Physiological Responses of Plants to Combined Drought and Heat under Elevated CO2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors wrote a concise and actualized review to discuss the physiological responses of plants grown under elevated CO2 concentration and subjected to multiple stresses (drought and heat stress combination).
The presentation is neat and distributed correctly. The schematic figures are precise and summarize the information very well.
The bibliography is updated and representative of the subject.
Although the manuscript is easy to read, the authors should revise minor grammatical details.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We revised the English language and style.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review presented by the authors provides a comprehensive and well-focused overview of the effects of combined drought, heat stress, and elevated CO2 level. It is focused purely on the physiological responses of the plants (including major crops) with a low emphasis on molecular aspects. I see that as meaningful, as there are very strong reviews summarizing the molecular effects, but the reviews focused on recent advances in physiology are of older date.
Of course, there is always some scope for improvements and additions, but, from my perspective, the review is well written, presenting the current knowledge and opinion of the authors. I did not identify any significant errors or flaws.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We revised the English language and style and did the required changes to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment
By the authors involved, I was expecting a higher standard from this review.
The topic itself is of great scientific interest however, a review article should be properly edited in order to be useful and informative and attract readers.
Overall the manuscripts is poorly written, at times it is obscure if not confusing and repetitive.
In my opinion this manuscripts needs major revisions before being resubmitted. The style and syntax should be properly checked.
Following are some remarks line by line
ABSTRACT
LINES 10-11 This should be moved to the beginning, since climate change is a consequence of the greenhouse effect (which in turn produces the global warming) and CO2 is a main contributor to global warming.
LINE 12 Climate change (long term) should not be confused with weather fluctuations (short term). Rephrase. See also lines 22-27.
LINE 18 “discussed” rather than “illuminated”
LINES 22-24 rephrase
line 28 should be specified “USA National Oceanic …”
line 28 “it” is expected … subject. See also below.
line 38-39 rephrase
line 44 “such” list the env. factors or maybe delete the word
line 45 strategies rather than mechanisms
line 47 check english
lines 54-56 rephrase
lines 58-59 combined rather than multiple. rephrase
line 70 maybe “from WATER stress induced…” ?
line 71 specify and rephrase “the increase of the ABA” … content ? concentration?
lines 80-82 specify “wheat” as in line 85 “soybean”
lines 92-94 obscure. What is the logical connection between PS thermostability, carboxylation and leaf N content ? Explain. This is in contrast with the very basic explanation given in the following lines 97-100
line 104 - aCO2 was not previously defined/introduced
lines 104-110 This part should be checked and better explained. e.g. cited ref 39 is about heat shock only. Overall a number of scientific reports are cited but no clarifying synthesis is proposed. As a result no clear message is delivered.
line 120 define Ci
line 121 following “limitation” the reasoning should be completed.
lines 121-123 this needs to be carefully rephrased, the word “reduction” may be misleading when discussing NADP metabolism and photochemistry.
line 124-126 needs to be clearly explained in order to discuss the “complexity”
lines 129-131 repetitive
lines 133-141 what are the conclusions to be drawn? Should be better presented.
lines 151-166 repetitive. New information should be highlighted
line 172 maybe XX century or 20th century ? Certainly not 1900 century
line 172 anticipated rather than accelerated
line 174 when ? why? cite references
line 175 “positive impact” in what case ? cite ref
lines 181-182 rephrase “the oxidative damage of ROS”
line 182 what “important role” ? explain
lines 184-185 “In addition … drought stress” Obscure: check and rephrase
lines 186-187 “increased antioxidant defences” should be introduced and explained.
lines 202 to the end - please refer to the above comments
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate you providing us with valuable feedback. We did the required changes as recommended and revised the English language and style to improve the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Very good revision. All flaws were addressed and the authors greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. English language is correct and easily readable. Scientific content is well structured and presented.
