Impact of Ground Applied Micronutrients on Root Growth and Fruit Yield of Severely Huanglongbing-Affected Grapefruit Trees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer report for paper entitled "Impact of ground applied micronutrients on root growth and fruit yield of severely HLB-affected grapefruit trees". The manuscript is well written and focused on the influence of micronutrients to enhance the plant yield. This type of research is very important, sounded, and timely for both scientific and industrial society. However, the novelty and strength of the scientific findings are not clear in the abstract part, what recommendations need to be given to the researchers in this field is not clear!. 

- The abstract can be improved to highlight the novelty of this work.

- Introduction part is well written and addressed the background of this research, however, research gap need to be better addressed 

- Materials and Methods is acceptable and wrote all details needed to repeat the experiments but other authors and can be taken as reference. 

- Results are well written and structured in good approach. 

- Discussion part, needs more depth to come up with the scientific strong meaning not only for how it work like this buy also why it work like this?. and this part needs major improvement. 

- The discussion part is missing and need to end this work with proper sounded conclusion to the reader as strong added value of the research done to the scientific society. 

Author Response

Reviewer report for paper entitled "Impact of ground applied micronutrients on root growth and fruit yield of severely HLB-affected grapefruit trees". The manuscript is well written and focused on the influence of micronutrients to enhance the plant yield. This type of research is very important, sounded, and timely for both scientific and industrial society. However, the novelty and strength of the scientific findings are not clear in the abstract part, what recommendations need to be given to the researchers in this field is not clear! 

Thank you for your kind comments and for your time. Please find our detailed replies to your comments below.

 

The abstract can be improved to highlight the novelty of this work.

A sentence explaining the novelty of the study was added to the abstract.

 

Introduction part is well written and addressed the background of this research, however, research gap needs to be better addressed 

The research gap was more clearly addressed in lines 108-115. This study focuses on ground applied micronutrient rates and application methods only. The other studies look at macronutrients and foliar nutrients in combination with ground applied micronutrients.

 

Materials and Methods is acceptable and wrote all details needed to repeat the experiments but other authors and can be taken as reference. 

Additional references to several sections of the materials and methods have been added.

 

Results are well written and structured in good approach. 

Thank you.

 

Discussion part, needs more depth to come up with the scientific strong meaning not only for how it work like this buy also why it work like this? and this part needs major improvement. 

Discussion section was majorly revised. Additional studies were cited and compared to our findings. More explanation of our data is given.

 

The conclusion part is missing and need to end this work with proper sounded conclusion to the reader as strong added value of the research done to the scientific society. 

A conclusion section was added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the work is interesting, but the workmanship is flawed. The work is generally written carelessly. Lots of editorial mistakes. The introduction and methodology are well written. The methodology is laborious. The units are not compatible with the SI system. Table titles and figure captions too long. It is unnecessary to repeat the text from the methodology. Tables and references are not written as per editorial requirements. Discussion almost without comparing the data provided by other authors. Repetition of sentences from the results. Conclusions contain generalities. There are no concrete conclusions from the studies. A number of comments have been highlighted in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The subject of the work is interesting, but the workmanship is flawed. The work is generally written carelessly. Lots of editorial mistakes. The introduction and methodology are well written. The methodology is laborious. The units are not compatible with the SI system. 

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find our detailed replies below.

 

Table titles and figure captions too long. It is unnecessary to repeat the text from the methodology. 

Captions were reduced to avoid repetition. However, we are concerned that readers may be confused due to the large number of treatments and acronyms used. That is why descriptions were repeated so each table was treated as a stand alone piece of information. 

 

Tables and references are not written as per editorial requirements. 

Tables were edited as requested.

 

Discussion almost without comparing the data provided by other authors. Repetition of sentences from the results. 

The discussion section was majorly revised. The repetition of results was reduced by making more broad summarizations and additional papers were cited to compare data.

 

Conclusions contain generalities. There are no concrete conclusions from the studies

A conclusion paragraph has been added to the manuscript.

 

A number of comments have been highlighted in the text.

Here are replies to in-text comments:

• Author names were formatted as requested where applicable.
• Correspondence information was added
• Abstract text was justified
• All subsections were italicized
• Duration of experiment in years was added to line 113
• CEC notation was corrected in line 119s
• L was changed to dm³ h^-1 line 121
• L was changed to dm³ in line 131
• ml was changed to cm³ in lines 176,177 and 181
• UL changed to cm³ lines 190 and 191, although this is not common in molecular biology protocols.
• R citation was added line 221
• Tables 2 and 3 and tables 4 and 5 were not combined. Authors would prefer to keep them separate to clarify different depths of sampling.
• Letters indicating significance in tables 3 and 4 were un italicized and made superscript.
• Sentences in section 3.6 regarding fruit yield were simplified.
• Conclusion section heading was added
• Table titles and descriptions were shortened to avoid repetition with materials and methods section.
• Duration of the study (3 years) was added to the M&M section
• There was an error in the statistical letters of Figure 1B. An ANOVA was re-ran for Figure 1B and letters have been changed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors covered all necessary requirements and addressed all questions raised in the first round of review. Therefore, I recommend to accept the manuscript in the current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

A lot of fixes were made. A lot of comments were taken into account and corrections were made. 2 comments remain in the text. Units now compatible with the SI system. Tables and references still don't match the editorial requirements. There are no abbreviations for journal titles. The discussion is completed. Conclusion has been corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

A lot of fixes were made. A lot of comments were taken into account and corrections were made.

Thanks for taking the time to revise our manuscript.

 

2 comments remain in the text. Units now compatible with the SI system. Tables and references still don't match the editorial requirements. There are no abbreviations for journal titles.

Both of your comments are now addressed. The table units have been fixed and there are now no abbreviations for journal titles.

 

The discussion is completed. Conclusion has been corrected.

The manuscript has been tremendously improved thanks to your comments.