Soil Arsenic Toxicity Impact on the Growth and C-Assimilation of Eucalyptus nitens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled "Soil Arsenic toxicity impact on the growth and C-assimilation of Eucalyptus nitens" is submitted for review for possible publication. 

Here are my comments and suggestons:

1. The abstract must be revised based on the overall result of the study. 

2. Also in the abstract, this statement seems so vague. 

" In the face of the acquired data, E. nitens must be considered as an alternative when phytoremediation processes are put in practice into our country." Does this mean that phytoremediation is not yet being practiced in ypur country? Why is this not discussed in the background? 

3. Line 195 - 196: Change the word "statistic" to "statistically" 

4. Line 204 - 205. I cannot understand what you mean when you say 

"From March till May the levels in the roots 204 increase (Table 1) decreasing after that to approximately 70 μg g-1 and 106 μg g-1 for plants 205 treated with 100 As and 200 As, respectively." 

5. The figures are not easy to understand. 

6. The Discussion section is so lengthy, and it discusses some irrelevant studies pertaining to your. trim it down and include it in the background. putting that section before the results confuses the readers.

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1 REPORT

Author´s Responses

NOTE: First of all, the authors would like to thank your constructive remarks and suggestions. The new text in the manuscript was blue-colored.

The paper entitled "Soil Arsenic toxicity impact on the growth and C-assimilation of Eucalyptus nitens" is submitted for review for possible publication. 

Here are my comments and suggestions:

1. The abstract must be revised based on the overall result of the study.

We cannot forget that we have a word limit in the Abstract presentation. We add more 8 final words while maintaining the maximum limit of 250 words. Thus, we think that the abstract captures the essence of this work, respecting the limit previously referred.

2. Also in the abstract, this statement seems so vague.

" In the face of the acquired data, E. nitens must be considered as an alternative when phytoremediation processes are put into practice in our country." Does this mean that phytoremediation is not yet being practiced in your country? Why is this not discussed in the background?

The national potential for phytoremediation could be evaluated by identifying the number of sites that contain organic compounds and heavy metals suitable for phytoremediation, i.e., locals that contain contaminants in moderate concentrations in near-surface groundwater or in shallow soils. This process is generally operated with wild natural plant species, herbaceous or woody trees, which are not the best approach in the majority of the cases for that purpose. See new lines (84-87) in the Introduction and the references therein.

Thus, we must take into account the type of contamination and the geologic background, plus and very importantly the climate of the region. And this fact is clearly recognized in lines 563-569, when we state “Furthermore, since E. nitens is high tolerance to frost as recognized by Gomes and Canhoto [25], this plant can be used as an alternative in phytoremediation processes in some mining abandoned areas of Northern Portugal where winter temperatures are too low and impeditive of an efficient uptake and/or translocation mechanism of major heavy metals or metalloids present in the substrata. It is worth emphasizing the abandoned mines of Jales (gold production), Borralha (tungsten production), and Montesinho (tin production), all of them located in Northern areas [74].

In that context to use fast-growing species such as Eucalyptus globulus throughout the mainland without perceiving the climatic conditions where the mines are located, is an action condemned to failure.

3. Line 195 - 196: Change the word "statistic" to "statistically" 

This remark was done

4. Line 204 - 205. I cannot understand what you mean when you say 

"From March till May the levels in the roots increase (Table 1) decreasing after that to approximately 70 μg g-1 and 106 μg g-1 for plants treated with 100 As and 200 As, respectively”

It simply states that the levels in the roots increase until May, in both treatments (100 As and 200 As), decreasing from May to July. The statement was slightly modified - see below (lines 203-205)

From March till May, the levels in the roots increase (Table 1) decreasing to approximately 70 μg g^-1 and 106 μg g^-1 in July, for plants treated with 100 As and 200 As, respectively.

5. The figures are not easy to understand.

It is an opinion that we respect but it is a relatively common way to represent physiological data such as LAR, SLA and LWR or even E, G_s and P_n, although some experts rather prefer tables instead figures. For example, the articles published in 2016 and 2018 in Frontiers Plant Science (Front. Plant Sci. 7:947. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00947; Front. Plant Sci., 9:287  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00287) where I am a co-author in collaboration with Dr. Cochicho and Prof Lidon, the figures are presented in a similar way.

6. The Discussion section is so lengthy, and it discusses some irrelevant studies pertaining to your. Trim it down and include it in the background. putting that section before the results confuses the readers.

The discussion was reduced and some studies were removed as happened with lines 407-411, 417-422, and 446-452, of the old version of the manuscript.

The paragraph of the old version (lines 423-426) was placed at the end of the discussion of item 4.1 As accumulation and plant growth

As previously referred two new references were placed in the introduction (lines 84-87), regarding phytoremediation studies in Portugal

Regarding item 4.2. As interaction with macro and micronutrients, lines 515-520 of the old version were deleted and replaced by new text lines – see 497-502.

 

Monte de Caparica, 10^th March, 2023

Fernando Henrique da Silva Reboredo

(Associate Professor)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript (sustainability-2269702) presents Eucalyptus nitens is a fast-growing forestry species that can recover arsenic (As) from contaminated soils in abandoned mining areas. It can accumulate As in roots and leaves without apparent damage or toxicity. While the highest As concentration impacts some gas exchange parameters, it does not significantly affect photosynthesis. E. nitens shows a synergistic action that impacts the levels of photosynthetic pigments in As-treated plant leaves. These findings suggest E. nitens as a viable alternative for phytoremediation in abandoned mining areas. In addition, the introduction, objective are clear, material and methods, results, and conclusion demonstrated a good topic for reader.

Minor points:

L19. “As”? define, it’s a abbreviation or connective? “Arsenic (As)”;

L139 and 148. “Q” with space; check al manuscript;

L144. Underline?

-Fig. x or Figure x? check author instructions;

Figure 1. I don’t understand “a,r”; “b,r”, etc. What is it? If statistical analyses, consider ANOVA Two-Way! Treatment and SLA, LWR, LAR. Please, considerer changes to asterisk.

Please, check old references and changes when necessary.

Please, double-check grammar and spelling.

Best regards,

Author Response

REVIEWER 2 REPORT

Author´s Responses

NOTE: First of all, the authors would like to thank your constructive remarks and suggestions. The new text in the manuscript is blue-colored.

General Comments

Taking into account one of the Reviewer´s remarks, new lines (84-87) in the Introduction were added as well as, the appropriate references.

Also, the discussion was reduced and some studies were removed as happened with lines 407-411, 417-422, and 446-452, of the old version of the manuscript.

The paragraph of the old version (lines 423-426) was placed at the end of the discussion of item 4.1 As accumulation and plant growth

Regarding item 4.2. As interaction with macro and micronutrients, lines 515-520 of the old version were deleted and replaced by new text lines – see 497-502.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (sustainability-2269702) presents Eucalyptus nitens is a fast-growing forestry species that can recover arsenic (As) from contaminated soils in abandoned mining areas. It can accumulate As in roots and leaves without apparent damage or toxicity. While the highest As concentration impacts some gas exchange parameters, it does not significantly affect photosynthesis. E. nitens shows a synergistic action that impacts the levels of photosynthetic pigments in As-treated plant leaves. These findings suggest E. nitens as a viable alternative for phytoremediation in abandoned mining areas. In addition, the introduction, objectives are clear, material and methods, results, and conclusion demonstrated a good topic for the reader.

Minor points:

L19. “As”? define, it’s an abbreviation or connective? “Arsenic (As)” - corrected

L139 and 148. “Q” with space; check all manuscript – corrected

L144. Underline? – I assume that this remark is linked with the abbreviature Chl.

-Fig. x or Figure x? check author instructions - We must indicate Figure (not Fig.) not only throughout the text but also in the Figure itself. All cases were corrected

Figure 1. I don’t understand “a,r”; “b,r”, etc. What is it? If statistical analyses, consider ANOVA Two-Way! Treatment and SLA, LWR, LAR. Please, consider changes to asterisk.

The absence of a simple explanation about the meaning of those letters (a, r) or (b, r) in certain Figures was a flaw that should be avoided. These letters express significant differences over time (a, b) or between As treatments within each date (r, s).

 

Please, check old references and changes when necessary.

A simple analysis of the overall references indicates that 71% of them are from 2011 onwards and only 10% are published before 2000. The oldest titles correspond to data from our country or very quoted methods used such as the determination of chlorophylls and chlorophyll fluorescence (Lichtenthaler, 1987, Bjorkman and Demmig, 1987 or the reference regarding Canada Reference Materials

Please, double-check grammar and spelling – corrected

 

Monte de Caparica 10^th March, 2023

Fernando Henrique da Silva Reboredo

(Associate Professor)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well-revised.