The Effects of Shading and Nutrient Management on Yield Quality of Vegetable Fern
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript by Thepsilvisut and co-authors presents the results of studies on the effect of shading and fertilizer treatments on the growth, yield and quality of vegtable fern. The use of cow manure at different levels is the main fertilizer treatment studied, since it has practical application for farmers in the region (Thailand).
General comments
1. The readability and impact of the manuscript could be improved by editing. The omission of unnecessary phases and details in the text would help in this respect. Just 3 examples:
Line 128, omit "using digital scales." Irrelevant
Line 142, omit "the extract was collected in a container", that's obvious.
Line 154, no need to say the "sample was pipetted", that's obvious.
Specific comments or questions
Line 122: "repeated measurement"? Measurements were done only at 30 day intervals for 90 days, so I don't think this constitutes "repeated", as in frequent.
LIne 133: "in a test tube containing 80% acetone with a volume of 10 ml. This refers to a 10 ml test tube or a test tube with 10 ml acetone?
Line 154: use x g, not rpm, or specify the rotor used.
Line 165: why was such an acidic soil used for the trials?
For the Results section in general, the results that were "not significant" can be omitted.
Table 2: Whats the F-test and C.V. (%)?
Line 201: replace "most significant" with "highest".
LIne 205: omit "was discovered through experimentation"
Line 210: omit "In fertilizer conditions"
Line 279: omit "according to the experimental findings"
Line 303: omit "it was discovered that"
Line 369: the nitrate accumulation was measured in fiddle heads?
Discussion, beginning line 414, on pH. This recounts soil pH's used in some previous work, but not why they are significant for the discussion of this paper. Is there a justification for the use of acidic soil in your experiments?
Line 424, "it is likely....under higher transmittance". This seems to tell of an observation, not of some "likely" cause for something, and should be rephrased.
Line 468: isn't "lower shading" the same as full sunlight?
Line 471: replace "tolerated" with "tolerate".
Line 473, change to "...had significantly higher..."
Beginning line 478: so is it shading or lower temperatures occasioned by shading that explain the effects effects reported in the manuscript?
Line 523: should "arrive" be "survive"?
Line 548: "second harvesting plants" means 60 days?
Line 569: what may account for unclear results?
Line 572, rephrase "it has reports found inversely correlated"
Line 575, causes of these effect migh also be due to different species of plants studied.
Line 581, as an example: in the Discussion, don't repeat values such as these, they're already in the Results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We are most grateful to you for your helpful comments on the original version of our manuscript. We have corrected our manuscript according to your comments and prepared the list of answers in a separate file labeled “Response to Reviewer 1". We deeply hope that this revised version of our manuscript provides a clear and accurate depiction of our manuscript and is now suitable for further consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Ornprapa Thepsilvisut, Ph.D.
Major of Agricultural Technology
Faculty of Science and Technology
Thammasat University
Klong Noeng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120
Tel: +66(0)2-564-4440 Ext 2356
Mobile: +66(0)96 995 3542
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Many thanks for submitting an interesting topic on a not known botanical plant, and popular in Asia.
Your contribution has potential as organic leaf vegetable from a non-traditional source for cooking, when you suggest the use of organic fertilizer and you demonstrated in your paper.
I have some questions and suggestions draft in the attached report. I hope you find appropiate to the improve of your manuscript.
Best regards,
The Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are most grateful to you for your helpful comments on the original version of our manuscript. We have corrected our manuscript according to your comments and prepared the list of answers in a separate file labeled “Response to Reviewer 2". We deeply hope that this revised version of our manuscript provides a clear and accurate depiction of our manuscript and is now suitable for further consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Ornprapa Thepsilvisut, Ph.D.
Major of Agricultural Technology
Faculty of Science and Technology
Thammasat University
Klong Noeng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120
Tel: +66(0)2-564-4440 Ext 2356
Mobile: +66(0)96 995 3542
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments on Manuscript ID: horticulturae-2212476 Title: The effects of shading and nutrient management on yield quality of vegetable fern The Results and Discussion section may be reduced by 30%. Why was the pH reduced under shade? Re L 169-170L 45-46, re “No research has been…” this sentence is contradicted by the citation [10] provided in the previous sentences.
L 105-106, Table 1, May want to include a note describing what each treatment abbreviation (CF & CM), stands for.
L 162, Was a particular program used for statistical analysis? If so, please cite.
L 185-187, The first and second sentences of this paragraph are not related to each other.
L 243-252, If the data is already presented on the tables, you don’t need to report it again on the text. You may simply summarize the data with the most important/key variables. By following this approach you can approach, throughout the text (eg also L 267-271 & L 295-300), you may be able to shorten the Results by 30%. End of comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We are most grateful to you for your helpful comments on the original version of our manuscript. We have corrected our manuscript according to your comments and prepared the list of answers in a separate file labeled “Response to Reviewer 3". We deeply hope that this revised version of our manuscript provides a clear and accurate depiction of our manuscript and is now suitable for further consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Ornprapa Thepsilvisut, Ph.D.
Major of Agricultural Technology
Faculty of Science and Technology
Thammasat University
Klong Noeng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120
Tel: +66(0)2-564-4440 Ext 2356
Mobile: +66(0)96 995 3542
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
