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.
The authors have made all the suggested revisions, and the manuscript is now much improved and acceptable for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors greatly improved the paper in this second version. All the changes that were suggested were made by the authors.
no comment
The authors greatly improved the paper in this second version.
The authors greatly improved the paper in this second version. All the changes that were suggested were made by the authors.
I now review the comments of one reviewer who evaluated the previous version of the manuscripts. There reviewer is not satisfied with the quality of your manuscript and has made further comments and recommendations to improve your work. I have also read your manuscript and noted several issues that you must address. Although not comprehensive, my review noted that you need to improve the clarity of your writing and there are far too many typos that should not be in a manuscript at this stage of revision. Carefully go through your manuscript and improve the grammar and clarity of statements. The formatting also needs to be improved.
Below are some of my comments:
Ln 20: Delete ‘in water’
Ln 23: Delete the reference
Ln 24: free-floating vascular plants
Ln 24-25: What is being compared here? The statement is not clear.
Ln 27: Dense mats!
Ln 20-51: Write the abstract in one paragraph and observe the maximum limit of 500 words.
Ln 56: Delete the full stop after organisms
Ln 77-80: You can’t have a paragraph of two sentences!
Ln 94: Provide a reference for these numbers
Ln 111: ‘The severely reduces’- correct for clarity
Ln 134-138: This is a very long and complex sentence. Break for clarity.
Ln 156: ‘Official Journal of the European Union 2009’ – cite this correctly
Ln 163: ‘a place with no regulated varying temperature’ – this is not clear
Ln 221-229: report actual numbers in Mg/L too, not percentages. If you must, this can be additional.
The most important question is how your controlled experiment can be scaled to natural conditions. You need to address this question in your discussion and conclusions
Title: Not clear, need further structuring
Paragraphs not flowing with some repetitions e.g. Line 81 & 91. Consider rearranging.
Hanging statements e.g. Line 121, 400, 430 etc.
Experimental protocols for in-situ plant collection are missing.
Line 148-preliminary analysis done missing.
consider comparing the current findings with the previous studies.
Choose whether to include DOI or not in reference section for purposes of consistency throughout the text.
The greatest weakness in this study is that the findings are preliminary and the study has not been placed in a wider context with identified knowledge gaps and contributions to the existing body of knowledge. As a result, the manuscript should be improved at all stages from the introduction, descriptions of the methods, presentation of the results, discussion and conclusions should be improved as indicated by the reviewers. The manuscript should be significantly improved for it to be considered for publication in PeerJ.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Abstract
Results not well presented
conclusions and recommendations are missing
Introduction
Line 36- They among others….. which others? Specify and consider paraphrasing that statement
Line 38, 42- O2 instead of O2
Line 43-clearly describe DO distribution in water profile
Line 51, 59, 69, 79-Avoid very old citation e.g. Kemp et al., 1984, Podbielkowski and 60 Tomaszewicz, 1996, Ozimek, 1991, Rahmani and Sternberg, 1999 etc
Line 61- why duckweed are valuable food? Describe its nutritional composition
Line 64- give reasons why Lemna minor and Lemna trisulca are the most dominant in Poland
Line 78- Ease of culture…. Cite the latest publications and avoid old publications e.g. Chepkirui et al., 2023, Chakrabarti et al., 2018
Overall comments: Introduction
Give general description of duckweed distribution in a funnel overview
Clearly describe the morphology of duckweed
Avoid citing oldest publications, consider current manuscripts
Consider structuring the paragraphs well
Alot of grammatical and tenses errors e.g. future tense instead of past tense
Insufficient background information on duckweed
Gives us the coordinates and average depths of oxbow lakes in the Nadwiepvzanski Landscape Park
Both species occurred in the same habitat, how did you separate the two?
Line 110- what did you use to sterilized duckweed?
Line 113- Duckweed were cultivated on nutrient media, what type of nutrients did you used? Fertilization rate? Water level/height?
How much biomass (g/%) did you introduced into the culture unit?
Line 117- why 2 controls and not 4?
Data collection procedures missing. For instance, how did you collect data on duckweed height, amount, thickness and coverage of sediments.
Overall comment: Methodology not well structured
Line 172- what is the p value?
Line 176- slightly higher by what percentage?
Line 180-Give values for oxygen concentration, not just reporting as higher or lower. The same also applies to other parameters
Line 185- paraphrase your sentences
Line 203- The mean value of water oxygen saturation in the different duckweed systems varied, with the highest values in samples from Lemna trisulca in full light? Give us the values, what was the highest values?
Line 207-Give treatments where specific significance difference was observed according to post doc analysis
Line 209, 210, 251, 256- mix up of results and discussion
Line 255- what do you mean by fine duckweed?
Line 257- …. In the first several days…. Mention the specific days.
Line 264- give specific strain with high sediment cover
Line 291-There was also a clear relationship in the case of atmospheric pressure an increase in which contributed to an increase in oxygenation values. Paraphrase this statement.
Consider summarizing table 4,5,6 under one table rather than having so many tables
Overall comment: Results not well presented, consider specifying values not just highest, lowest, there was or no significant difference etc. Avoid discussion under results section.
Discussion
Line 316- all scientific names should be italicized
Line 319- give reasons behind high colonization of L.triscula in open, unshaded zones
Avoid old citations
Avoid bringing results again in discussion section, a lot of repetitions
Line 378- apart from width, was there any difference in the root length between the two species?
Line 399- Does it depend on temperature alone? What of nutrients availability?
Line 400- cross check the duckweed’s lifespan from the literature
Overall comment: No comparison between the present results and the past studies
Conclusions
Give strong conclusion and summarize inform of paragraphs not point form
Recommendations
This section is missing
Give gaps for further study
no comment
no comment
no comment
The paper entitled " Effect of selected Lemna species on dissolved oxygen content
in water" emphasized on the effect of different duckweed species (Lemna minor and Lemna trisulca) on dissolved oxygen content in water.
However, this manuscript is a simple and preliminary study and the result did not fully support the conclusion. Thus, I think it is not suitable for publication in Journal of Peer J.
The article is written clearly and in correct English.
The article include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be improved by adding other appropriated references and more recent
The structure of the article is conform to a starndard format.However, too many figures and tables have been inserted. It is suggested to merge some tables (see attached file).
The submission is "self-contained,’ and represent an appropriate ‘unit of publication’. It includes all results relevant to the hypothesis.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal. YES
Research question well enough defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. The aims should be written clearer
The investigation has been conducted rigorously and to a moderate technical standard. The research has been conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.
Methods should be described with more information and clearer (see attached file)
Data have been provided correctly; they are good and statistically sound.
Conclusions should be improved without repeating the main obtained results.
Comments and suggestions of corrections and changes are reported directely in the attached manuscript file.
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.