Storage Time Affects the Viability, Longevity, and Germination of Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth Seeds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Is the Title appropriate to describe whole story of the research? Can be Improved.
2. Does the Abstract represent the research? Yes.
3. In Introduction, Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Yes, can be improved.
4. Is the Objectives of the research address correctly? Yes.
5. What is the main question addressed by the research? Can be improved.
6. Is the main question relevant and interesting? Can be improved.
7. How original is the topic? Yes, it is original.
8. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Providing detailed analysis related to the storage time affects the longevity and germination of Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.)Kunth seeds.
9. Does the Methodology describe well? Can be improved. Please explain more detail related to “Correlation of germination indexes with physiological and biochemical indexes”.
10. Is the Result display in the correct way? Yes
11. Does the Discussion describe all of the results? Can be improved.
12. Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved.
13. Is the paper well written? Can be improved. I found many error written, especially with the “error spacing” between words and number (like ‘30’) become the first word in a sentence.
14. Is the text clear and easy to read? Yes.
15. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Can be improved.
16. Are the conclusions address the main question posed? Can be improved.
17. Does the Reference cite appropriately? Can be improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1Comments
Point 1: Is the Title appropriate to describe whole story of the research? Can be Improved.
Response 1:Thank you for your interest in our topic, which we have summarized and refined into the current topic based on the key elements of our research.
Modify the title to “ Storage time affects the seed viability and longevity and germination of Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth seeds ” (Line 2-3).
Point 2: Does the Abstract represent the research? Yes.
Response 2:Thank you very much for your approval of our summary.
Point 3: In Introduction, Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Yes, can be improved.
Response 3: Thanks to your valuable comments, we have improved the introduction section and will pay attention to it in future papers.Examples of modifications are as follows:
“Seed longevity is a complex trait that is influenced by various factors and can vary greatly between species and even among populations of the same species” (Line 50-51) .
Point 4: Is the Objectives of the research address correctly? Yes.
Response 4: Thank you for supporting our research.
Point 5: What is the main question addressed by the research? Can be improved.
Response 5: Thank you for the opinion, the main issue of our research is to understand the life span and mechanism of Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.)Kunth seeds that are difficult to control in the field, and to clarify the duration of their continuous damage in the field, which subsequently facilitates the development of targeted prevention and elimination measures such as tillage, crop rotation years and herbicide application in heavily damaged plots.
“Because the longevity of seeds affects the weed’s dispersal and seedling establishment, it also affects their ability to compete with crops such as maize. Storage time can be employed to simulate the storage of weed seeds in field soil, which can be used to predict the occurrence and damage caused by aboveground weeds. In this study, we investigated the longevity and germination of E. villosa seeds after different storage years to determine changes in the stored material in the seeds, which can provide a scientific basis for timely, sustainable weed control measures.”(Line 98 -104).
Point 6: Is the main question relevant and interesting? Can be improved.
Response 6: Thank you for the opinion, our research is very meaningful to solve the serious problem of Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.)Kunth in China.
Point 7: How original is the topic? Yes, it is original.
Response 7: Thank you for the comments on the originality of our research topic, which is indeed original.
Point 8: What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Providing detailed analysis related to the storage time affects the longevity and germination of Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.)Kunth seeds.
Response 8: Thank you for the approval, our subject area is innovative compared compared with other published material.
Point 9: Does the Methodology describe well? Can be improved. Please explain more detail related to “Correlation of germination indexes with physiological and biochemical indexes”.
Response 9: Thanks for your question,We re-summarize and analyze more detail related to “Correlation of germination indexes with physiological and biochemical indexes”.
“We used SPSS software to analyze the E. villosa seed germination indices were correlated with the physiological and biochemical indices (MDA, soluble sugar content, soluble protein content, SOD, POD, CAT, and AMS activity). * means significant difference at 0.05 level, ** means significant difference at 0.01 level” (Line302-305).
Point 10: Is the Result display in the correct way? Yes
Response 10：Thank you for confirming our result display.
Point 11: Does the Discussion describe all of the results? Can be improved.
Response 11：Thanks to the suggestions, we have improved the discussion and will pay attention to it in future paper writing.
“Many studies have indicated that seed aging is associated with antioxidant enzymes, MDA, and amylase activity, which is consistent with studies on E. villosa seeds. Zheng [59] showed that the AMS activity of poplar seeds tended to decrease to different degrees during storage. Hao [60] and Chang et al. [61] showed that the POD activity of Pinus oleifera seeds decreased significantly while the MDA content increased significantly with increasing storage time, Chang H. W. et al.[61]showed the SOD and CAT activities of sand onion seeds increased and then decreased with increasing storage time and were positively correlated with their germination indexes. ” (Line487-494) .
Point 12: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved.
Response 12：Thanks to your suggestion, we have a more in-depth discussion based on the experimental results section.
Point 13: Is the paper well written? Can be improved. I found many error written, especially with the “error spacing” between words and number (like ‘30’) become the first word in a sentence.
Response 13：Thanks to your suggestions, We have corrected all the spelling errors in the original text and had the entire article professionally improved in terms of language quality.and will pay attention to them in future paper writing.
Point 14: Is the text clear and easy to read? Yes.
Response 14：Thanks for your positive comments!
Point 15: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Can be improved.
Response 15：Thank you for the suggestion, we writed the conclusion based on arguments and evidence, and carried out to improve.
“This study revealed that the longevity of E. villosa seeds under indoor, dry storage conditions was greater than eight years. It means E. villosa seeds can be stored in the soil seed bank in the field and still have the ability to germinate causing continuous damage to the crop. ” (Line528-531).
Point 16: Are the conclusions address the main question posed? Can be improved.
Response 16：Thank you for the comments, our experimental results will be very useful for the subsequent Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.)Kunth control.
Point 17: Does the Reference cite appropriately? Can be improved.
Response 17：Thanks to your comments, we corrected all references and then added some references, such as references 59-64 (Line 660-672), to carry out a step to confirm the reliability of the article.
“59. Hong W. Optimization of TTC method for seed viability determination of Isatis indigotica. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences. 2022;63: 1465-1468.
- Lei Z. Population Characteristics and Seed's Biology of Paeonia ludlowii: Beijing Forestry University, 2008.
- Xuemei R, Wente W, Hongyun T, Chuanjing Z, Haihong Z. Determination of Malondiadehyde Content in Duck Oil by Colorimetry. Shandong Agricultural Sciences. 2014; 46: 117-119.
- Yue SY, Zhou RR, Nan TG, Huang LQ, Y. Y. Comparison of major chemical components in Puerariae Thomsonii Radix and Puerariae Lobatae Radix. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2022;47: 2689-2697.
- Grintzalis K, Georgiou CD, Schneider Y-J. An accurate and sensitive Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250-based assay for protein determination. Analytical Biochemistry. 2015;480: 28-30.
- Quanping S. High Temperature and Its Duration: Effect on SOD and POD Activity of Larix principis-rupprechtii. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 2017;34: 33-38.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 51-52…confusing words…please correct the sentence.
Line 68-70 is too long. Please break into 2 sentences.
Line 99. It should be material and methods first, not Result. Please re-arrange it accordingly.
Line 94-95, since…and thus….? Seems that some words are missing in that sentence. please correct it into an understandable sentence.
Line 100-111. Please make sure every word has a space between it. Some words have no space between it.
Line 113-Line 115. Figure 1 is too small. The wording is unreadable from a far. Please replace it with a suitable and bigger Figure, and a bigger font for wording.
Line 186, Please give a bigger picture of Figure 3 and a bigger fonts.
Line 200-201. ….storage (Figure 4). Please put space in between the words and a correct place for full stop. Also, for line 203.
Line 229. Correct it into Table 3.
Line 329. It should be Results, not Methodology. Please re-arrange it according to a correct manuscript format.
Line 515. The scientific name should have a space…E. Villosa please correct it.
Line 518. ….(MDA) space please.
Overall, please do a major correction on the spelling, the space between words should be checked throughly, and please follow the usual format for manuscript, Methodology should come first, and the Results should come later after that.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2Comments
Point 1: Line 51-52…confusing words…please correct the sentence.
Response 1：Thanks you very much for your careful review and constructive guidance, which we have corrected in the paper.
“Seed longevity is a complex trait and varies greatly between species and even lots of the same species, and influencing seed longevity may relate to factors ” (Line 54-55).
Point 2: Line 68-70 is too long. Please break into 2 sentences.
Response 2：Thanks to your suggestion, this long sentence has been changed to two short, concise and clear sentences.
“Basavarajappa et al. showed that the activity of POD decreased, while the level of MDA increased in corn seeds during seed aging. He analyzed the reasons for the existence of overall membrane lipid peroxidation in aged seeds. ” (Line 70-72).
Point 3: Line 99. It should be material and methods first, not Result. Please re-arrange it accordingly.
Response3：Thanks you for the comment, we have carefully checked for journal requirements and adjusted the order of material and methods and results, the current layout in the article according to the journal template requirements, (Line 111). We will take care to avoid such mistakes in our future paper writing.
Point 4: Line 94-95, since…and thus….? Seems that some words are missing in that sentence. please correct it into an understandable sentence.
Response 4：Thanks you carefully for reviewing, we have corrected to a understandable sentence : “Because the longevity of seeds affects the weed’s dispersal and seedling establishment, it also affects their ability to compete with crops such as maize.” (Line 98-99).
Point 5: Line 100-111. Please make sure every word has a space between it. Some words have no space between it.
Response 5：Thanks you for the suggestion, I am sorry for our oversight. We checked the spaces and corrected them.
Point 6: Line 113-Line 115. Figure 1 is too small. The wording is unreadable from a far. Please replace it with a suitable and bigger Figure, and a bigger font for wording.
Response 6：Thanks you for the suggestion, we have adjusted Figure 1 (Line 320-321), replaced it with a suitable and bigger Figure, and a bigger font for wording.
Point 7: Line 186, Please give a bigger picture of Figure 3 and a bigger fonts.
Response 7：Thanks for the suggestion, we have adjusted Figure 3 (Line 367-368), replaced it with a suitable and bigger Figure, and a bigger font for wording.
Point 8: Line 200-201. ….storage (Figure 4). Please put space in between the words and a correct place for full stop. Also, for line 203.
Response 8：Thanks for your comments, I have put space in between the words and a correct place for full stop. (Line 388-389).
Point 9: Line 229. Correct it into Table 3.
Response 9：Thank you for your careful review, as Table 1 was deleted, it needs to be labeled as Table 2 (Line 436).
Point 10: Line 329. It should be Results, not Methodology. Please re-arrange it according to a correct manuscript format.
Response 10：Thanks you for the comment, we have carefully checked for journal requirements and adjusted the order of material and methods and results(Line 309), the current layout in the article according to the journal template requirements.
Point 11 : Line 515. The scientific name should have a space…E. Villosa please correct it.
Response 11：Thanks you for the suggestion, I have checked the whole paper, and I have put a space before the scientific name (Line 528).
Point 12: Line 518. ….(MDA) space please.
Response 12：Thanks you for the suggestion, I have put a space before the (MDA) (Line 531).
Point 13: Overall, please do a major correction on the spelling, the space between words should be checked throughly, and please follow the usual format for manuscript, Methodology should come first, and the Results should come later after that.
Response 13：Thanks you for the suggestion, I have checked for words and spaces between words, and already made extensive English revisions and quality improvements. The format of the manuscript of our paper has been arranged in the order of the journal template, Methodology come first, and the Results come later after that.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper needs to be fully revised before it can be accepted. Some major and other minor comments are as below.
Delete ‘Longevity mechanism’ and ‘Germination’ from the keywords and add representative indicators.
The author pointed out that the grass had a weak dispersal ability. Why does it cause widespread harm and spread?
As a severely harmful weed, the paper focused on the impact of seed storage age on seed life or vitality. What is the potential value of research? If it's a crop, I can understand. The number of years that stored seeds can be used is of concern to us. But as a weed, seeds should not need to be stored. Can the author clearly indicate the specific value or significance of this paper.
Figure 1 and Table 1 are completely duplicated, delete one. In addition, the labeling methods used for the significance analysis results between the two are also inconsistent. Please confirm again.
Do not include a description of the experimental method in the results, such as lines 126 to 127. Please review and modify similar deficiencies.
The values clearly reflected in the Figures and Tables. There is no need to repeat it in the text. For example, lines 130-133. Please review and modify similar deficiencies.
Table 2 shows that only dozens of seeds were used for seed viability testing. This quantity is obviously insufficient.
The description of an experimental result should not include too much other content. For example, lines 145-148. Please review and modify similar deficiencies.
Most of the result analysis was based on repeating the values in Figures and Tables, without summarizing the relevant changes or pointing out key conclusions. This is obviously inappropriate, please reorganize the analysis of all results.
Figure 3. Is there a better display method? The current form looks very confusing.
The changes in antioxidant enzyme activity are often reflected in a short period and are highly susceptible to environment changes. Is it indicative to observe changes in enzyme activity during a storage period of up to 6 years? Please explain or discuss in conjunction with references.
At least three different annotation methods for significance analysis results have emerged in this paper. As a formal submission paper, it is difficult to understand the serious inconsistency in writing.
Discussions should not be written in review form. For example, lines 282-293.
Why is the harvest period of seeds not continuous? Only 2012, 2014 to 2020?
What is the diameter of Petri dish? What is the size of the seed? Did the author consider the interaction between seeds, i.e. allelopathy, when placing 30 seeds each. Please explain the relevant experimental details clearly.
Why choose the 6th day for germination potential? Do you have any references or other evidence?
Provide corresponding references for the measurement methods of each physiological and biochemical indicator. If it is not a new method created by the author himself.
In the measurement methods of physiological and biochemical indicators, many details such as how to sample, sample weight, sampling location (whether the outer seed coat has been removed), whether the seeds are germinating or dormant, and how to set up repetitions in experiments need to be explained in detail.
Is the first reference correct? Is it Journal or Book? Please carefully check the accuracy of all literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author carefully responded to all my concerns and made corresponding revisions. I think the paper can be published.
