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.
I think that this paper will become a valuable resource for people in the field.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have submitted a comprehensively revised manuscript. I am impressed by the diligence and seriousness with which they have addressed the peer review process. They have provided detailed, point-by-point responses to every comment raised by the reviewers and have respected all reasonable suggestions.
The scope of the modifications is significant, resulting in a substantial improvement in the overall quality and clarity of the work. I believe the manuscript has now reached a high standard suitable for publication and requires no further changes.
As this manuscript is a review article, criteria regarding experimental study design and replication of laboratory methods are not applicable. However, regarding the applicable criteria: the literature survey is comprehensive and unbiased, the sources are adequately cited, and the review is organized logically into coherent sections. The authors have successfully structured the information to meet the journal's aims.
Following the comprehensive revisions, the validity of the arguments and the synthesis of the literature have been significantly strengthened. The conclusions are now robust and well-substantiated. The manuscript effectively meets the goals set out in the Introduction, and the inclusion of future research directions adds substantial value to the review.
Dear author, please make the changes requested by the reviewer.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
The manuscript provides a valuable and comprehensive overview. To further enhance its clarity and professionalism, I recommend the following revisions.
Lines 26, 327, 416: The use of a long dash (—) should be reviewed. In these contexts, a comma would be more conventional and improve readability.
Line 41: The abbreviation should be defined as "Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS)", not "ESI". Please correct this initial definition.
Lines 83, 86: The author order in some citations appears inconsistent. Please review all references to ensure they conform to the journal's guidelines.
Lines 119-120: Punctuation related to quotation marks needs to be corrected to follow standard English conventions.
Line 282: "electrolyte leakage rate (EL)" was defined earlier. Please ensure the full term and abbreviation are given only at its first appearance. Also, the phrasing "electrolyte leakage (EL) rate" is non-standard; "relative electrolyte leakage (REL)" or simply "electrolyte leakage (EL)" is more common. Please check for consistency.
Lines 312, 325: "constant phase element (CPE)" and "Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT)" have already been defined. Please use the abbreviations consistently in the latter parts of the manuscript.
Line 320: A space is missing before the parenthesis in "...model(Mancuso et al., 2004a)".
Line 339: The format "Li et al. (Li et al., 2009)" is incorrect. Please change to "Li et al. (2009)".
Line 383: The apostrophe in "roots'" should be checked for correct formatting.
Line 511: The parenthetical "(EIS)" in "impedance spectroscopy (EIS)" is redundant in the conclusion.
Enhance Accessibility: Some technical concepts, like the Constant Phase Element (CPE), are introduced with limited explanation of their biophysical meaning. A brief, more intuitive explanation for plant scientists would make the review more accessible to its target cross-disciplinary audience.
While these criteria are intended for research articles, the design of this review is sound. The inclusion of a Survey Methodology section is a particular strength, demonstrating a rigorous and transparent approach. The overall structure is logical and well-organized.
The article meets all applicable standards for this section. No comment.
The conclusions are valid and supported by the cited literature.
To strengthen the overall argument, the manuscript would benefit from a more critical perspective. The review currently presents a uniformly positive view of EIS. A brief discussion of any studies where EIS produced ambiguous results or failed to correlate with traditional methods would provide a more balanced and robust assessment.
Overall, this is a well-written and timely review that effectively synthesizes a complex engineering technique for a plant science audience. The topic is highly relevant, and the manuscript provides a valuable resource for researchers in the field.
The primary improvements needed have been detailed in the previous sections. A thorough proofreading to correct the minor formatting and consistency issues, alongside the inclusion of a more critical perspective on the limitations of EIS, will elevate this from a good review to an excellent one. I believe the manuscript will be a strong contribution to the literature following these revisions.
The manuscript is written in clear, professional, and unambiguous English.
The topic of this review is relatively narrow, but it is relevant and within the scope of the journal. The motivation for the work is clearly stated.
The abstract does not indicate that the manuscript is a literature review, as is specified only at the end of the introduction. I recommend making this clear in the abstract (and even in the title).
Although the authors state that a systematic search strategy was employed and some related criteria are described, the results of this search are not presented in a systematic way. For example, it is not specified how many papers were initially identified according to the criteria, how many were excluded, or on what basis the final set of papers was selected for discussion.
The identified studies are presented in a largely narrative manner, without an explicit organizing principle. I suggest including a summary table listing all reviewed studies along with their main features, including publication year.
As a reader, I would also be interested in learning which study first proposed the use of impedance methods to investigate plant cold resistance.
The description of the impedance methods is confusing. The relationships among the various impedance parameters are not clearly explained, which may leave readers uncertain about their interconnections. Moreover, too little technical information is provided about the measurement technologies. In particular, a more thorough description of the electrode geometries and materials is needed, as these are critical to understanding the methods and results.
Both the conclusions in the abstract and in the main manuscript should be more concise and limited to factual statements. I recommend including in the manuscript a Discussion or "Future Perspectives"
The manuscript could be substantially shortened, as several sentences and paragraphs repeat points that are already clear or self-evident.
As noted above, the authors claim that a systematic search strategy was employed. However, this level of systematization is not reflected in the results.
The manuscript presents numerous results, concepts, and issues that will certainly be of interest to researchers in the field. It undoubtedly contains valuable information. However, as already mentioned, the description of the impedance methods is confusing and, in some instances, inaccurate. For example, the Cole model already introduces the concept of a non-ideal capacitance, which effectively corresponds to the constant phase element (CPE). A thorough revision of the presented impedance methods is therefore necessary.
In several sections, the manuscript reads like a white paper on impedance methods for plant monitoring, while in others it resembles a literature review. Unfortunately, in my view, it does not fully succeed in either role. I would recommend presenting it primarily as a white paper, referring to previous studies as illustrative examples rather than framing it as a review article. However, as mentioned earlier, substantial improvement is needed in the presentation of impedance methods and the associated technologies.
The manuscript is in clear english, literature references provide sufficient context of the explored field, the structure is according to a review article, figures are limited (two) and not tables or raw data are provided. The subject reviewed is of broad interest in cross-disciplinary, and is in the scope of PeerJ. The topic characterization of plants trough electrical impedance spectroscopy has been reviewed in some previous studies, but author's contribution focused on the Low-temperature stress in a different point of view. The introduction provided is clear, motivation oriented in future directions for the integration of impedance spectroscopy with artificial intelligence in plant stress resistance research seems a suitable justification.
The survey methodology is not completely comprehensive or organized to best coverage the subject, as authors have mentioned, many studies have combined EIS with classic physiological and biochemical indicators to enrich the understanding of cold tolerance mechanisms. A summary or table of application of EIS compared with various physiological and biochemical indicators used in cold tolerance plants and its main results is missing.
The impact of the analyzed literature is partially relevant; the novelty is not fully validated. Selecting an appropriate equivalent circuit model is crucial for a better understanding of the bioelectrical properties of the plant sample being characterized. While the authors have briefly described typical Cole electrical models used to monitor the electrical properties of plant samples during EIS measurements, in this reviewer's opinion, a comprehensive analysis of the selection of the appropriate circuit topology and its fitting to the experimental data published to date is lacking. Specifically, a review of the various proposed parameters, such as Re, Ri, Cm, and the relaxation time constant, for analyzing the effects of low-temperature stress on cell structure and function could substantially increase the interest of this review to a broader scientific and academic audience interested in the topic. In addition, a particular and extended conclusion regarding future directions for the integration EIS with artificial intelligence in plant stress resistance research must be implemented.
In this review, the authors propose as their main objective "to provide a comprehensive technical and theoretical basis for the application of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) in the study of cold resistance in plants," as well as "to provide methodological references for the use of EIS in the selection of germplasm resources and in breeding practices." However, these objectives are not clearly defined in the conclusions, which support the idea of establishing a link between physiology and engineering, the expectation that EIS will move from the laboratory to the field, and its potential role in the discovery and cultivation of stress-resistant varieties. Nevertheless, specific conclusions regarding the objectives proposed in this review are lacking.
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.