v Summarizing the experiment
v Assessment of the paper
v Comments
v Recommendations
Summarizing the experiment
The paper made by Chellamutha et al aims to investigate the allelopathic impacts of Prosopis juliflora on selected field crops. Seed germination and dry matter production were studied in four selected test plants under allelopathic influence of Prosopis juliflora as they placed in soil treated with facets of selected test crops.
The study conducted two pot culture experiments during (December 1993, January and February 1994). The study site used in the two experiments is located at Tamil Nadu Agriculture, India
The second experiment, unlike the first where the soil is taken from proximity of P. juliflora, took clay soil as its topsoil. Furthermore, dry leaf litter of P. juliflora was incorporated in the soil. The pots filled with soil alone served as control. Seeds of the test crops were sown at the time of leaf incorporation. One hundred seeds of each of test crops were sown in each pot. The P. juliflora seeds were sown. The water was sprinkled daily during first two month of the year 1994.The data on germination and dry matter production were analyzed statistically in completely randomized design.
The experiment that sowing of blackgram and P. juliflora at 1 WALI and sowing sorghum at 2 WALI are the suitable agronomic management strategies against allelopathic effect of P. juliflora leaf litters.
Assessment of the Paper
Generally, the paper is well organized in the sense that the all aspects of a scientific paper such as the introduction, materials and methods, results section and discussion as well. The title is specific and clear in conveying the fundamental thrust of the paper. It describes the content of paper well. The layout of the author's names in capital letters is a boost in recognizing those who made the experiments regarding the said plants. The names were clear and also the addresses were found. Similarly, the abstract efficiently introduces the reader with a great ease in determining the findings and position of the study regarding the experiments that they have conducted. The abstract, although slightly difficult to read considering the font size used, provided the principle objectives, scope of investigation, summarize the results, and state principal conclusion without any delineation on the information from the study. The succeeding part, which is the introduction, provided the readers with the scarce literature related to the study of Allelopathic influences of Prosopis judiflora right after it indicated the ground rules for the progress of the study. This part of the article presented what the researcher intended to accomplish and how these objectives could be realized. In the last the last paragraph of the introduction they said the aim of this experiment. The materials and methods section was good, it is not that long. The materials and methods portion of the study was structured in such a way that the procedure of the two experiments was individually discussed. Moreover, all details were described clearly. Physical quantities and units were written clearly. Nevertheless, the study lacks the proper presentation of the statistical treatment of the results of the study. The results were presented in tables. Overall, the results were good because it set all what they got in clear way. The first table included a presentation of the allelopahic effects on the germination and dry matter production of the test crops. In this table, the data presents relationship of the composition of the soil with the germination and dry matter of the test crops. The soil samples include those with pure topsoil, pure subsoil, topsoil with Prosopis leaf litter, Prosopis leaf extract, and Prosopis leaf powder extract, and Prosopis root extract. All those soil samples with any for of Prosopis included have been tested using various percentages on the soil. The second table discusses the phenolic content in different plant parts of prosopis juliflora. The table basically informs the reader on the mean phonelic content of the plant tissues of the test crops. The last table is the effect of different times of sowing to mitigate the adverse influence of allelopathy of Prosopis juliflora leaf litter on the germination and dry matter of test crops. The table fundamentally seeks the effect of the time factor on the effects of the Prosopis on the germination of the test crops. The variables of this table include the time of sowing during the leaf incorporation and the results a week after the leaf incorporation. It also indicated the percentage of inhibition, stimulation and over control of the test crops in the germination period. In discussion section the authors tried to discuss the results that they got and also tried to set some reasons of some results. They also tried to describe the relation with previous results from other literatures. References were listed in the alphabetical order and were indicated by numbers.
Comments
(Title)
Allelopathic influence of Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC. on field crops
The title consists of 10 words which describe the paper well but it consists of unnecessary words. (Swartz) DC is a common name of Prosopis juliflora. It is better to use scientific name of the crop or common name. Prosopis juliflora, sorghum, blackgram and sunflower are field plants. So it is unnecessary to use the word "Field". I suggest another title which could be shorter
"Allelopathic influence of Prosopis juliflora on crops"
Dear Tony Fabe,
My superadvisor (my doctor) tell me to rewrite the critical review of this paper as given style. Because critical review that is done by you contains information out side and not related to this paper and I lost quarter of grade from final grade. He gives me the example critical review. Please rewrite the critical review as given style. The style is:
- Summarizing the paper
- Assessment of Paper
- Comments
- Recommendations
Please concentrate on Comments part and please do not use any information outside the paper. Please state specific comments about various sections of the paper. Each specific comment should refer to the parts (section and paragraph or table) of the paper, state what is unacceptable and how it should be changed. Finally, make a recommendation to the editor whether it is suitable for the publications or not. If it is suitable for the publication, state whether the manuscript requires revision.
Please give this paper to state the comments to plant science specialist because it difficult to know the mistake the authors do.
Please this paper due to
Example for the state the comments from another paper
(title)
Management of Botrytis fruit rot in annual winter strawberry using captan, thiram, and Iprodione.
The title consists of 14 words which is a little bit long. Actually, the title describe the paper well but I suggest another title which could be shorter
Management of Botrytis fruit Rot in Annual Strawberry Using three fungicides
(Material and Methods)
In this section the authors did not mention any thing about weather conditions and also fertilization rate. It is know that any fungal diseases is affected by temperature and relative humidity in addition to the other weather factors. There is also some relations between this diseases and fertilization rate but there is no information about it also.
The authors used different transplanting dates for the three seasons. In the first and second seasons they transplant in 18 October, in the third season the transplanting was done in 7 October. This has an effect on the number of harvest and we know also that planting early or late in season has negative effect on the yield. But they did not state any reason for that.
The same mistake was done in the application of fungicide, they applied at different data. For the first and second season they transplanted at the same day of the season so the fungicide application data should be at least with small different. In the first season they start the application of the fungicide in November, but in the second season they delay it to 14 November and in the third season the apply fungicide in 30 October. The same different in boom application of Iprodion was observed also.
There were also differences in the number of the harvests for the three seasons, first season there were 32 harvest, second season there were 23 harvest and third seasons there were 30 harvest. The first harvest got from the plants was also of different data.
(Results)
same results were presented repeatedly, as in text, tables and figures. In page 32 of this paper the author talked about the incidence and marketable yield, they present their finding in table 1 page 35 and they shows it in figure 1 page 33. they also repeat the same thing for weekly and cumulative harvest data as they talked about it in page 36 in text, present it in tables for different talked about it in page 36 in text, present in tables for different seasons, table3, table 4 and table 5. then, they figure it also figure it also, as we can see from figure 2. in addition to that, they present another table about the results of analysis of variance (table 2). And as I think table should not be presented. So, in this paper we have five tables and two full pages of figures, which make the paper without any big reason for that.
In page 36, column 2, line 6-7, there is an error. Instead of writing (incidence), they wrote (botrytis fruit rot) and in this position they are talking about two measures that they took, yield and incidence.
(Discussion)
In this section, as I think, the author ignore many things, like discussing the effects of weather condition that they ignore in the materials and methods and also the fertilization rate as I said before they a major role in this experiment or affect the disease. Other thing is different transplanting date, different harvesting numbers, and different date of fungicide application date. They should at least mention even a few thing about all these factors which affect the experiment. In the last paragraph in page 37 and beginning of page 38 in the discussion section, the author discuses the effect of fungicide on health of children because they eat strawberry without washing which affect their children ad as I think there are more important thing should be discussed in this section which are related to the experiment more than this. I am not saying that heath hazard of fungicide are not important but in this situation we are evaluating fungicide.
Recommendation
I think this paper is good and it could be published if the authors could add more information about weather conditions and fertilization rate. Moreover, trying to use same planting date or a least presenting problems or why they change the planting date for different seasons. The same thing for fungicide application date and number of harvests. Clear mistake in the results that I mention before. Choosing one way to present the results, either by figures or table. Discussing the results more. Dropping the paragraph, which talk about health hazard and trying to concentrate in discussion of the results and effect of weather conditions.
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
No comments:
Post a Comment