The Dwarfing Effects of Different Plant Growth Retardants on Magnolia wufengensis L.Y. Ma et L. R. Wang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article «The dwarfing effects of different plant growth retardants on Magnolia wufengensisis» presented to the Forests journal is devoted to important and topical problems, which have a pronounced applied value. It is also of interest as a fundamental research. This article is of great interest to the world scientific community. The authors have significantly revised the text of manuscript. Summing up, the topic of the study is interesting. However, I highly recommend that authors, when preparing future articles, carefully proofread the text of article before submitting. I am not a native English speaker. However, while reading the revised article, I noticed annoying errors and inaccuracies that can be found even in the section titles. For example,
line 230 3.2. Dwarfing effects of PGRs on physiological…… and biochemical indicators???
line 312 3.4. Effects of different concentrations of uniconazole at on morphology → Effects of different concentrations of uniconazole on morphology
Sincerely,
reviewer
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
- …… However, I highly recommend that authors, when preparing future articles, carefully proofread the text of article before submitting. I am not a native English speaker. However, while reading the revised article, I noticed annoying errors and inaccuracies that can be found even in the section titles.
Response: We are very sorry for this problem. We have carefully revised the language format, spelling, and grammar of the full manuscript, and invited language experts to polish it again. We have corrected many small errors that were not noticed during the last submission.
- line 230 3.2. Dwarfing effects of PGRs on physiological…… and biochemical indicators???
Response: Line 235 “3.2. Dwarfing effects of PGRs on physiology”; Line 350 “3.5. Effects of different concentrations of uniconazole on physiology”
- line 312 3.4. Effects of different concentrations of uniconazole at on morphology → Effects of different concentrations of uniconazole on morphology
Response: Line 312: we deleted “at”.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the manuscript entitled number: forest-1033193, entitled: "The dwarfing effects of different plant growth retardants in Magnolia wufengensis", is a very good study, making an important contribution to their field of research. The authors have made all suggested changes and responded to suggestions made in order to improve this manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
- Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response: We are very sorry for the language problem. We have carefully revised the language format, spelling, and grammar of the full manuscript, and invited language experts to polish it.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented article is devoted to important and topical problems, which have a pronounced applied value. It is also of interest as a fundamental research. This article is of great interest to the world scientific community. However, unfortunately, there are both insignificant and significant remarks, as well as issues that should be taken into account.
- All numerical values (mm, cm, % and other) must be reduced to tenths;
- Tables 2-4. What do one and two asterisks mean? There is no decryption, which must be taken out separately in the signature after the table;
- Unfortunately, I have a lot of questions about Figures 1-3. What do the first three columns mean (Unicon, PP333 and ProCa)? Is this control without PGRs treatment? If so, then it should be moved to the histogram legend. What do the letters and error bars mean? This was completely incomprehensible to me from section 2.4. Are these Duncan's multiple range test or some other? The same applies to Figures 3-5.
- In my opinion, the results section is presented excessively and requires reduction.
- In my opinion, the title of the article is unfortunate. As a suggestion, the title of the article may be «The dwarfing effects of different plant growth retardants on the Magnolia wufengensis»
Minor corrections:
- Lines 81 -82 «spraying at different concentrations different numbers of times on plant growth vary greatly». You need to add references.
- Lines 295-296 «Its mechanism of action is to catalyze oxidative coupling of tyrosine to stop cells from extending [27,28]» — should be moved to discussion section.
- Lines 311- 312 «When plants are under adverse conditions, they can adapt by increasing the content of soluble protein [29].» — should be transfer to discussion section. the same true for 326, 349, 376, 411.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article number forests-879865, entitled: "Study on the dwarfing effects of different plant growth retardants on Magnolia wufengensis", has important deficiencies, I think that there is still enough to develop the discussion as well as improve the writing of the results. It is a fairly descriptive and basic manuscript. In its current version, it is not recommended to accept it for publication in this journal.
Others point
Abstract.
It is suggested to indicate the concentrations of the PGRs that were evaluated.
Line 20-21. It should be indicated which treatment is being related.
Line 21-23. You must clarify if this happens in all evaluated treatments.
Line 26. What is the optimal concentration? There is no previous history to understand this sentence.
Introduction
Line 38. It is suggested to summarize as "genus and subgenus Magnolia."
Line 63. Write full name not abbreviation (PGRs).
- In the introduction, it is not clear if the effects mentioned are in all PGRs or in specific treatments. It is suggested to mention evaluations for each one of the evaluated PGRs, to give clarity regarding the effects on the physiology and morphology of the plant. The introduction presented lacks depth.
Materials and methods
Line 106. Indicate a reference number or the origin of the product used.
Line 108. It is suggested to substantiate the times used.
It is requested to clarify the experimental design used. (The analysis can be multifactorial because they used 3 varieties, 3 concentrations and 3 times (3x3x3)).
Line 141- 144. Add reference "Morphological investigation".
Line 149. It is suggested to define "Functional leaves". Indicate the time of day when the samples were taken.
It is not clear whether he used the same plant for the initial and final extractions.
Line 160-163. Add reference.
Results
-The legend of images and tables should be improved. For example, indicate what asteristics, abbreviations, units of measure mean.
-It is suggested to indicate values when mentioning that the concentration of the evaluated parameter increased or decreased. For example, you can indicate the variation in percentage and mention with which variable you compare it.
-In addition, when it states that it has significant differences, it is suggested to mention the p-value.
Line 218. If it indicates that it is with respect to the control group, it should indicate which is the figure that shows this variation
Line 231-232. Gene expression was not evaluated, if it is information that compares the results presented, it should be indicated in the discussion.
- It is suggested not to mention information that helps to compare or give an explanation to the results obtained in "results". That information should be indicated in the discussion. Ex. line 276-279, 293-296.
Discussion
- It is suggested to develop the main results, it is necessary to relate the parameters evaluated and the possible modifications in the physiology of the plant. It is not clear why it indicates that the results obtained to improve the resistance of M. wufengensis. It must indicate how the application of the evaluated treatments improves resistance. It is suggested to propose mechanisms.
