Changes in Reserve Mobilization Caused by Salinity Could Interfere in the Initial Growth of Jatropha curcas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study entitled ‘Changes in Reserve Mobilisation Caused by Salinity Could Interfere in the Initial Growth of Jatropha curcas’ is an interesting work by the authors that characterizes various factors associated with the growth of Jatropha delineated in a tissue specific manner. The manuscript is well written and the methods are also well described. I recommend the manuscript for publication after a few comments have been addressed.

 

Major comments:

I do find the work quite comprehensive, however being entirely based on statistical data, it could have been good to include a small pictorial representation of what summarizes this study. A simple diagram with factors determining the growth phases of Jatropha would be a potential add on to the manuscript. However, this is just a suggestion and may or may not be considered by the authors. 

There should ideally be a mention in the Introduction section about the rationale behind picking CNPAPM-X and CNPAPM-III genotypes in particular. I suggest including some information regarding the selection of the two genotypes used in the study.

I am a little unclear about the technical replicates used in the study. I assume, the data for three individual plants has been shown for each genotype, so were any other experimental controls used? The 0 mM Nacl treatment acts as a comparison control, but were the data normalized with untreated samples before presenting? 

Line 273 ‘In the hypocotyls, no significant differences in lipid concentration were observed for any of the evaluated treatments’. This is quite intriguing and hence I suggest at least briefly discussing the possibilities associated with obtaining this result for both genotypes.

 

Minor comments:

There is a lack of uniformity in the decimal annotation. The authors have used both commas (in graphs) and decimal points (in text) for the same. I suggest maintaining the same pattern throughout the manuscript.

The description of uppercase and lowercase letters in line 175-176 should be mentioned earlier in the manuscript, like in the caption for Fig 1.

Line 59-60 Add an additional bracket after cited reference.

Line 136 spell check “chamber”

Line 90 should be a comma, not semicolon after zero.

Author Response

Date   jun 27, 2021

Subject manuscript revised

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled: “Changes in Reserve Mobilisation Caused by Salinity Could Interfere in the Initial Growth of Jatropha curcas” authored by Emannuella Lira, Joilma Souza, Lucas Galdino, Cristiane Macêdo, Anselmo Silva, Yuri Melo, Ivanice Santos, Nair Arriel, Carlos Meneses and Josemir Maia for publication in the Sustainability (MDPI).

The constructive criticisms of referees certainly contributed to the improvement of the document. We attended most of the points raised by the reviewers, modified others and addressed detailed answers. We now believe that our findings are of potential importance for comprehension of this theme and should be of interest to the readership of the Sustainability.

Luc Marie Felicianus Rouws edited the document, therefore its quality has improved and should be at a standard level of the Sustainability.

On behalf of the co-authors, that have also reviewed and contributed to the manuscript, I thank you for considering its new version.

Your sincerely,

Josemir Maia

Answers to reviewer:

1-I do find the work quite comprehensive, however being entirely based on statistical data, it could have been good to include a small pictorial representation of what summarizes this study. A simple diagram with factors determining the growth phases of Jatropha would be a potential add on to the manuscript. However, this is just a suggestion and may or may not be considered by the authors. 

A - We appreciate the suggestion and will consider it in future submissions.

2- There should ideally be a mention in the Introduction section about the rationale behind picking CNPAPM-X and CNPAPM-III genotypes in particular. I suggest including some information regarding the selection of the two genotypes used in the study.

A - The selected genotypes have been previously characterized as contrasting with regard to salinity tolerance in the germination phase. We partially accept your suggestion, as we agree with the suggestion, but we understand that this information would be better placed in the Material and Methods.

3- I am a little unclear about the technical replicates used in the study. I assume, the data for three individual plants has been shown for each genotype, so were any other experimental controls used? The 0 mM Nacl treatment acts as a comparison control, but were the data normalized with untreated samples before presenting? 

A - We appreciate this observation and agree with your position. We had deleted this information. We included at the beginning of item 2.4 details of the experimental design. We believe the information included satisfies this request.

4- Line 273 ‘In the hypocotyls, no significant differences in lipid concentration were observed for any of the evaluated treatments'. This is quite intriguing and hence I suggest at least briefly discussing the possibilities associated with obtaining this result for both genotypes.

A - In fact, it is very interesting evidence. Although species characterized as oilseeds accumulate lipids in seeds (especially in endosperm), plant metabolism is based on the mobilization and metabolism of carbohydrates, not accumulating lipids in other tissues or vegetative organs. Rereading the thread, we notice that this thread is on the 10th. paragraph (lines 396-406). However, we see how to improve the argument, especially by improving the explanation in lines 400-402.

5- There is a lack of uniformity in the decimal annotation. The authors have used both commas (in graphs) and decimal points (in text) for the same. I suggest maintaining the same pattern throughout the manuscript.

A - The request was accepted.

6- The description of uppercase and lowercase letters in line 175-176 should be mentioned earlier in the manuscript, like in the caption for Fig 1.

A - We noticed the absence of this information, we accepted the request and added complements to the legend of Figure 1, as well as to item 2.4, which was also requested by another reviewer.

7- Line 59-60 Add an additional bracket after cited reference.

A - The reference has been modified and the numbering updated as requested.

8- Line 136 spell check “chamber”

A - Word changed as requested.

9- Line 90 should be a comma, not semicolon after zero.

A - Changed as requested.

We take this opportunity to thank you for your attention and detail in your arguments and observations. Your observations were invaluable in qualifying our manuscript.

Our best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

This studies comprehensively analyzed the effect of salinity on reserve mobilization and found these effects have a great influence on the seedling growth of Jatropha curcas that is an important perennial oleaginous plant that are used for recovering environment. This paper is clearly stated and utilized strict statistical way to compare different group under treatment. Here are some minor comments needed to revise before considering publication. 1. This study used two genotypes to have analyses. Why authors used these two needed to be explained. 2. Please cite reference for the method 2.4 statistical analysis. 3. Figure 1. What’s meaning of CNPAPM-X and CNPAPM-III need to be denoted in the legend. Also, uppercase and lowercase letters in this figure should be described in the legend.

Author Response

Date   jun 27, 2021

Subject manuscript revised

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled: “Changes in Reserve Mobilisation Caused by Salinity Could Interfere in the Initial Growth of Jatropha curcas” authored by Emannuella Lira, Joilma Souza, Lucas Galdino, Cristiane Macêdo, Anselmo Silva, Yuri Melo, Ivanice Santos, Nair Arriel, Carlos Meneses and Josemir Maia for publication in the Sustainability (MDPI).

The constructive criticisms of referees certainly contributed to the improvement of the document. We attended most of the points raised by the reviewers, modified others and addressed detailed answers. We now believe that our findings are of potential importance for comprehension of this theme and should be of interest to the readership of the Sustainability.

Luc Marie Felicianus Rouws edited the document, therefore its quality has improved and should be at a standard level of the Sustainability.

On behalf of the co-authors, that have also reviewed and contributed to the manuscript, I thank you for considering its new version.

Your sincerely,

Josemir Maia

Answers to reviewer:

1. This study used two genotypes to have analyses. Why authors used these two needed to be explained. 

A - A text was added to item 2.1 explaining the decision to use these genotypes for this study. Both genotypes were previously studied by the same group.

2. Please cite reference for the method 2.4 statistical analysis. 

A - These are common statistical methods for the field of experimental agriculture. In any case, we add our main reference literature as a reference.

3. Figure 1. What’s meaning of CNPAPM-X and CNPAPM-III need to be denoted in the legend. 

A - The acronym CNPAPM stands for Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Algodão-Pinhão Manso (National Center for Cotton Research - Jatropha curcas). The roman numeral represents the AGB deposit order number. The acronym, added to the numeral, represents the deposit code that helps Embrapa Algodão in identifying the origin of the matrix, the location of the AGB and the species. We understand that the explanation of this code is unnecessary for the content of the manuscript. However, we mentioned in item 2.1 an explanation that we consider adequate.

4 - Also, uppercase and lowercase letters in this figure should be described in the legend.

A - We included the requested text in the caption.

We take this opportunity to thank you for your attention and detail in your arguments and observations. His observations were invaluable in qualifying our manuscript.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is about changes in reserve mobilisation caused by salinity could interfere in the initial growth of Jatropha curcas. I think topic of the paper is actual, and it has some novel results for the near future. Could you write a very short text about the importance of Jatropha curcas in Brazil ?

The authors used 60 literature sources connected well to the topic. Please check the citation written on the page 2 in the line 59. to 60. (Silva et al., 2009), because it is not that form, in which the other were written.

There are detailed information about the experimental conditions, harvesting and ion analysis too. Would you be so kind to explain the differences in small letters and capital letters written in the statistical groups in the 2.4. Statistical analysis section?

In the figures I can’t see the SD values. Please mark this values in the figures to understand better the significance differences.

Author Response

Date   jun 27, 2021

Subject manuscript revised

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript entitled: “Changes in Reserve Mobilisation Caused by Salinity Could Interfere in the Initial Growth of Jatropha curcas” authored by Emannuella Lira, Joilma Souza, Lucas Galdino, Cristiane Macêdo, Anselmo Silva, Yuri Melo, Ivanice Santos, Nair Arriel, Carlos Meneses and Josemir Maia for publication in the Sustainability (MDPI).

The constructive criticisms of referees certainly contributed to the improvement of the document. We attended most of the points raised by the reviewers, modified others and addressed detailed answers. We now believe that our findings are of potential importance for comprehension of this theme and should be of interest to the readership of the Sustainability.

Luc Marie Felicianus Rouws edited the document, therefore its quality has improved and should be at a standard level of the Sustainability.

On behalf of the co-authors, that have also reviewed and contributed to the manuscript, I thank you for considering its new version.

Your sincerely,

Josemir Maia

Answers to reviewer:

1 - Could you write a very short text about the importance of Jatropha curcas in Brazil?

A - The requested text has been added to the introduction in lines 44-45.

2 - The authors used 60 literature sources connected well to the topic. Please check the citation written on the page 2 in the line 59. to 60. (Silva et al., 2009), because it is not that form, in which the other were written.

A - We appreciate the observation. Please be advised that after all the necessary adjustments, the references were renumbered.

3 - There are detailed information about the experimental conditions, harvesting and ion analysis too. Would you be so kind to explain the differences in small letters and capital letters written in the statistical groups in the 2.4. Statistical analysis section?

A - The requested information has been added to the text as requested.

4 - In the figures I can’t see the SD values. Please mark this values in the figures to understand better the significance differences.

A - All graphs show the SD, without exposing the values ​​printed above each one. We understand that including SD values ​​above each bar in the charts will impair the understanding and quality of exposure of the presented content.

We take this opportunity to thank you for your attention and detail in your arguments and observations. His observations were invaluable in qualifying our manuscript.

Best regards.