Silicon Treatment on Sorghum Plants Prior to Glyphosate Spraying: Effects on Growth, Nutrition, and Metabolism
, Caio Antonio Carbonari 3, Stephen Oscar Duke 4 and Leonardo Bianco de Carvalho 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors evaluated simulated drift of sorghum plants exposed to glyphosate, testing possible debilitating effects of pre-treatment with Si. However, the study has some shortcomings, and the following comments are made:
1. There are still some details in the full text that need to be modified. For example, when AMPA first appears in the abstract, the full name should be given.
2. The number of paragraphs in the introduction section is suggested to be less.
3, some details still need to be carefully modified, pay attention to the use of punctuation and other problems, such as the introduction of the 85 line of the reference format is wrong, it is recommended to check and modify similar problems in the whole paper.
4. It is suggested to refine the content of the conclusion and give a clear title to each part to distinguish it and facilitate reading.
5. In the conclusion part, when analyzing Figure 2, the extraction methods of 6 substances such as A-F were explained in the previous part, but the extraction methods of other substances shown in Figure G-L were not explained.
6. It is suggested to streamline the discussion section and, if necessary, split it into two parts, "discussion" and "conclusion", so as to make the theme more prominent and explanatory.
Author Response
Comment 1: There are still some details in the full text that need to be modified. For example, when AMPA first appears in the abstract, the full name should be given.
Response 1: Done.
Comment 2: The number of paragraphs in the introduction section is suggested to be less.
Response 2: The number of paragraphs and amount of text has been reduced.
Comment 3: some details still need to be carefully modified, pay attention to the use of punctuation and other problems, such as the introduction of the 85 line of the reference format is wrong, it is recommended to check and modify similar problems in the whole paper.
Response 3: Sorry. Some corrections are made, including change the position of two references (#27 and #60) and exclusion of other reference (#44), as well as a replacement of other references (#60 becomes #43 and #27 becomes #87), so that changes generate many others changes in the text and in the reference list. In addition, we realized that micrograms abbreviation was misconfigured throughout the text (problem with the font type after copying and pasting). Misspelled words are also corrected.
Comment 4: It is suggested to refine the content of the conclusion and give a clear title to each part to distinguish it and facilitate reading.
Response 4: As requested, subheadings have been added.
Comment 5: In the conclusion part, when analyzing Figure 2, the extraction methods of 6 substances such as A-F were explained in the previous part, but the extraction methods of other substances shown in Figure G-L were not explained.
Response 5: Right. It was added in the M&M.
Comment 6: It is suggested to streamline the discussion section and, if necessary, split it into two parts, "discussion" and "conclusion", so as to make the theme more prominent and explanatory.
Response 6: Done, it seems to be optional for this journal, but it is now in a separate section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 97. Please add general information about the greenhouse. For example, the type of lighting in the greenhouse, the shape of the greenhouse, etc.
Line 288. I do not see any difference in the captions of Figures 3 and 4, except for the words "content" and "accumulation". Figure 4 shows the cumulative accumulation of elements over 68 days? So you made several measurements over the 68 days of the experiment? Please indicate the difference between Figures 3 and 4. If possible, write about it in the methodology.
No highlighted section "Conclusion".
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Comment 1: Line 97. Please add general information about the greenhouse. For example, the type of lighting in the greenhouse, the shape of the greenhouse, etc.
Response 1: Done, it was added in the first paragraph of the subsection 2.1 of the M&M.
Comment 2: Line 288. I do not see any difference in the captions of Figures 3 and 4, except for the words "content" and "accumulation". Figure 4 shows the cumulative accumulation of elements over 68 days? So you made several measurements over the 68 days of the experiment? Please indicate the difference between Figures 3 and 4. If possible, write about it in the methodology.
Response 2: Difference between content and accumulation is described in the fourth paragraph of the subsection 2.3 of the M&M. Content refers to the punctual concentration of the nutrient and accumulation refers to the relative amount of nutrient per biomass unit.
Comment 3: No highlighted section "Conclusion".
Response 3: Done, it seems to be optional for this journal, but we have considered important to put it in a separated section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAn article worth publishing after taking into account the comments:
1. Change of the title of the article - linguistic correction (from the presentation of the research effect to the implementation of the assumption) - line 2.
2. Adding information about the importance of sorghum cultivation in human nutrition, as well as its health properties in the diet (after line 39).
3. Figure 1 – in charts B and C there is no presentation of the differences in styatistic significance, it should be unified and supplemented.
4. Figure 2 – in charts F, G, I, J and L there is no presentation of differences in statistic significance, it should be unified and supplemented.
5. Figure 3 – in charts B, C, D, G, I, J and L there is no presentation of differences in stigmatical significance, it should be unified and supplemented.
6. Figure 4 – in charts I, J and L there is no presentation of the differences in styatistic significance, it should be unified and supplemented.
7. In all charts, the descriptions of the X axis should be presented in more detail - in the current form it is not very clear.
8. In the list of literature, supplement the citation footnotes with the DOI number - it will facilitate the search for literature items.
Author Response
Comment 1: Change of the title of the article - linguistic correction (from the presentation of the research effect to the implementation of the assumption) - line 2.
Response 1: We disagree with this suggestion, but we can change the title if the editor deems it necessary and mandatory to have a title more attractive for publication. A brief change was made to reduce similarity, as the editor requested.
Comment 2: Adding information about the importance of sorghum cultivation in human nutrition, as well as its health properties in the diet (after line 39).
Response 2: Part of this is in the first paragraph of introduction “Sorghum grain is a staple food in parts of Africa, Asia and other low-income regions”. We added the brief sentence “showing excellent functional properties in healthy diets” to include the health properties. We have to explain that we preferred to add a brief citation because the Reviewer 1 have suggested that the introduction section should be less.
Comment 3-6: 3. Figure 1 – in charts B and C there is no presentation of the differences in styatistic significance, it should be unified and supplemented. 4. Figure 2 – in charts F, G, I, J and L there is no presentation of differences in statistic significance, it should be unified and supplemented. 5. Figure 3 – in charts B, C, D, G, I, J and L there is no presentation of differences in stigmatical significance, it should be unified and supplemented. 6. Figure 4 – in charts I, J and L there is no presentation of the differences in styatistic significance, it should be unified and supplemented. 7. In all charts, the descriptions of the X axis should be presented in more detail - in the current form it is not very clear.
Response 3-7: Done, included in the chart of all figures.
Comment 8: In the list of literature, supplement the citation footnotes with the DOI number - it will facilitate the search for literature items.
Response 8: We agree it can facilitate the search for literature, but checking the journal rules we can clearly read that DOI number are not mandatory in the reference list. This is confirmed when we read the latest papers published.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done!
