The Impact of Magnetic Field and Gibberellin Treatment on the Release of Dormancy and Internal Nutrient Transformation in Tilia miqueliana Maxim. Seeds

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for your support of my article. Your suggestions are all very professional, which makes my article more complete.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your affirmation of my article. This makes me very honored.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The influence of GA3, a growth regulator (natural chemical/biochemical factor), on breaking seed dormancy is absolutely accurate.

It would be good if the authors got to know it, discussed it and quoted it. Moreover,

the authors should introduce several concentrations of GA3 into the research - at least 3-5 concentrations plus a control.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. Our laboratory has previously conducted relevant experiments and published papers(references [11] [26]) on the optimal concentration of gibberellin to promote the germination of Tilia miqueliana seeds. Unfortunately, we cannot add any content to this section. I'm very sorry about that.

Comments 2: They must also provide additional conversion of GA3 units, e.g. mL x dm 3, and not only did they test two concentrations,

one of which was CONTROL! (concentration: 0 μmol·L−1, 1443 μmol·L−1) and also expressed in moles.

Anyone who calculates them as if they wanted to repeat their experience may produce unwanted errors.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. This is something I didn't consider. 0.5g·L⁻¹GA₃=1443 μmol·L⁻¹GA₃(Only integers are retained in the calculation)

But I don't know where this supplement should go. I'm sorry. If it is convenient for you, I hope you can give me some advice.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    (in red)

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you again for your support and affirmation of my article. I'm very grateful to you. I hope everything goes well with you.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my paper. Your professionalism and attention have greatly benefited me. Thank you for your comments of my paper. I have accepted all your suggestions. If there are any modifications that are not appropriate, please point them out at your convenience.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you very much for your recognition of my article, which makes me feel very honored.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: line 34 : a unique --> an unique

Response 1:(L35)Thank you very much for your careful review of my article. I am very ashamed of the small issue you have discovered. I have made the modifications.

Comments 2: line 38 : propertiesIts --> ??

Response 2:(L40)I'm very sorry for affecting your reading experience. This sentence is missing one ‘.’. It should be ‘properties. Its’.

Comments 3: line 57 : field to Arabidopsis thaliana --> If the genus name of a plant is mentioned earlier, it is followed by an abbreviation in each part

Response 3:(L68)Thank you for your professional advice. The first appearance of the article is ’ Arabidopsis thaliana ‘, and the second appearance is ‘ Arabidopsis ‘. If I don't understand correctly, please let me know and I will make the modifications promptly.

Comments 4:line 68 : dormancy. and i --> The period must be deleted. A thorough review is required.

Response 4:(L79)I apologize for my lack of professionalism, and I also appreciate your careful review. I have deleted’.’. And check the entire text.

Comments 5: line 74 : from the wild population of T. miqueliana in Huang --> At the beginning of each section, write the plant's genus name as its full name. From then on, write in abbreviations.

Response 5:(L85)Thank you for your suggestion. I have changed the abbreviation of the entire text from ‘T. miqueliana’ to ‘ Tilia ‘.

Comments 6: line 101~102 : How about presenting actual photos of the equipment used in the experiment? I think readers will then be able to understand it easily.

Response 6:(L114) Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the photo.

Comments 7: line 123~127 : Seeds being treated at low temperatures were taken out and incubated at 25 degrees. So, how many days of incubation at 25 degrees was used to calculate the germination rate? In other words, does the germination rate in Table 2 represent the germination rate for how many days after culturing at 25 degrees? A clear explanation is needed regarding these parts.

Response 7:(L139)I'm sorry for the imprecision of my article. I have re-added the information.

‘The number of germinated seeds was counted every 2 days until the 30th day.’

Comments 8: line 143~145 : In this part, you must present the p value of the post hoc test.

Response 8:(L220)Thank you for your reminder. I have added the ‘P-value’ in the followed tables.

Comments 9: line 156~160 : The expression of English sentences is awkward. It would be a good idea to edit it into a natural sentence.

Response 9:(236-239)Thank you for pointing out my issue. I have rewritten this paragraph. The content is as follows.

’After 45 days of cold stratification, the germination rates of the seeds subjected to comprehensive treatments could reach 80%, except for M₁₅₀T₂₅G₁₄₄₃, M₁₅₀T₄₅G₁₄₄₃, and M₂₅₀T₈₅G₁₄₄₃. After analysis, the comprehensive treatments had a significant effect on seed dormancy (P<0.05).’

Comments 10: table 2 : It would be better to change 'Cold stratification treatment time /d' to 'treatment methods' in the upper left corner of the table. In other words, it would be better to display 'Cold stratification treatment time /d' right above the cold treatment period in the upper right corner. Also, since the main purpose of this experiment is to check the effect of magnetic field processing, it would be better to express it by grouping the same intensity of magnetic field, then the same time, and then GA processing. In other words, it would be a good idea to create a table that distinguishes between the three factors. Looking at this table, GA processing is grouped together, so it seems that the main factor is GA processing.

Response 10:(L245)Thank you for your suggestion. The original design was indeed inappropriate. I have made changes, and if they are not suitable, I will make further modifications.

Comments 11: table 3 : It would be better to just write B in the table as M.

Response 11:(L259)Thank you for proposing a more suitable abbreviation for me. I have changed 'B' to 'M' in Table 3.

Comments 12: Tables 4-7: It is better to indicate P value rather than F value on the right. Then you can easily tell the difference.

Response 12:(L307)I deeply apologize for the incomplete data. I have followed your advice to add the 'P value' in tables 4-7.

Comments 13: line 298 : Perilla frutescens seeds with a m --> The genus name of the plant is abbreviated.

Response 13:(L394)Thank you very much. Your suggestion has made my paper more standardized. I have changed it to ' Perilla seeds with a m '

Comments 14: Line 354 n Glycine max var. seeds --> Is there any variant name for the plant?

Response 14:(L455)I am very sorry for the incomplete information. I did not find any other names after consulting the materials, which may be their own variety..

Comments 15: line 405 : gibberellin (GA3), a --> Numbers are written as subscripts.

Response 15:(L510)You are too careful, which makes me feel very ashamed. Thank you for your patience. I have made the correction.

Comments 16 Cited literature: Please re-examine the notation format of cited literature. Journal abbreviations, italics, or typography must be corrected and supplemented.

Response 16: Thank you for your reminder. I have rechecked. If there are any more errors, I will make the necessary revisions immediately after returning the manuscript.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor editing of English language required

Response 1: Thank you very much for your evaluation. I have fully adopted and made modifications to your language suggestions.

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you very much for your patience. Your suggestion is very professional. Wishing you a pleasant day.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you for your careful guidance. Your suggestions are very professional, and I have adopted all of your suggestions. If I have made any corrections, please point them out at your convenience.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract is skillfully composed and presented. The abstract's components are all expressed in straightforward manner.

Line 30: It is necessary to include the term "seed treatment" in the keywords.

Response 1:(L31)Thank you for your professional advice. I have added "; seed treatment " to the keywords

Comments 2: Line 52-62: You have given thorough information regarding magnetic field treatment. Kindly provide information regarding the impact of gibberellin acid on the process of seed germination.

Response 2:(L56)Thank you for pointing out the missing information in this section. I have made a supplement.

’ Gibberellin is essential during seed development [12] and enhances the ability of seeds to resist external environmental stress during germination [13,14].GA signaling regulators effect seed dormancy and germination [15]. GA3 relieve combinational seed dormancy of some woody plants, such as Eucommia ulmoides, Prunus yedoensis and Ulmus rubra Muhl. [16−18].

Comments 3: Line 81: were instead of are (use past tense)

Response 3:(L92)Thank you for your careful review. I have made the modifications. The 'are' has been added Change to 'were'.

Comments 4: Line 82-83: was instead of is (use past tense)

Response 4:(L93-94)Thanks for your reminding. The 'is' has been added Change to 'was'.

Comments 5: Line 84: “tetrazole staining method” did you mean “The topographical tetrazolium test”? It would be more appropriate to write tetrazolium staining method.

Response 5:(L95)Your wording is more professional. The ' tetrazole staining method ' has been added Change to ' tetrazolium staining method '.

Comments 6: Line 110: What made you decide on the concentrations of GA3 solution? Please explain or provide a reference on the basis of which you decided on these solutions.

Response 6:(L120)Thank you for pointing out my shortcomings. Here we refer to another article published. 26. Wang, Y.H.; Kong, Y.G.; Li, Q.H.; Wu, D.J.; Yan, L.P.; Xu, T.; Lu, Y.Z.; Qu, G.F. Study on germination characteristics and dormancy breaking methods of Tilia amurensis seeds. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2022, 38(29), 80−85. DOI:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1015

And an explanation was provided at the beginning of this section.

Comments 7: Line 121-126: A reference on the temperature in the cold stratification and the germination rate criteria would be greatly appreciated.

Response 7:(L120)Thank you for raising the question. The temperature of cold stratification was referenced from a paper ‘Reference 26.    Wang, Y.H.; Kong, Y.G.; Li, Q.H.; Wu, D.J.; Yan, L.P.; Xu, T.; Lu, Y.Z.; Qu, G.F. Study on germination characteristics and dormancy breaking methods of Tilia amurensis seeds. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2022, 38(29), 80−85.’

(L141)I have provided additional explanations on the germination rate criteria ‘According to the method by Min Wang research, the germination rates of each treatment were determined based on the standard of 2 mm embryonic root emergence and the opening of two cotyledons from seeds.’

Comments 8: Line 138-141: Please provide more detailed information on the mentioned methods.

Response 8:(L158)Thank you for your suggestion. I have added specific testing methods as your suggestion.

Comments 9: Line 144: replace “Duncan's test (for multiple comparisons)” with Duncans' multiple range test.

Response 9:(L220)Your suggestion has made my vocabulary more standardized. I have replaced ‘Duncan's test (for multiple comparisons)’ with ‘Duncans' multiple range test’.

Comments 10: Line 156-158: Please rephrase this sentence as it is unclear.

Response 10:(L236-239)We apologize for your poor reading experience. I have rewritten this sentence in the hope of improvement.

’After 45 days of cold stratification, the germination rates of the seeds subjected to comprehensive treatments could reach 80%, except for M₁₅₀T₂₅G₁₄₄₃, M₁₅₀T₄₅G₁₄₄₃, and M₂₅₀T₈₅G₁₄₄₃. After analysis, the comprehensive treatments had a significant effect on seed dormancy (P<0.05).’

Comments 11: Line 162: Insert Table 2 in brackets at the end of the sentence.

Response 11:(L242)Thank you for your careful consideration. I have followed your suggestion to insert Table 2 after ' After 60 days of cold stratification treatment, the germination rates in the control CK₂ treatment reached 80%, but did not show significant further increase.'.

Comments 12: Line 150, 170: Replace μmol∙L−1 with μmol L−1 throughout the manuscript.

Response 12: (L226,L253)Moved by your careful review. I have set −1 to ⁻¹.

Comments 13: Line 208-209: Please rephrase this sentence (editing of English required).

Response 13:(L291-293)I apologize for my unclear expression. I have rewritten this sentence.

’ However, the soluble sugar contents of seeds subjected to M150T85G1443 changed slightly at the 45th and 60th days of cold stratification treatment’

Comments 14: Line 241: decreased by 19.01%, 14.59%, 17.46%, and 13.28%, respectively.

Response 14:(L325)Thank you for correcting my wording. I have changed ‘to’ to ‘by’.

Comments 15: Line 242-243: How did you get these percentages? Please rephrase this sentence. In line 243, CK1 was decreased by 16.03% not 15.90%

Response 15:(L327-328)I'm sorry for making such a basic mistake. Thank you very much for pointing out the mistake. I have rewritten this sentence. I hope I have explained it clearly. ‘The decreased starch contents accounted for 16.03%, 40.79%, 28.27%, and 44.13% of their initial contents’.

Comments 16: Below Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 you should also provide Note.

Response 16: (L332T5-7)Thank you for your suggestion. Due to the note being too long, I only added it in Table 4 and provided an explanation ‘The same below.’. I have added notes to Tables 5, 6, and 7. If need any modifications , contact me at your convenience.

Comments 17: Line 304: put % instead of percentage.

Response 17：(L402)I'm very sorry. I have made the modifications.

Comments 18: Line 313: Did you performed the Correlation analysis? If you did, please provide the results within the section Results and discuss it.

Response 18:(L411)I apologize for my lack of rigor. I have deleted this sentence.

Comments 19: Line 316-318: This sentence should be placed in the Conclusion section.

Response 19:(L526)Thank you. I followed your suggestion and placed this sentence at the end of the conclusion.

Comments 20: Line 393: [35-36] rewrite with the [35, 36]

Response 20:(L495)Apologize for my misconduct. I have made the modifications.

Comments 21: Line 394-395: Where is the reference 37?

Response 21:(L499)I apologize for my carelessness and have made the necessary modifications.

‘β−Amylase fully converts maltose into glucose and sucrose [46].’

Comments 22: Line 407: You only need to indicate which treatments turned out to be the most important; you don't need to specify the results (89%). Kindly rephrase the sentence “After 75 days of cold stratification treatment, the highest germination rate was obtained by combining a magnetic field of 150 MT for 85 min with a 1443 μmol L−1 GA3 soaking solution treatment.”

Response 22:(L512)Your suggestion has greatly benefited me. I have rephrased this sentence.

Comments 23: Line 416: the most beneficial…you need to put article “the”. Also, it would be more appropriate to say “was the most beneficial in releasing the physiological dormancy of T. miqueliana seeds.

Response 23:(L524)Thank you for providing me with language polishing. I have replaced it with your clearer expression.

Comments 24: You provided numerous references. Some of the references are outdated, though. Throughout the article, please try to swap out some of the older references with the more recent ones. Also, please provide links of the references.

Response 24:(L548) I apologize for my carelessness and have made the necessary modifications. I have replaced some of the references

[1]       DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-30782-x

[2]       DOI:10.32604/phyton.2022.020735

[3]       DOI:10.3389/fgene.2022.925726

[4]       DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2014.S1.013

[5]       http://zwzy.cnbg.net/Contribution/PeriodicalDirectoryDetails_fe53e26f-4b1a-4b55-b463-8508c58a92a7.html

[6]       DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-7380.2021.06.004

[7]       DOI:10.13271/j.mpb.017.001605.

[8]       DOI:10.16115/j.cnki.issn.1005-7129.2022.01.005.

[9]       DOI10.1079/SSR2003150

[10]   DOI:10.3390/f13111750

[11]   DOI:10.3389/fpls.2023.1240028

[12]   DOI:10.3390/IJMS23031876

[13]   DOI:10.1111/plb.12515

[14]   DOI:10.3389/fpls.2018.00275

[15]   DOI:10.1093/jxb/erz471

[16]   DOI:10.15835/nbha51213198

[17]   DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.039

[18]   DOI:10.5849/jof.16-045

[19]   DOI:10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2016.10.022

[20]   DOI:10.1002/bem.22354

[21]   DOI:10.15666/aeer/1603_28372844

[22]   DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2017.03.036

[23]   https://webofscience.clarivate.cn/wos/alldb/full-record/WOS:000406355800038

[24]   DOI:10.1007/s10342-021-01400-0

[25]   DOI:10.16590/j.cnki.1001-4705.2020.12.154.

[26]   DOI:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1015

[27]   DOI:10.7717/peerj.15082

[28]   DOI:10.14067/j.cnki.1673-923x.2019.10.006.

[29]   https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=3IEynGI71r9ZLYM1eXzvrD2Uwtc5WGYcLSTq4nHeBiyxwoL-ZkrxSJ-YcfjFGTHbQLKe-Xp-lDFXuxijSi-yxnXOYzPRaUOagbStQMoGZeRtILd85pGsBTAOy3WGFBnp33CltA8wrh8JTY5v-nqTwg==uniplatform=NZKPTlanguage=CHS

[30]    

[31]  

[32]   DOI:10.13488/j.smhx.20190238.

[33]   DOI:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19030058

[34]   DOI:10.3390/agriculture13112120

[35]   DOI:10.3390/ijms23031876

[36]   DOI10.3389/fpls.2023.1322986

[37]   https://tree.cbpt.cnki.net/WKD2/WebPublication/paperDigest.aspx?paperID=ad2d5488-e780-452a-ad4b-b0b9863d8780

[38]   DOI:10.1007/s11676-022-01540-y

[39]   DOI:10.1590/01047760202026022653

[40]   DOI10.21010/ajtcam.v14i1.34

[41]   DOI10.1002/ppap.201700059

[42]   DOI:10.3390/plants11182399

[43]   DOI10.1007/s11056-023-09998-2

[44]   DOI:10.1590/2317-1545v44263126

[45]   DOI:10.1186/s12284-022-00567-3

[46]   DOI10.3390/IJMS23158502

[47]   DOI:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2018.06.030

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    (in red)

5. Additional clarifications

Sincerely thank you for your suggestions and help with my article again. Wishing you a pleasant day.