Effect of Vanadium on the Uptake and Distribution of Organic and Inorganic Forms of Iodine in Sweetcorn Plants during Early-Stage Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

No further suggestions to authors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank the Reviewer for their time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We would like to thank you for accepting our correction and for accepting the entire article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Marlena Grzanka1 et al. «Effect of vanadium on the uptake and distribution of iodine in sweet corn plants at an early stage of their development». Article is devoted to methods of enriching young corn plants with iodine. This makes it interesting for a narrow circle of researchers involved in agriculture investigation and crop production.

The abstract needs some adjustment. It is long enough and contains "optional" information, too general facts or examples that are not related to a specific study. A recommendation for authors to shorten the abstract and focus on the results of their research.

“Vanadium was discovered in 1830 by the Swedish chemist Nils Sefstrom [1]. It is a silver-white metal found in the Earth's crust and represents the 22nd element [2]…. "

Information of an encyclopedic nature, there is no need to add to the research article.

The introduction discusses the problem of vanadium toxicity to the human body, this does not apply to research issues. I believe that this passage can be omitted from the introduction.

It makes sense to pay more attention to the physiological function of iodine and vanadium in plants. And describe their synergistic effects on plants.

In summary, I believe that the introduction can be shortened. The information presented in the introduction is rather florid and does not quite accurately lead readers to the presented research goal.

 What caused the choice of such a photoperiod, why the dark phase dominates over the light phase.

What is the reason for the choice of just such concentrations of active ingredients (vanadium and iodine).

It may make sense to describe the stage of plant development in accordance with generally accepted scales (BBCH-scale, Feekes scale, Zadoks scale).

The word control is misspelled on the figure.

"Photo 1. Sweet corn plants after harvest."

I think it can be designated as Figure 1, and make the description more detailed.

".3Results" needs to be fixed

It seems to me that the font of the figures should be increased, and the axes should be aligned and unified.

It is necessary to unify the names of the figure and tables (determine the full name or the abbreviated name use in the text).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank the  Reviewer for  time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We have found all comments valuable and have implemented the corrections according to suggestions. We hope that all the changes and improvements we have introduced into the revised manuscript will meet journal requirements and Editor acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Ready to go now I think - review has done its job.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank the Reviewer for their time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We would like to thank you for accepting our correction and for accepting the entire article.

Reviewer 4 Report

some paragraphs in the text are not necessary for the aim of the work. They are marked in yellow.

I would suggest to use a multifactor ANOVA for statistical analysis (2 level o vanadium and 4 thesis) This will allow you to see the main effects and the interactions.

Please for the tables or figures with leaves, stems and root are reported, calculate the shoot/root ratio. It could be used for understand if there are toxic effects due to treatments.

just to have a better reading of the graphs, show the bars with a greater width in the histograms.

There is a lack of fluidity in writing throughout the text. Quite often the sentences are detached from each other and there does not seem to be a consequential connection between the sentences in the text.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We would like to thank the Reviewer for  time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We have found all comments valuable and have implemented the corrections according to suggestions. We hope that all the changes and improvements we have introduced into the revised manuscript will meet journal requirements and Editor acceptance.

Sincerelly

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

thanks for your answers

The manuscript now it's much better than the last version but I do not agree with your statement:

In the reviewer: Suggestion about data analysis

Our answer: we can not agree fot that suggestion. Experiment was conducted and analysis was planned as a unifactorial experiment. Other reviewers did  not suggest changing  Anova analysis to multicasual.

What does multicasual mean?

Your experiment is a factorial experiment 2*5 and this can give you the opportunity to estimate the principal effects and the interaction between factors. It is a pity not to take into account this opportunity which can be used in your experiment to better understand the responses of plants to the factors used. it's like being in a very nice and big motor boat and using the oars to move forward.

In any case your paper is ok now...but it is a pity ...a big, big pity

 

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors established that the application of iodine and vanadium significantly changed the mineral nutrition status at an early stage of maize development.

Research questions are well defined and within the aims and the scope of the journal. Material is accordingly defined. Methods are suitable, properly described and used in a way that is possible to replicate experiments and analyses. The investigation is performed to good technical standards. It is no ethical problem involved. Conclusions are well stated and based on the results. Discussion is sound and relevant.

English style should be improved on few places.

Suggestions:

Page 2, line 11, »cause harmfully effect« correct English.

3.4. , line 2, instead of »the roots. shoots«, correct »the roots, shoots«

Line 5. »P. Cu. Fe. Mn. Zn«, the same correction is needed.

Discussion, lines 1-4, interesting research was performed on iodine in buckwheat, which could be cited here.

Discussion, lines 2, 3 and 9, replace some ».« by »,«. Read the text again, the same correction is needed elsewhere in the text.

Page 13, row  7 from bottom, instead of »N. P. Mg and Fe. B«  there should be some comma instead of full stop.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewer for their time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We have found all comments valuable and have implemented the corrections according to suggestions. We hope that all the changes and improvements we have introduced into the revised manuscript will meet journal requirements and Editor acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the modified text

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewer for their time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We have found all comments valuable and have implemented the corrections according to suggestions. We hope that all the changes and improvements we have introduced into the revised manuscript will meet journal requirements and Editor acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, there are are a lot of interesting results in this paper and it is a thorough investigation of the effect of vanadium on the uptake of a wide range of Iodine compounds. The MS is generally well structured and presented. I have only relatively minor comments.

1. Introduction. This is quite comprehensive and well referenced. I think it would be strengthened by an explicit hypothesis.  Seems a bit old fashioned and pedentic but this sort of experimental design essentially exists to test a hypothesis. I realise the hypothesis is implicit but making it explicit and then be able to link pack to it increases the scientific rigour I think.
2. Methods. Almost entirely very thorough.  I would, however, like to know three things. First, the organisation of the pots in the phytotron. Were they randomised in any way? Were they blocked?  Second, when the treatments were applied in water happened to the controls? Did they also get atered in the same way but with no treatment? And third, it was done twice - exactly in the same way, i.e. pots of each treatment in exactly the same place? How separated in time? How there the results merged? Did this give 8 replicates in total or were there 2 experiments each with two replicates to give 4 on total? These things matter in an experiment in which differences between many different treatments are being drawn.  And, technically a MANOVA would provide a more secure statistical analysis? The type I error rate will add up with multiple one-way ANOVAs and might be becoming an issue?  Prob OK as is but MANOVA might be worth consideration?  And were the data tested for normality?

3. Results.  I think the figure captions need to be expanded. Certainly to include n=? and probably also the age of the plants.  Ans what sort of mean - arithmetic mean I assume?

 

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewer for their time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We have found all comments valuable and have implemented the corrections according to suggestions. We hope that all the changes and improvements we have introduced into the revised manuscript will meet journal requirements and Editor acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Marlena Grzanka1 et al. «Effect of vanadium on the uptake and distribution of iodine in sweet corn plants at an early stage of their development - pot experiment with the application of KI, KIO3 and 5-iodosalicylic and 2-iodobenzoic acids». Article is devoted to methods of enriching young corn plants with iodine. This makes it interesting for a narrow circle of researchers involved in agriculture investigation and crop production.

 

Title

1. I think the title of the work can be shortened. For example,

«Effect of vanadium on the uptake and distribution of iodine in sweet corn plants at an early stage of their development» will be sufficient.

Abstract
1. «Vanadium is a cofactor for the vanadium dependent iodoperoxidase enzyme, which is responsible for the uptake and accumulation of iodine by marian algae in the main of the brown type»

The article does not apply to the study of the metabolism of selected elements in algae. I think that this information should not be taken out in the abstract. However, it (information) will be quite appropriate in the introduction.

 

2. «Iodine and vanadium are known as "beneficial elements" for higher plants.»

Too general information.

 

3. I would suggest that the authors, in the abstract, move on to generally known information to reveal the essence of their research. For example,

It is known that the absorption of iodine from the environment in plants becomes more efficient in the presence of vanadium. The key role in this process is played by the iodoperoxidase enzyme, where vanadium acts as a cofactor. The study of the nature of the absorption of iodine by higher plants, and in particular by crops such as corn, remains insufficiently studied…

 

Introduction

1. There is a lot of general information about vanadium. It makes sense to either omit this part altogether or replace it with a description of the physiological effects of vanadium on model plants (possibly algae).

 

2. A review of the toxic effect of vanadium on the human body, as well as a description of the role of vanadium in glucose metabolism, does not seem appropriate in the context of this study.

 

3. «In higher plants, vanadium still arouses the interest of scientists and researchers. The bioavailability of vanadium for plants is not well known [15].»

This statement looks very controversial. In any case, since 1990, a number of studies have been published that investigate the mechanisms of accumulation of this element in plants.

- Larsson, M. A., Baken, S., Gustafsson, J. P., Hadialhejazi, G., & Smolders, E. (2013). Vanadium bioavailability and toxicity to soil microorganisms and plants. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 32(10), 2266-2273.

- Aihemaiti, A., Gao, Y., Meng, Y., Chen, X., Liu, J., Xiang, H., ... & Jiang, J. (2020). Review of plant-vanadium physiological interactions, bioaccumulation, and bioremediation of vanadium-contaminated sites. Science of The Total Environment, 712, 135637.

- Qian, Y., Gallagher, F. J., Feng, H., Wu, M., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Vanadium uptake and translocation in dominant plant species on an urban coastal brownfield site. Science of the Total Environment, 476, 696-704.

 

4. Historical information about iodine can be excluded from the introduction.

 

5. To summarize, there is a lot of unnecessary information in the introduction, which only confuses the reader and floridly leads him to the goal of the study. The introduction can be shortened in half without losing the general meaning. As a guideline, I would regroup the introduction. Starting the description with the key research object (corn) and explaining the choice of this object. Then I would describe the role of iodine in plants, the nature of its accumulation for higher plants, as well as its bioavailability for humans. And in conclusion, I would describe the synergistic role of vanadium, after which I would smoothly move on to the aim of the study.

 

Materials and methods

1. There are not enough photos of grown plants, this would allow readers to evaluate the appearance of plants grown on nutrient media enriched with elements (iodine, vanadium, iodine+vanadium) and plants grown on control media.

 

2. What is the reason for the choice of precisely such concentrations of active substances (both for vanadium and for various iodine compounds)?

 

3. Is the solution volume of 100 ml, applied every 3 days, sufficient in the early stages of corn development? What is the reason for the choice of such an application period and the volume of the applied solution?

 

4. As a separate subsection of the chapter materials and methods, you can display "statistics".

 

5. The procedure for calculating of iodine and vanadium untake should be described.

In the results, the calculation of these data does not seem obvious. I think this is a key point, since the stated aim of the study sounds like:

«… to determine the effect of vanadium on the uptake and distribution of iodine…»

 

Results.

 

1. Figure 1, I think that there is no need to unify the limiting value of iodine concentration (mg I · kg-1 D.W.) on the ordinate axis. So, in particular, it makes the leaf graph difficult to read.

 

2. «Iodine content in leaves (A). shoots (B). roots (C)»

Use separating commas instead of dots, assign letters to specific graphs in the figure.

3. Throughout the text, it is quite common to find the separation of experimental options and other enumerations using a dot.

 

4. Figure 3.

Correct the lettering of the graphs in the figure.

 

5. «Table 2. Content of macro elements»

Written together.

 

6. Figure 5. Unified limit value along the ordinate axis. The root graph becomes hard to read.

 

Discussion

1. «In the present study. the application of 5-ISA+V and KI+V had in impact the stimulation of root system growth and development. and in the case of KI+V also the mass of aerial parts of maize plants. This may be due to the contribution of vanadium to nitrogen metabolism. Vanadium function as a growth-stimulating factor. vanadium is involved in the binding and accumulation of nitrogen in plants [46].»

However, this explanation does not apply to the combination 2-IBA + V. When using this combination, such parameters as "Plant height" and "Plant weight" (according to Table 1) were the smallest among all experimental options. How can this phenomenon be explained?

 

2. «The highest content of this element was recorded in the roots after application of KIO3+V. Furthermore. it was found that corn roots preferred IO3- rather than I- uptake. These observations are different from the generally described in the literature preference for better I- than IO3- [50. 31].»

The author's interpretation of the described phenomenon would be interesting.

 

3. «Vanadium uptake is dependent pH. Increased vanadium uptake is observed at low pH (within 4). uptake in the range of 5 to 8 is reduced but stabilized. High pH (alkaline) hindered vanadium uptake by oat roots [53].»

This cannot be correlated in any way with the obtained results, since the pH value was not specified during the preparation of the experimental solutions (in any case, there is no information about this).

 

4. «Vachirapatama et al. [3] showed the stimulating effect of vanadium at a dose of 10 mg·dm-3 on the growth of rice shoot.»

Obviously, there is some mistake here, since other plants are described in this work. Information on the stimulating effect of vanadium on rice shoots is used by the authors of the article to formulate their hypothesis in the introduction.

Original article on the effect of vanandium on rice growth processes

Chongkid, B., Vachirapatama, N. and Jirakiattikul, Y. 2007. Effects of V on rice growth and vandium accumulation in rice tissues. Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science). 41, 28-33.

 

5. « Nevertheless. a lower dose of vanadium showed a stimulating effect in the early developmental stage of corn plants.»

However, not in all combinations.

 

6. Despite the fact that the assessment of the micro- and macroelements profile provides an excellent basis for results discussing, at the same time, this largely complicates the interpretation of the obtained data. This section of the discussion is described rather superficially.

 

Conclusion

1. The application of iodine and vanadium significantly changed the mineral nutrition status of maize at an early stage of its development. Extenuation of macro- and micronutrient uptake in plants with iodine and vanadium fertilization has been observed.»

In my opinion, this conclusion does not quite correlate with the results obtained.The absence of a toxic effect on the plant is not a sufficient result. Although, it is worth noting that it is partly speculative, since, for example, a decrease in the level of magnesium will certainly lead to the degradation of the pigment apparatus, and after this there will be problems with the synthesis of sugars.

 

2. In the place of the authors, I would put the accents in a slightly different way in conclusion. For example, I would determine which form of iodine is best suited for corn fortification (mineral or organic). And secondly, I would describe the benefits of such enrichment in practical application.

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Editor and Reviewer for their time and efforts put into thorough reading and the review on the manuscript as well as giving us comments and suggestions how to improve our manuscript. We have found all comments valuable and have implemented the corrections according to suggestions. We hope that all the changes and improvements we have introduced into the revised manuscript will meet journal requirements and Editor acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx