10,12,15], the lack of information on the effects of ZnO and PGPB, associated or not, on the nutritional quality of fruit vegetables, such as green peppers, subjected to water deficit, especially at low concentrations compared to the conventional source, zinc sulfate.

The sentence would be better like this way:

Although some studies have already tested the influence of nano-ZnO as  a water stress alleviator [10,12,15], information is lacking on the effects of ZnO and PGPB, whether in combination or not, on the nutritional quality of fruiting vegetables such as green peppers exposed to water deficit, especially at low concentrations compared to the conventional zinc sulfate source.

Response 1: The suggested modification has been accepted.

Comment 2:Table 1.

Ca²⁺ (mg kg⁻¹ ) 1,577.6? What is the exact value?

Response 2: Corrected

Comment:3 CEC % The unit should not be %. Please check it!

Response 3: Corrected

Comment 4: Figure 1.

In the title: …….experimental area!

Response 4: Corrected

Comment 5: line 194

Neutral detergent it was used as adjuvant in the concentration of 1 mL L⁻¹ in all foliar treatments.

Response 5: Corrected

Comment 6: Table 2

in the results of TA: Why does it contain double AA?

Response 6: This was a typo. This error was detected elsewhere in the table and has also been corrected.

Comment 7: lines 339-350, 352-363

The text in the lines of 339-350 is very similar to the text in the lines 352-363 Both text is about the Figure 2a and Figure 2b. They are not the same, but very similar. What is the true? 

Response 7: Here, the authors acknowledge that they made several errors in comparison and calculation of some percentage values. All errors, including description of treatments, have been corrected.

 

Comment 8: lines 378-381

Repitition within the sentence!

 The 50%Etc Irrigation level reduced the Mg (Figure 3c) and Fe (Figure 3f) contents in the control treatments, T1 and T4, the B contents (Figure 3e) in the T4 treatment and the Fe contents in the control treatments, T1 and T4. The water deficit reduced the levels of Mn (Figure 3g) and Zn (Figure 3h) in treatments T1 and T4.

Response 7: Corrected in the text

Comment 9: lines 328,329, 342, 348, 355 and so on.....

Treatments are still incorrectly described (compared to the material and method) 

T1 (ZnONPs via leaf)?

T3 treatment ((ZnSO4 via soil+PGPB)? 

T4 treatment (ZnSO4 via leaf)?

The treatments mentioned in the Materials and methods section and in the further sections are not the same! It is not possible to follow the results correctly!

 Response 9: Throughout the text table 2 and footer of figure,  the correct description of treatments was standardized (T1 = ZnSO₄ via leaves, T2 = ZnONPs via leaves, T3 = ZnONP via leaves + PGPB via soil, T4 = ZnSO₄ via soil + PGPB via soil)

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have checked the responses from the authors as well as the revised manuscript, and I find that the authors have well addressed the comments and the revised version can meet the quality requirement of the journal. 

Only one minor comment now:

Line 30, on overage, should be on average.

Author Response

Only one minor comment now:

Comment: Line 30, on overage, should be on average.

Response: corrected