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 addressed all reviewer and editor comments comprehensively, and I have personally assessed the revisions as Editor, finding the current version satisfactory; this manuscript is now ready for publication.
Authors addressed well all major points raised by the Editor and referees. I only have a small remark: authors should specify the R packages used for statistical analyses (lines 199-200).
I appreciate the efforts that the authors have made to address my varied suggestions- I think the ms
is much improved by the revisions. I don't have any further concerns at this time。
I appreciate the efforts that the authors have made to address my varied suggestions- I think the ms
is much improved by the revisions. I don't have any further concerns at this time。
I appreciate the efforts that the authors have made to address my varied suggestions- I think the ms
is much improved by the revisions. I don't have any further concerns at this time。
I appreciate the efforts that the authors have made to address my varied suggestions- I think the ms
is much improved by the revisions. I don't have any further concerns at this time。
The manuscript addresses an important topic, but it lacks some details that affect its overall clarity and the robustness of the findings. First, in abstract (line 18), the authors shoudl specifiy clearly how many concentrations of O₃ were tested, which is essential for understanding the experimental design. Additionally, in lines 98-112, the description of the experimental setup would benefit greatly from a figure to illustrate the design, as it is currently difficult to follow. Furthermore, line 105 references "Farha et al., 2023," but this citation is incomplete. Given the importance of the O₃ concentrations tested, a brief summary of the experiment should be inclueded, despite being the same of a previous study, including the control condition, which is currently not clear.
Line 122 does not indicate how many points were measured for stomatal conductance and gas exchange. This lack of specificity weakens the presentation of the data. Since control conditions are not well explained, comparisons of biomass, chlorophyll concentration, and other variables against a control condition are expected but absent. I would take inspiration in the figures made by Li et al. (2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.182) and Chen et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01764) would typically be included to make such comparisons.
The validity of the findings is also questionable due to these omissions. While the results suggest that sorghum is resilient to O₃ exposure, showing no significant impact on biomass, the absence of clear comparisons with a control condition is a major flaw. The decline in chlorophyll concentration is noted but not sufficiently explained, and there is a lack of depth in discussing the trends observed in the data. A more thorough discussion of the reasons for the minimal impact on biomass, especially considering previous studies that show greater sensitivity in similar crops, would strengthen the manuscript. Additionally, extending the results section to provide a more detailed interpretation of the trends across O₃ concentrations would be beneficial.
While the manuscript presents interesting findings regarding sorghum tolerance to O₃, it lacks the necessary detail in key areas. The authors should clarify the concentrations of O₃ used, improve the explanation of the control conditions, and provide more thorough comparisons with established studies. Moreover, incorporating the reviewers' comments will be necessary improve overall quality of the manuscript.
Paper aims to estimate the effects of elevated ozone concentrations on grain sorghum biomass and leaf physiology. Authors conclude, that grain sorghum is tolerant to ozone pollution, consistent with precious studies. This paper is well written and easy to read, but I have several minor concerns regarding this manuscript.
L16-17, this sentence needs to be rephrased because previous studies have shown that sorghum genotypes are tolerant to ozone.
L21-22, it seems that this result is not related to the main objectives of the paper.
L79 and following sentences, a new reference is missed, PNAS, 120 (46): e2313591120.
L103-104, it is better to provide ozone concentrations used in this study.
L114, why this genotype was selected?
L115, please clarify why sorghum plants were only fumigated for three months, not for five months.
L123-131, why use two systems for stomatal conductance measurement?
L130-131, provide conditions for gas exchange measurement.
Table 2, please provide environmental variables (L108-110) for each chamber.
The introduction does an excellent job of describing how ozone enters the plant and causes cellular damage, as well as a description of the two predominant ozone exposure metrics and their strengths and weaknesses. The authors are correct in that elevated ozone has been less studied in C4 crops (lines 79-80), however they do not cite work done to understand maize responses to ozone. For example, a meta-analysis on historic maize and soybean yield responses to ozone was published in 2015 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509777112). The writing throughout is clear and unambiguous and uses professional English.
The authors make a clear justification for the analysis in tropical sorghum carried out in this manuscript. The sampling and statistical analysis methods are clearly written. The ozone concentration and POD6 calculations are presented in the results section (Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1). The section however, describing the calculation of POD6 (128-129), could provide more information so the reader can more fully grasp how the calculation was done.
The results are clearly presented in the figures and text. It would be helpful to the reader if the underlying data that is not presented as in-text figure or table would be given a reference for the supplemental table it is found in. For example, the leaf morphological trait data (180-185) is not present in the text (but in the supporting data) and an in-text reference indicating this would be helpful. All supplemental data files have sufficient and clear meta data provided. The discussion and conclusions are well stated and limited to the supporting results.
Overall I think this is a sound and well-written manuscript that makes a meaningful contribution to our understanding of how C4 plants from various environments respond to elevated ozone.
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.