Next Article in Journal
Empowering Forestry Management and Farmers’ Income Growth Through the Digital Economy—Empirical Evidence from Guizhou Province, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Seed Preparation Methods for Increasing the Germination of Sour Cherry (Prunus cerasus L.)
Previous Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Trunk-Injected Pesticide Residue for Management of Pine Wilt Disease in Pinus koraiensis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Topicalities in the Forest Ecology of Seeds
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Light Drought Stress Positively Influenced Root Morphological and Endogenous Hormones in Pinus massoniana Seedlings Inoculated with Suillus luteus

Forests 2024, 15(11), 1997; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111997
by Yi Wang 1,*, Youzhi Ren 1, Guiying Tu 2, Xuemei Luo 1 and Zhiyuan Zhang 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Forests 2024, 15(11), 1997; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15111997
Submission received: 14 October 2024 / Revised: 30 October 2024 / Accepted: 7 November 2024 / Published: 13 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Topicalities in Forest Ecology of Seeds, 2nd Edition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Effects of Suillus Luteus on the Root Morphology and Endogenous Hormones of Pinus massoniana Seedlings under Drought Stress

By Yi Wang * , Youzhi Ren , Guiying Tu , Xuemei Luo , Zhiyuan Zhang

This manuscript is dedicated to the study of the effect of the endomycorrhizal fungus Suillus luteus on root growth and resistance to different levels of drought stress in Pinus massoniana pine.

 - Major Essential Revisions:

1. A review of the literature revealed one article on a similar topic: Qi, J., Yin, D. Effects of Suillus luteus on the Growth, Photosynthesis, Stomata, and Root System of Pinus tabulaeformis Under Drought Stress. J Plant Growth Regul 42, 3486–3497 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-022-10809-9. Authors should at least cite this publication, and it is better to emphasise the novelty of their manuscript.

2. In the introduction, the authors should explain why Suillus luteus was chosen as a drought resistance agent for pines.

3. The materials and methods do not explain exactly how the experiment was conducted in relation to different levels of drought.

4. There is no information in the discussion about mechanisms or fungus-plant interactions that alter the hormonal composition of plants. Does the fungus synthesise hormones or are there molecular mechanisms by which the fungus activates the biosynthesis of some phytohormones and inhibits others?

5. In addition, authors should structure the manuscript according to the requirements of the journal.

- Minor Essential Revisions:

Please see the pdf file.

 

 Decision: - major revisions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides an interesting and relevant investigation into the effects of ectomycorrhizal fungi (ECMF) on drought resistance in Pinus massoniana in China. The structure is clear, and the study is well-designed coherently.

However, there are some areas where improvement in clarity, grammar, and scientific presentation would enhance its readability and impact:

 

1/ Correct Suillus luteus in the title. It is recommended that more precise phrasing be used in the abstract, such as "Light drought stress positively influenced root morphological development in P. massoniana seedlings inoculated with S. luteus" Overall, grammatical and language proofreading is required.

 

2/ Line 17: Clarify that S12 and S13 are fungal strains upon their first mention. The abstract should stand alone and provide a comprehensive reflection of the study. In this context, Line 20: Specify which strain (S12 or S13) led to the observed increases, and provide mean values for key parameters such as root length, surface area, etc. The same applies to Line 23 regarding the hormone concentrations. Include specific values for the increased levels, particularly for leaves, and similarly for the decreased ABA levels, specifying the lower value, is it in the root? and the corresponding treatment?. In Line 24, consider replacing “morphology” with “development” for greater precision.

 

3/ Line 90: Briefly describe the specific characteristics of S12 and S13, indicating where the strains differ to help distinguish their effects.

 

4/ Lines 121-124: Explain how the different drought levels (ND, LD, MD, and SD) were applied and how the exact water concentrations were determined to achieve these levels?.

 

5/ Line 125: The title in this M&M part should be more specific and reflect the section's content. Avoid general titles that do not align with the detailed content.

 

6/ Line 154: “Mapping” is inappropriate in statistical analysis. Clarify what this entails, whether it refers to figure construction, charting..etc.

 

7/ Line 161: Clarify the meaning of LD (Light Drought).

 

8/ Line 168: Enhance the quality of the figures. Some labels are unclear, so ensure they are readable. Additionally, discuss how specific parameters (e.g., in LD) exceed those observed under ND (Normal Drought) conditions. This discrepancy should be addressed in the discussion.

 

9/ Line 304: Clarify which hormone contents were used in the correlation analysis, were they from the root, stem, or leaves? Or were they mean values or total amounts? Be sure to explain this in both the Methods and Results sections.

 

10/ Line 322: In the discussion section, explain why GA levels were not higher under LD, despite better growth being recorded. Similarly, discuss the behavior of other hormones aside from ABA, which was higher under LD. Normally, ABA should inhibit growth compared to control seedlings (ND), but it didn’t. This needs to be addressed.

 

 

Addressing these points would make the manuscript a more comprehensive and scientifically rigorous study that is easier to interpret. The authors are encouraged to make the necessary adjustments to communicate their findings more clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be checked

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates the influence of Suillus luteus on the root morphology and endogenous hormones of Pinus massoniana seedlings under drought stress, addressing a pertinent topic in forestry and plant biology. This research is of considerable significance, as it explores the relationship between ectomycorrhizal fungi (ECMF) inoculation and enhanced drought resistance, particularly in afforestation efforts across subtropical regions. The study's methodology is robust, employing factorial designs with appropriate controls. However, there are areas requiring refinement, particularly in the presentation of statistical analyses, the clarity of figures and tables, and the depth of result interpretation.

Comments:

1.      The title could be more succinct by omitting "Effects of" and focusing on the core aspects of the study. Consider revising for enhanced clarity.

2.      While the strain storage and handling procedures are adequately outlined, there is a lack of detail regarding the validation of hormone assays (Line 133). Were these assays replicated? This should be clearly specified.

3.      Although the experimental design is generally well-structured, further clarification on the sample size calculation and its appropriateness for detecting significant effects is required, especially given the variability inherent in drought stress responses.

4.      In Figure 1, the axis labels are unclear. Ensure that the full names of abbreviations (e.g., LD, MD) are provided in the figure legend, rather than solely referenced in the text.

5.      The paper mentions the use of two-way ANOVA, but there is insufficient detail regarding the post-hoc tests. Were corrections for multiple comparisons applied? This should be elaborated upon.

6.      In Figure 2, the graphs depicting GA concentrations are ambiguous with respect to non-significant trends. The text should explicitly state which trends were non-significant and the rationale for including these in the discussion.

7.      The discussion of ZR concentrations is underdeveloped. A more comprehensive analysis of the physiological role of ZR in drought tolerance is necessary, particularly in light of the mixed results under severe drought (SD) stress.

8.      The labelling in Figure 4, particularly regarding the differences between S12 and S13 inoculations, requires clarification. Were these differences statistically significant? This should be clearly indicated.

9.      The figure legends throughout the manuscript are overly brief. They should include more information on the statistical tests employed and clearly specify the meaning of asterisks and error bars.

10.  Certain key results, particularly the hormone ratios, are insufficiently explored. The discussion should expand on the significance of IAA/ABA and (IAA+ZR+GA)/ABA ratios in determining drought tolerance.

11.  All tables should be reviewed for consistency in the use of decimal places and units. Table 2, for example, lacks clarity in its presentation of hormone ratios (Line 282-285).

12.  The Pearson correlation coefficients provided are insightful, but the results would benefit from additional visual aids, such as a correlation matrix, to more clearly illustrate the relationships between variables.

13.  In the discussion on GA hormones (Line 320), it is suggested that inoculation maintains GA levels under drought conditions, yet this is not statistically significant in all instances. This nuance should be explored in greater depth.

14.  The discussion of hormone ratios is intriguing, but it would benefit from a more detailed exploration of the mechanisms linking hormone signalling with root architecture.

15.  Certain phrases throughout the manuscript are awkwardly phrased (e.g., Line 241-243). I recommend another round of proofreading to enhance fluency and clarity.

16.  Ensure that units of measurement are consistently applied throughout the manuscript (e.g., g·kg⁻¹, mmol·L⁻¹) to avoid confusion.

17.  Consider including supplementary data to provide further elaboration on the hormone assay methodology or soil chemical properties, thereby adding depth to the research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.      Certain phrases throughout the manuscript are awkwardly phrased (e.g., Line 241-243). I recommend another round of proofreading to enhance fluency and clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant changes to the manuscript according to my suggestions. All my comments have been taken into account. I think it's worth accepting this manuscript in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have enhanced the quality of the manuscript. They have responded to the comments, and the manuscript can now be considered for publication.

 

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has undergone significant improvements, as the authors have effectively addressed all previous comments. I have no further remarks, and I believe it is now suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

Back to TopTop