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 changes you make are sufficient for your manuscript to be accepted.
Congratulations
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your manuscript will be accepted after a few minor changes requested by the reviewer. Please complete.
Dear Editor,
All the previous comments have been addressed by the authors.
NA
NA
NA
This is a revision of previous submission. The report writing is clear and concise, with a great improvement compared to previous submission, recommend submission.
Experiment is well-designed and the research idea is original
Valid findings.
I am grateful to the authors for their hard work, as they were mostly responsible for making the necessary adjustments. However, there are still some more to be done.
* The scientific name of the species is Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl, which should be corrected throughout the text.
* Latin terms, such as "in vivo" within the text (Line 437) be used in italics.
*There are still inaccuracies in the citations, such as "Rong et al, 2012; this should either be Rong et al 2021 or Rong and Jun 2012", "Qui and Xiao 2013 not Qui et al 2013", same for Farhangi et al. 2017 and Thakur et al 2013, etc. there is no Wei et al 2007 in the ref. List
* The citation must not be to He, 2000 if the techniques originate from Li Hesheng's work.
*The procedure used to perform the variance analysis should be mentioned in the material and method section, the name of the Statistical program is not enough.
*It has been stated that for many parameters, as the cultivation time increases, the parameter examined at low temperature also increases. Nevertheless, despite low temperature treatments, it is evident from the graphs that the factors taken into account are higher in plants with longer growing durations. Put another way, the writers ought to do more in the way of highlighting the impact of low temperatures.
*It was stated that the amount of soluble protein was different for two different plant ages at different temperatures. However, the maximum value in the figure is -20 °C for all ages.
*It is stated that the POD activity did not differ by the length of cultivation. However, Figure shows that there is a significant difference, particularly at -10°C.
Dear Authors
Your manuscript is reviewed by the three experts and suggested that your current manuscript might be accepted after revision
1. Write the full forms prior to use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
2. Correct the grammatical errors in Abstract section line no. 28-29.
3. The weather conditions during the study period needs to be stated clearly along with time period.
4. The novelty of the study needs to be highlighted.
5. The English of the manuscript needs to be improved by a fluent English speaker.
1. The period of the experiment needs to be mentioned.
2. For stable data the study needs to be conducted for atleast three years.
Report needs to be studied for longer period of time for stability of data
C1: In this revised submission, the issues raised by previous reviewers have been properly addressed. Formatting and spelling errors have been corrected. The experimental design is discussed in detail, and any incorrect or duplicate descriptions and data have been rectified. Figures and tables have been appropriately updated.
C2: Line 50, the last semicolon should be a period, or it can be deleted.
no comment
no comment
*The manuscript still requires significant linguistic adjustment. Despite the writers' multiple stated edits, the expressions are difficult to understand in terms of language; accordingly, I kindly ask the writers to have a native English speaker edit and revise their text.
*As Reviewer 3 mentioned the scientific name of the species is Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J. Presl, should be corrected throughout the text.
* It is recommended that all Latin terms, such as "in vivo" within the text and/or "scientific names" in reference list, be used in italics.
* It would be more accurate to use the word tolerance rather than resistance throughout the entire text, including the title, since we can not talk about complete resistance to abiotic stresses.
* The term "electronic conductivity" should be replaced with "electrical conductivity" throughout the text
* The results in the abstract and results sections are presented in an incomprehensible manner. It takes additional effort to figure out that the intervals provided are determined by the age of the plants.
*It would be preferable to say “osmolits” or “osmoprotectants” rather than “osmotic adjustment substances”
* In Abstarct section line 45-47: “……………..could improve stress damage by increasing……” This version of the sentence emphasizes that damage caused by stress increases rather than stress tolerance enhancement.
* In Line 91 and Line 99: What does the “bitter resistance” refers to?
* There are citations that are cited in the text but are not in the Reference list, or vice versa, and the year of publication is different in the text and in the list. Writers should be more careful in this regard.
* "Physiological and biochemical parameters" or a similar title should be chosen over "Determination method" since various data are determined with all the analyses.
* The method used to measure POD activity has been repeated twice.
* The procedure used to perform the variance analysis should be mentioned in the material and method section regardless of whether it was mentioned when findings were presented.
* The scientific analysis of the findings should be well improved. Percentages of improvements (or folds/times) should be more highlighted in all sections.
* It has been stated that for many parameters, as the cultivation time increases, the parameter examined at low temperature also increases. Nevertheless, despite low temperature treatments, it is evident from the graphs that the factors taken into account are higher in plants with longer growing durations. Put another way, the writers ought to do more in the way of highlighting the impact of low temperatures.
* It is assumed that samples were obtained from the same plants for a period of 15 years when it is stated that "as the cultivation time increased, there was an increase in......." in all parameters studied. Use a more comprehensible expression instead.
* Presented figures all lack of standart error bars that outline the measurement's precision by displaying the estimated error or uncertainty.
* Comparing plant ages and stress treatments independently would help make the data easier to understand.
* In Line 222-223: It was stated that the amount of soluble protein was different for two different plant ages at different temperatures. However, the maximum value in the figure is -20 °C for all ages.
* Chlorophyll content was not included in the results section except Table 2. .
*Line 271-272: It is stated that the POD activity did not differ by the length of cultivation. However, Figure shows that there is a significant difference, particularly at -10°C.
*Discussion: The current study findings should be discussed in a better manner and the pure literature review should be avoided.
* Soluble protein was not included in the discussion section.
*An appropriate Conclusion part that summarizes the findings of the present study must be written. To provide more justification of your study discussions must be fluently linked between introduction and results and the conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
*The critical temperature for these plants at various growth stages should be mentioned in the Conclusion part of a study investigating into cold tolerance.
Dear Authors
Your manuscript is reviewed by the three experts and suggested that your current manuscript might be accepted after major revision.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff 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) #]
.
.
.
Comments:
1. Title: All the scientific names must need to be written in italics throughout the whole manuscript.
2. Abstract: 19-20: Write briefly in one or two sentences about the standard methodologies used in the research.
3. Abstract: Line number 21-23: Include numerical values against the results.
4. Abstract: Line number 25: Species name should not start with a capital letter.
5. Abstract: line number 28-31: Support the results with numerical values.
6. Keywords: Arrange all the keywords in alphabetical order.
7. Introduction: Line number 39-41: "Special economic tree species"... What exactly author wants to say??? Additionally, after completion of each statement there must be a full stop ".", wright??
8. Introduction: Line number 42: "....aromatic tree species in the north is growing"?? What did the author mean by "in the north"??
9. Introduction: Line number 46: "achievements have been achieved"- Author needs to re-write the phrases with more suitable words.
10. Introduction: Line number 54: Spacing issue. Avoid such kind of mistakes throughout the whole manuscript.
11. Introduction: Line number 64-65: "Ni obtained that, instead author should write as "Ni et al. (2020) obtained that.....".
12. Introduction: Line number 74-78: The study has the novelty factor but author also needs to establish the gaps in a more scientifically sound manner.
13. Materials and Methods: Line number 80: Write all the scientific names in italics throughout the whole manuscript.
14. Materials and Methods: Line number 81: Provide the latitude, longitude and altitude of the collection site and write the name and designation of the identifier in this section of the MS.
15. Materials and Methods: Line number 96-103: All the methods are okay but against each of these standard techniques author needs to cite references as well.
16. Materials and Methods: Line number 105-113: All the standard methodologies must need to be supported with appropriate references.
17. Results: Line number 140: When you are writing as "respectively" author needs to write against whom and "against" should not be shown in a range.
18. Results: Line number 158: In order: in order.
19. Results: Line number 159-160: The statement is incomplete. Author needs to re-write it.
20. Results: Line number 159: Present all the Figures and Tables in uniform manner throughout the whole manuscript.
21. Results: Line number 173: All the units also need to be written in uniform manner throughout the whole manuscript.
22. Results: Line number 179-180: Write all the units in uniform manner, throughout the whole manuscript.
23. Results: Line number 232: C. Camphora should be written as C. camphora.
24. Table 1: In Table 1, authors have shown the chlorophyll contents against the ages of the plant, wright?? Then the title should also highlight the content of the table as well. Re-write the title of the Table 1.
25. Results: Line number 243: After the decimal write the numbers in uniform manner. Most suitably two digits.
26. Discussion: Line number 262, 269: The scientific name must be presented in italics form.
27. References: All the references strictly must need to be in accordance to the Journal format only. And in the references as well the scientific names must need to be presented in italics. Additionally, all the journals’ names must need to be abbreviated in their standard abbreviate forms.
28. Additionally, the revised version of the manuscript must needs to be devoid of any grammatical or typical errors.
Ding et.al studied the physiological response of C.camphor L under low-temperature stress conditions. The manuscript and figure captions have many formatting issues, missing a space or having extra spaces in the main text, using unnecessary capital letters, referring to the wrong figure and the data presented in the main text is different from the corresponding figure.
I recommend more rigorous proofreading before submitting the manuscript next time.
Here are some examples; the rest are highlighted with red markers in the attachment.
1) All the figure captions have two rectangular, please remove them.
2) Line 134: MDA content is present in Figure 2 instead of Figure 1.
3) Line 136: relative water content is in Figure 3 instead of Figure 1.
4) Line 159: It can be seen from Figure 2 that the content of soluble protein (Figure 4)... I think is Figure 4 instead of Figure 2.
5) Line 177: "Shown in Figure 6, the soluble sugar content ..... and Line 180 the soluble sugar content ... " Figure 6 is about proline content instead of soluble sugar content, and soluble sugar content is already discussed in previous paragraphs.
6) Line 202-209 is exactly the same as Line 194-201.
7) Line 168- Line 169. " The maximum value of soluble protein appeared at -15C at 1y, 5y, and at-20 C at 10y, 15y. " For 1y, 5y, 10y, and 15y, the maximum values of soluble protein are all under -20C according to Figure 4. Besides, there should be a space between "at" and "-20".
Determination methods:
Line 101-103: Please provide experimental details for the soluble sugar, proline, soluble protein content, and protective enzyme activity methods determination methods.
Line 140: "One-way ANOVA result is not presented in Figure 1". Please include one-way ANOVA results.
Line 212: "(Fig. 8) From 1y to 15y, the increased range was 20.12%, 30.36%..... and 15.15% ", the increasing percentage is inconsistent with the data in Fig. 8. Take 4C for example, 1y is ~800, and 15y is below 400, so the number should be at least 100%. Same for the rest of the data.
Line 217: "However, when the temperature reduces to -20C, ... the effect of cultivation years on SOP activity had no significant difference. " Please include the statistical test results.
Table 2: Please make a PCA plot for the PCA analysis.
1. The abstract should start with a sentence of rationale.
2. In the abstract section, mention in brief the methodology use for the study.
3. The English of the MS needs to be improved and some sentences needs to be redrafted such that the meaning is well defined through them.
4. The scientific name of the species should be Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J.Presl, check and rectify the same.
5. Follow the binomial nomenclature for scientific name, the species name should not start with capital letter.
6. The north mentioned in the introduction section needs to be clarified about what exct location it is mentioning. Rectify the same.
7. The materials and method on collection of sample needs to be clearer. Redraft accordingly.
8. Words like in vivo should be in italics.
9. The discussion needs to be elaborated in context of the results.
The methodology needs to be elaborated for better explanation.
Adequate
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.