New Nitrogen Use Efficiency Indices for Biomass Formation and Productivity in Green Beans Under Foliar Fertilization with Molybdenum Nanofertilizer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present research evaluates the impact of Molybdenum nanofertilizer to improve the nitrogen fertilization of green beans.

The introduction states the interest of the research questions evaluated, but the problem is that the question identified at not really clear, or better said there is the part of testing the molybden which is clear but nothing or nearly nothing is said about the new indexes that would like to be evaluated.

You have identified a problem which could be that NUR is not a model index and you would like to find others (said both in the abstract and in the problem statement) but then you are only showing the results obtained with those indices but not saying the pertinence of them.

I conseil to supress this part both in the abstract and the introduction and focus more on the molybdenum dose and form of application.

A secondary issue that I can see is that you want to improve the fertilisation of a fabaceae, which are supposed to be autonomous in nitrogen fertilization. You should make a large difference between fabaceae crops and others, in the litterature review and talk about the practised fertilisation made in green beans in Mexico. To be introduced in the introduction and in the discussion, how you can be sure that no part of the nitrogen measured comes from N-fixating bacteria?

Except those point there are few minor form problems that you can find in the attached document.

Material and methods are clear, easy to follow and reproductible

The results are well presented with good statistical analysis and also discussed.

Conclusion are on line to the results found

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "New nitrogen use efficiency indices for biomass formation and productivity in beans under foliar fertilization with molybdenum nanofertilizer" contains interesting research results for science and agricultural practice.

I read the text of the publication with interest.

However, the article requires improvement and correction.

I have included detailed comments in the original PDF text.

After making corrections, I recommend publishing the manuscript in the Nitrogen journal

My general comments:

In the abstract, write down your most important results (yield, pod quality). Describe which variant (foliar fertilizer) you recommend for agricultural practice and why?

write references to literature as [1, 2] etc

line 60 correct it

there is no information about inoculation and nodulation in the experiment. Is there no such need in greenhouse conditions?

Describe whether and which hand sprayer you used for foliar spraying?

Write in the Material and Methods chapter the chemical composition of foliar fertilizers. From what I see, they also contain other ingredients, not only molybdenum.

Write accurate results of the yield and its quality.

line 195 correct it

correct the numbering of subchapters, e.g. "Statistical analysis", NUE indices for stems, etc

Explain the abbreviation MSD

line 298 correct it correct the numbering of figures 4 and 5 and the descriptions in the text

line 488 correct it

In the Discussion chapter, compare your results to those of other authors (e.g. yield and quality)

In the conclusion, write which fertilization variant is recommended. Will the research be continued, e.g. in field conditions?

There are many tables in the annex and appendix to the publication. Organize it correctly and describe it

Correct the reference list in accordance with the journal's requirements. Or see recently published articles

I hope that my comments will help the authors improve the text of the manuscript.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author have now provided a corrected version, were important modifications have been made in the abstract, the introduction and the material and method, now is more clear the intest of this research and it's more clear the relation between nitrogen and molibdenum.

Now the material and method is complete and reproductible.

Legends of the figures and tables are now complete.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been well revised and in accordance with my comments. I recommend it for publication. Thank you for your cooperation