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. Yang,
Your work has been re-evaluated by an expert who has not brought forth any new comments and believes that all amendments have been correctly executed. This means that the work can be published in the PeerJ journal in its current version - congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Authors corrected any necessary formatting and punctuation. The hypotheses were stated clearly.
Results presented sufficiently. Appropriate corrections have been made.
I have no further comments.
The Authors made appropriate corrections to this section.
In the part regarding results, discussion and conclusions, the Authors have rephrased and supplemented the content.
Dear Dr Yiang,
One of the reviewers has re-evaluated your work. The paper still requires some minor changes, mainly linguistic ones. Please review the reviewer's opinion and make the necessary adjustments.
With best regards,
The language is correct, but the text should be read carefully. In many places there are either missing dots or too many of them.
The structure is typical for this type of work.
The hypotheses were stated clearly.
Results presented sufficiently. Appropriate corrections have been made.
The Authors made appropriate corrections to this section.
In the part regarding results, discussion and conclusions, the Authors have rephrased and supplemented the content.
Dear Dr. Yang,
Your work has been assessed by three independent experts. They all agreed that it could be published on PeerJ, but first, it has to be significantly improved. I kindly ask you to read all the reviewers' comments and respond to them in the cover letter.
With best regards,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that 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
The article contain original primary research within aims and scope of the journal. The submission state how research fills an identified knowledge gap, however, the purpose is not clearly defined. In their current form, the goals are repeated. Moreover, the last sentence of the introduction is incomprehensible.
In the article, the authors repeatedly use the phrase "legume forage grasses". What do the authors mean?
The structure of the article follows the acceptable format of ‘standard sections’ . Figures have sufficient resolution. However, the manuscript contains results (Fig. 2) that are not referred to either in the methodology or in the description of the results.
General the methods were described with sufficient information. However, the methodology does not include the description of the determination of some physiological parameters (e.g. RWC, Fv/Fm).
Figure 7 should be characterized in the results section and compared to the literature in the discussion. It is not appropriate to end the article with the sentence: "The integrated function of Si to detoxify Al was further demonstrated in Fig 7". Conclusions should be appropriately formulated, related to the research goal and supported by the results.
The language is correct. Literature citations are sufficient.
The structure is typical for this type of work.
Verifiable raw data.
The hypotheses were not stated clearly. They have not been verified.
Results presented sufficiently.
The research is original, as evidenced by the attached data.
The authors seem to motivate the choice of topic sufficiently.
Trifolium reprens is a legume species. Do plants of other functional groups respond in the same way to Al stress and the use of a minimizer? Do microorganisms play a role in this process? The research process is basically correct.
Methods described insufficiently, especially in the context of the origin of the seeds used in the experiment.
The conclusions have to reformulate and more specifically indicate the practical aspect of using the obtained results.
The data appears to be correct. The statistical analysis is correct.
No comment.
Introduction: At some points, the introduction jumps quickly between ideas. Make sure there is a transition between the problem descriptions and the presentation of your research objectives.
Methodology:
Do not identify in the background why you selected those Aluminum doses (mM AlCl3) and Silicon doses (K2SiO3) for the study. Should they be based on previous studies or preliminary data suggesting that these doses are relevant to study aluminum toxicity and mitigation by silicon for this species? The lack of this information does not allow questioning the relevance and applicability of the results.
The reason why the 50% Hoagland solution was used is not stated. Regarding the application of a pre-treatment with silicon, mention if it is to evaluate the improved tolerance or was applied to determine if there is a temporary effect (the need and relevance of a pre-treatment should be clearly justified). In addition, the mode of application of this silicon is not detailed.
Data analysis:
Since multiple response variables were measured (e.g., root length, Al and Si content, organic acid concentration), a multivariate analysis might be more appropriate to understand the complex relationships between variables and how they affect each other under different treatments.
It is not mentioned whether interactions between different treatments were considered. In experiments with multiple treatments, such as those involving pretreatments and stress, it is often crucial to assess not only main effects but also interactions between treatments.
The use of the LSD test after ANOVA is one way to adjust for multiple comparisons, but may not be the most conservative or appropriate depending on the context of the study. Methods such as Bonferroni or Tukey may be more appropriate to control for type I error rate, especially when multiple comparisons are made.
While the use of SPSS (22.0) and GraphPad Prism (9.0) is mentioned, it would be useful to provide details on the specific procedures used within these programs and how the analyses were set up.
Add additionally.
Details of the growth chamber, brand, etc..
Brand and what type of oven?
For MDA, identify which spectrophotometer was used.
.... For all the methodology, detail equipment, and its origin.
Add references of some methodologies ....
Comments.
Ensure that the discussion is directly linked to the specific results of the experiment and methodologies used. Given the complexity of the treatments and results, the discussion should directly address how differences in treatments might have affected the results.
The discussion addresses the role of Si in mitigating Al toxicity, it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed and mechanistic explanation of how Si interacts with Al at the physiological and molecular level, especially in the context of non-Si accumulating plants such as white clover.
The discussion of organic acid exudation and its relationship to the alleviation of Al toxicity is a complex area. Ensure that the interpretation of these results is consistent with the current literature and clearly explains why certain organic acids are more effective or more induced than others in response to Si and Al stress. The discussion addresses how white clover, as a dicot, responds to Si and Al stress compared to monocots such as rice. It would be useful to delve into how these differences in response might be related to physiological or genetic differences between species and how that affects the generalizability of the results.
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.