Effects of Antimony Stress on Growth and Physiology of 10 Genotypes of Catalpa bungei
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper 'Effects of Antimony stress on growth and physiology of 10 genotypes of Catalpa bungei' result interesting for the phytoremediation of the emerging toxic element Antimony. The experiment is well conducted but the data are not well displayed and there are several small mistakes or part that can be improved.
Please follow the comments on the pdf.
First of all put the genotypes name between quotation marks (the name are numbers and they make less easy the reading).
I suggest to put the value of the plant height and change the word "added height value" is generating confusion.
Add in some graphs the statistical analysis and re-check the post-hoc tests.
Moreover, I have to say generally to improve the presentation of the results and the discussion adding more references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
dear authors
see all the comments added in the draft
pay attention to the statistical analysis and interpretation of data
don't repeat data in the discussion and the conclusion
compute the Sb removal by leaves
regards
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all I want to ask why did you use the KSbC4H4O7 that could be a fertilizer, i was used in other papers?
Please add near each value also the std (e.g. xxx +- xxx).
Rewrite the discussion using your result and supporting that with references.
Please check the post-hoc test.
Check at the comments in the pdf
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Where is the answers to reviewers? (many comments were not addressed)
L18 antioxidant enzyme activity -> antioxidant enzyme activities
‘Accumulation’ is still used instead of ‘concentration’ through the whole draft
L28 Under different Sb concentration à Under different Sb concentrations
L183 between aboveground and roots biomass à between aboveground and root biomass
L75 diameter of genotypes 8402, 20-01, 1-1, 5-8 and 63 first increased and then decreased.
L178 we similarly found no significant difference in ground diameter growth among genotypes 5-8, 5-2, 0, 2-8 and 72.
L196 Figure 1 : there is likely a major weakness. There are evidences that the distribution of ANOVA letters is suspect in the 4 graphs. Please provide data of the statistical analysis in the supplemental material
Replace ‘contents’ by ‘concentrations’ in the captions
(Fig 1 to 3)
Same comment for the Fig 2 and Fig 3
L326: BCF is an index of the Sb absorption capacity of Catalpa bungei…..this proxy is not totally relevant due to potential Sb dilution in the biomass of plant parts. Compute the ratio between amount in the soil and amount in the plant parts notably the roots
L339 the macromolecular substances formed after Sb pollution were absorbed by the roots, preventing further damage to the stems and leaves of Catalpa bungei: ….no evidence for that in your paper and no reference
L342: solidify Sb contaminated soil….Sb and soils are not solidified….
(and see other comment on the amount of soil Sb vs. root Sb accumulation (= root biomass x root Sb concentration)
L347: same comment
L351: not consistent with the previous sentence on Sb phytostabilization and with the conclusion
L352: Plants can absorb Sb from the soil; however, knowledge about the transport of Sb in plants and its effects on physiological processes is still limited….a discussion is not an introduction of a mini-review; you have to discuss YOUR results
Conclusion:
L367: it is concentration and not accumulation
L368: it is not ‘Sb levels in genotypes’ ….but Sb concentrations in (here include which plant parts of genotypes)
L371: according to root biomass x root Sb concentration, is the amount of Sb retained in the roots significant as compared to the spiked Sb amount?
L374: when the total soil Sb was below 2000 mg/kg….
L376: when soil Sb concentration reached 2000….
L379: with increasing Sb concentration….in what? concentration must refer to something
L381: differed in their ability to remediate Sb-contaminated soil….we have no evidence that roots retained a significant Sb amount, that the soil Sb pool is decreased or that a significant Sb amount is removed by the aerial parts. In what you have remediated these spiked-Sb soils? These trees are may be only Sb excluders…..no soil remediation is demonstrated, only the tree responses to such Sb soil exposure
L383: again you have to compare the root Sb accumulation (root biomass x root Sb concentration) between the genotypes (and not the root Sb concentrations) to suggest the ranking of these genotypes
Be precise: which phytoremediation options?.
Whole text: Many sentences must be edited with some repeated errors: e.g. roots biomass à root biomass
References: the author guidelines /format is not accurate for many references. Edit
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
