All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr Ma,
The Reviewer is of the opinion that your work entitled "Comparative analysis of physiological responses to environmental stress in Hedysarum scoparium and Caragana korshinskii seedlings due to roots exposure" can be published in its current version. My congratulations!
With best regards,
The authors have changed the citations/references for each analysis in the M&M section. I do not have any other comments on this manuscript. The manuscript, in my opinion, can be considered for acceptance if there are no other technical issues.
No comments
No comments
Dear Authors,
The reviewer has one comment.
You have been asked to include the original references for each analysis. In the present version of the manuscript, all analyses were carried out using the same reference i.e, Wang (2006).
With best regards,
Refer below
Refer below
Refer below
The authors were asked to include the references for each analysis but it turned out that all analyses were carried out using the same reference i.e, Wang (2006) but it remains unclear if the procedures were all developed by Wang (2006).
Other than that, I do not have further queries.
Dear Authors,
The Reviewer found ambiguities related to citation in your work. Please read these notes and make corrections.
With best regards
No comments
There is a lack of citation for individual assays in the Methodology section. In fact, there are no citations/references at all. Suggest to provide clearer citations for the assays in lines 110-118 as per PeerJ criteria "Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate".
The procedures used to determine the MDA level in the plant (an important component of this study) was not stated in the manuscript? This issue was brought up in the first report but still has not been addressed.
In the manuscript, the authors stated:
"The specific techniques refer to Experimental Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry (2nd Edition), edited by Wang Xuekui."
However, when the title was googled, two different results (different authors) came up. It is unclear which is the correct reference and there seems to be no other way to locate that particular reference. Therefore, clarification is required.
Wang, X.K. (2006) Experimental Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2th Edition, Higher Education Press, Beijing.
https://www.scirp.org/%28S%28vtj3fa45qm1ean45vvffcz55%29%29/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=2472633
H. S. Lee, “Principles and Experimental Techniques of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,” Higher Education Press, Beijing, 2000. (in Chinese)
https://www.scirp.org/(S(vtj3fa45qm1ean45vvffcz55))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=847393
No comments.
Thank you for addressing the previous comments.
It is important that sufficient details were provided (with proper citations) to ensure reproducibility by future researchers and readers as per PeerJ standard.
Dear Authors,
One expert saw your amendments. Most of them have been accepted. There are, however, a few more remarks that need to be corrected. Please read them and comment on them.
With best regards,
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have revised the manuscript based on the feedback from the reviewers. The manuscript in my opinion has been improved. However, I realise there are some minor editing that is required.
1. Please follow the standard way of writing scientific names. The scientific names of the plants -including the authority name need to be spelt in full when they are introduced for the first time. After that it is OK to use the abbreviated forms.
2. Please add a sentence at the figure legends to indicate the number of replicates or independent experiments and what is represented by the error bars. For instance, "The results were expressed as mean +/- SD/SE (n = ?)".
3. The conclusion is rather lengthy. Please consider to summarise it or to place it at the end of the discussion.
4. It should be Results and Discussion, not Results and Analysis.
Noble Authors,
Your work has been carefully assessed by two independent experts. Both agreed that the work could be published in PeerJ, but had to be significantly improved beforehand. Please read the reviewers' comments and respond to each of them.
Reviewer 1 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
With best regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
Reviewer’s Report
Journal: PeerJ
Title: Physiological response characteristics of Hedysarum scoparium and Caragana korshinskii seedlings after roots exposure
Manuscript number: #67413
This manuscript, entitled “ Physiological response characteristics of Hedysarum scoparium and Caragana korshinskii seedlings after roots exposure ”, offers a detailed overview regarding the roots exposure stress.. Overall, I believe this work is well planned, fitting the scope of the journal. But a major revision is necessary to make this paper presentable.
Comments
1. The title of the study is not catchy.
2. The language of the manuscript is not good and should be revised with the help of some native English-speaking person.
3. Add some results (in percentage) in the abstract.
4. The introduction is not having latest citation. I suggest the authors should add latest citations.
5. Line 40: Through drought, plants would experience a series of survival reactions, including the use of stomatal regulation, osmotic regulation (Kosar et al., 2020; Raja et al., 2020; Kaya et al., 2020)
• https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13155
• DOI: 10.1007/s13205-020-02206-4
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62669-6
6. Line 42: antioxidant defense, etc. (Apel et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2018; Ahmad et al., 2020, 2019; Kohli et al., 2019). Add these 3 ref in the following statement.
• Ahmad P, Jaleel CA, Salem MA, Nabi G, Sharma S (2010) Roles of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants in plants during abiotic stress. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 30(3):161-75.
• Ahmad P, Tripathi DK, Deshmukh R, Singh VP, Corpas FJ (2019) Revisiting the role of ROS and RNS in plants under changing environment. Environ Exp Bot. 161: 1-3.
• Kohli SK, Khanna K, Bhardwaj R, Abde_Allaha EF, Ahmad P, Corpas FJ. Assessment of Subcellular ROS and NO Metabolism in Higher Plants: Multifunctional Signaling Molecules. Antioxidants. 2019; 8(12):641.
7. Result are not well written as I suggest the authors write the results in understandable way. An increase or decrease in percentage must be written very clearly.
8. Line 130: chlorophyll A (ChlA), it should be written as chlorophyll ‘a’ (Chl a), chlorophyll A (ChlA), should be as chlorophyll ‘b’ (Chl b),
9. Line 166: “In conclusion” is not a good word over here. Whatever are the results authors should write them. Conclusion should be written at the end of the discussion part. Remove this word throughout the result section.
10. In Discussion part:
Line 266: Studies have shown that drought stress could also lead to the formation of H2O2 in plants (Kavita et al., 2001) (Ali et al., 2019; Farooq et al., 2020). Replace this ref with more recent references below:
• FarooqA, Bukhari SA, Akram NA, Ashraf M, Wijaya L, Alyemeni MN, Ahmad P (2020) Exogenously Applied Ascorbic Acid-Mediated Changes in Osmoprotection and Oxidative Defense System Enhanced Water Stress Tolerance in Different Cultivars of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L.). Plants 9(1):104.
• Ali Q, Ali S, Iqbal N, Javed MT, Rizwan M, Khaliq R, Shahid S, Perveen R, Alamri SA, Alyemeni MN, Wijaya L, Ahmad P (2019) Alpha-tocopherol fertigation confers growth physio-biochemical and qualitative yield enhancement in field grown water deficit wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Scientific Reports. 9:12924.
11. Discussion part is very week. The mechanism of action in the discussion part is not well documented. I suggest the authors should add mechanism of action, why and how a parameter is decreased or increased, what is the real mechanism?. It is important. Also authors should support their results by already published recent articles.
12. Conclusion should be revisited as conclusion should be supported by the data fully.
13. I suggest the authors to update the MS with latest references.
14. In addition, the literature survey needs improvement and I would ask authors to expand it to its maximum. As lot of work has been done on salt stress from last 2-3 years. Few examples are given below and I suggest authors to add them in revision.
15. Focus on the units of parameters, Chlorophyll ‘a’ b, a+b and carotenoids….mg/g?????? FW or DW.
16. Proline units are also not full…..write micro (µ) and not as u. also µg g-1????? (FW or DW)
17. Check all other parameters very keenly.
The manuscript is easy to understand but improvements can be made in many aspects.
1. How this study may bridge the research gap should be highlighted in the introduction section.
2. There are too many figures (17!) and all look identical. Some of these graphs can be combined in a single figure to improve the presentation. The authors should reconsider if such arrangement is helpful to the readers.
3. The authors may also want to relook and rewrite the discussion section which is rather lengthy. The reason being there are many repetitions of the information from the results section that could have been avoided.
The overall experimental design should be outlined clearly - a flow chart would be useful. The details for most of the analytical experiments was not given at all - and no references were cited. The section describing the measurement of various parameters should be organised in subsections instead of placing everything under a single materials and methods section. Having said that, the manuscript fails to meet the standard of this journal.
The number of replicates (3) used in this study is rather low for such experiments. Please justify.
Lines 76-77: please state and describe the method to measure the soil moisture content.
Lines 88-89: please provide clarification for the four gradients of root exposure, the authors are suggested to include a figure.
Lines 91-115: please provide the details of the experiments such as chemicals used, concentrations, volume, standards, instruments, equations, etc.
Line 108: the thiobarbituric acid method is not used for assaying soluble sugars - please correct this and other mistakes in the manuscript.
While the authors are commended for the amount of data collected in their attempt to elucidate the response of both plants towards root exposure stress, their findings seemed like too general and rather superficial; as a result, interpretation and discussion ends up rather speculative in nature.
The increase in reactive oxygen species should be clearly demonstrated rather than just focusing on MDA alone - which even the method of assaying the level of MDA was not described. It was also commented that the increased of the antioxidant enzymes peroxidase and catalase was to remove peroxides which were not demonstrated to be elevated in the first place.
Line 30-31: the authors should define how "adaptability" to root exposure ratio before deciding that one species is better adapted than the other.
Lines 269-271: this statement needs to be substantiated by experimental data or at least supported by a reference.
Line 310: "significant" in which aspect?
Line 314: how did the authors determine if the increase for HS was "more significant" than CK?
This manuscript contains a lot of useful information of the physiological and biochemical responses of the two plant species, HS and CK, upon root exposure stress but the findings seemed rather preliminary with many crucial experiments that "bridge" these data missing. As a results, interpretation tend to be rather speculative in nature. It is also very important not to overclaim or overinterpret the results obtained, especially at the biochemical and molecular level, for instance, in lines 307-308. Findings of this study, while useful, doesn't give a clear picture of the mechanisms involved. Further studies are necessary to elucidate he exact mechanism of both plants, which after all, may be very distinct. Limitations with regard to data interpretation could have been communicated too.
The other thing is the focus of this study. It appears to me that one of motivation of this study appears to be making comparison between the response of HS and CK which the authors have concluded that CK has higher adaptations than HS but the manner by which the authors reach that conclusion is unclear. It is essential to define key terms commonly used in the manuscript like "adaptability" (line 30) and "significant" (throughout the manuscript). One question that a reader may ask would be - since one species was shown to be better than the other, what's next?
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.