Growth of Paulownia ssp. Interspecific Hybrid ‘Oxytree’ Micropropagated Nursery Plants under the Influence of Plant-Growth Regulators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

I had the privileged to review the manuscript. The point to consider is as follows.

Title: It would be more meaningful if micropropagated/tissue-cultured plantlets were mentioned in the title. 

Affiliation: there are spacing errors as well as no comma for the address.

Abstract: I would suggest the manuscript to be sent to proofreading services.

Line 9,10: paulownia or Paulownia? please standardized on the name of the plant.

Line 11-15: the sentence are confusing

Line 14-16: what is the basis for choosing this chemical? There are a lot of chemicals in the market and why this? Please include this in methodology.

Line 17: what do you mean by 'broke'?

Line 18: GAx? why not mentioned their specific numbers.

Line 18: why have '!' in the sentence?

Line 18-19: why did you mention "Not only GAx, but also unexpectedly BA (cytokinin!) and TE (retardant!) stimulated stem elongation and thickening' -- it is common for GA and BA to elongate cells, so why unexpected. GA and BA are used for cell differentiation hence, cell elongation is expected.

Line 19: 'Furthermore, the effect of TE lasted longer than created by GAx and BA' - grammar problem

Line 21: what do you mean by distorted? Is there any other term like necrotic, curl etc?

Introduction

Generally Introduction part is too short. No mention of why tissue culture was used?. what is tissue culture? the introduction to PGRs is also very shallow as we know there is a lot of information on those PGRs.

Line37: is this sentence referring to micropropagated plantlets? please rewrite so the audience can understand better.

Line 39-41: I do not understand the meaning of the sentence. Consider rephrase

Line 43: wooding? 

Line 48-50: not understand

Line 51: presented study? grammar errror

Line 52: assess? or assessment: grammar error

Methodology

Line 59

The condition of micropropagated plantlets was not mentioned. what media and PGRs are used to grow the plantlets? what treatment has been done? is there any publication that you can cite to prove this has been done?

Line 67 and a few other lines: March 12th. If authors would like to put date to Methods, please specify the start date and end date with the year so the audience know which year the month belongs to and for easy reference.

Line 74: I suppose a reference is needed for this statement or at least an explanation.

Results

Line 119,120: did not work phytotoxically & side shoots was not observed.- why focus on something that you cannot see rather than what you already have.

Line 130: weird choice of words - 1) Stem accretions? plant handled? 

There is no result at all mentioned in the text from the Table presented. The author mentioned the plantlets elongate or thicken in diameter but did not mention the numbers presented in the Table. Please mention the number. I suggest to rewrite entire Results section to reflect the numbers/data presented in the Table.

Discussion

Line 241-242: They could reduce leader shoot thus height of apple trees. Meaning?

Line 245: ! was used in the text. Its quite appropiate to use ! in the text.

Line 260-263: this statement should be in Results. there are a few statement like this which i feel should be in the the Results section.

Line 304: the usage of our in manuscript should be avoided. I, yu, we, them etc should be avoided. 

Line 308-311: Some statements are good like sentences in Line 308-311 but authors need to justify why this phenomenon happened.

Conclusion

Must be in text form

References

Although the discussion is lengthy, only 25 references are cited. I would suggest increasing the citation number.

Most of the references are dated. Suggest to add more recent references

THe format are different form format outlined by Agronomy. Please amend according to Agronomy formats

Thank you very much and good luck.

Must be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for quite positive and very accurate review. Thanks also for pointing out the errors and many tips and suggestions that urged me to put more effort and improve my work!!

Dear authors,

I had the privileged to review the manuscript. The point to consider is as follows.

Title: It would be more meaningful if micropropagated/tissue-cultured plantlets were mentioned in the title.  The title was changed

Affiliation: there are spacing errors as well as no comma for the address. The errors were removed, I hope…

Abstract: 

Line 9,10: paulownia or Paulownia? please standardized on the name of the plant. Hmm, it seems correct to me - English names of plant genus are written with lowercase letters, and Latin ones with capital letters? I found some related errors and corrected it in the text and title.

Line 11-15: the sentence are confusing. I divided it into two sentences.

Line 14-16: what is the basis for choosing this chemical? There are a lot of chemicals in the market and why this? Please include this in methodology. I have done it in Intorduction and M&M.

Line 17: what do you mean by 'broke'? I changed it to ‘modified’

Line 18: GAx? why not mentioned their specific numbers. I did this to save space in Abstract and simplify the statement.

Line 18: why have '!' in the sentence? To underline unespected effect?

Line 18-19: why did you mention "Not only GAx, but also unexpectedly BA (cytokinin!) and TE (retardant!) stimulated stem elongation and thickening' -- it is common for GA and BA to elongate cells, so why unexpected. GA and BA are used for cell differentiation hence, cell elongation is expected. Cytokinins, by stimulating the growth of side/axillary shoots, often weaken the growth of the main shoot. It was found in some fruit trees and ornamental plants. I observed it on in vitro cultures of many species.  However, retardation of main shoot is not as obvious as in the case of retardants. Therefore I slightly changed sentence. „Not only GA3, GA4+GA7, but also BA (cytokinin) and unexpectedly TE (retardant) stimulated stem elongation and thickening.”

Line 19: 'Furthermore, the effect of TE lasted longer than created by GAx and BA' - grammar problem. I changed into „Furthermore, the effect of TE lasted longer than influence of GAx and BA.”

Line 21: what do you mean by distorted? Is there any other term like necrotic, curl etc? I changed into „TPA strongly deformed stems and leaves of liners.”

Introduction

Generally Introduction part is too short. No mention of why tissue culture was used?. what is tissue culture? the introduction to PGRs is also very shallow as we know there is a lot of information on those PGRs. Possibly I have a habit from the old days of printed journals, when the number of pages for manuscript was limited, space had to be saved, and providing commonly known information was not necessary or recommended. I have slightly supplemented the introduction in line with the Reviewer's comments, although more information about PGR is provided in the Discussion.

Line37: is this sentence referring to micropropagated plantlets? please rewrite so the audience can understand better.  I made some changes

 Line 39-41: I do not understand the meaning of the sentence. Consider rephrase  I made some changes

 Line 43: wooding?   Lignification ; Line 48-50: not understand   That sentence was removed

Line 51: presented study? grammar errrorerror    present study; Line 52: assess? or assessment: grammar error  to assess; Thank You for pointing out the errors!

Methodology

Line 59 The condition of micropropagated plantlets was not mentioned. what media and PGRs are used to grow the plantlets? what treatment has been done? is there any publication that you can cite to prove this has been done?  As a matter of facts the plantlets were micropropagated in laboratory in Spain and provided by Oxytree Solutions Poland S.A. Details of micropropagation were not disclosed. However, in our laboratory paulownias are propagated according to a standard procedure given in many publications. I added a brief informantion about micropropagation method.

Line 67 and a few other lines: March 12th. If authors would like to put date to Methods, please specify the start date and end date with the year so the audience know which year the month belongs to and for easy reference.  I added such information. Unfortunately, no reviewers have been found in the editorial offices of other journals for over 2 years.

Line 74: I suppose a reference is needed for this statement or at least an explanation. Do You mean "They were chosen on the results of preliminary experiments carried out on other paulownia clones."?  The experiments were preliminary and screening in nature. They were conducted on a small number of plants (4 per treatment) of other paulownia clones. The plants were not measured, only observed and assessed. For this reason, we decided not to publish the results. I have writtnen about it in M&M.

Results

Line 119,120: did not work phytotoxically & side shoots was not observed.- why focus on something that you cannot see rather than what you already have. Hmm, I saw that there were generally no symptoms of phytotoxicity? This is only an introductory paragraph describing the results, which are not included in the tables.

Line 130: weird choice of words - 1) Stem accretions? plant handled?   stem extensions; subjected to

Thank You for pointing out the errors!

There is no result at all mentioned in the text from the Table presented. The author mentioned the plantlets elongate or thicken in diameter but did not mention the numbers presented in the Table. Please mention the number. I suggest to rewrite entire Results section to reflect the numbers/data presented in the Table. Hmm, many reviewers (including me) consider it inappropriate to provide the same data in the text and table. I hope this is just a suggestion for a change and not a necessary condition for accepting the manuscript.

Discussion

Line 241-242: They could reduce leader shoot thus height of apple trees. Meaning? I changed the paragraph.

Line 245: ! was used in the text. Its quite appropiate to use ! in the text.  Thank You!

Line 260-263: this statement should be in Results. there are a few statement like this which i feel should be in the the Results section. Such statements are in the Results. Nevertheless, I repeated them in the Discussion and referred to appropriate figures and tables so that the Reader could access the documentation faster. I hope You don't think this is a serious mistake.

Line 304: the usage of our in manuscript should be avoided. I, yu, we, them etc should be avoided. OK, I will try to avoid it. Sometimes we use such words to distinguish our results (present study) from those obtained by other researchers.

Line 308-311: Some statements are good like sentences in Line 308-311 but authors need to justify why this phenomenon happened. Hmm, I don't understand.  I am  quoting there articles describing the impact of retardants on trees? There are not my statements? Maybe the wrong line number was entered?

Conclusion

Must be in text form  I changed it.

References

Although the discussion is lengthy, only 25 references are cited. I would suggest increasing the citation number.. Most of the references are dated. Suggest to add more recent references  Thank You for forcing me to look for new information. Nevertheless, I still see that the new information about reaction of trees on PGRs are scarce. Nevertheless,  I added more than 30 references. However, 12 of them refers to paulownia micropropagation, which is not directly related to the our research. I have some doubts whether this is appropriate…

THe format are different form format outlined by Agronomy. Please amend according to Agronomy formats  I changed format of References.

Thank you very much and good luck.  And vice-versa!  ?

Thank You again for the thorough, comprehensive review. It was great work! I hope the revised manuscript meets Your requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

1. What variant of control was used in processing of plant treatments?

2. Figure 1 quality should be improved. Figures are very small.

3. What do the strikethrough letters in the tables 3, 4 mean?

4. Dear authors, please explain how can your research help to grow of paulownias in moderate/cold climate zones?

Moreover, what specific results from GAx, BA, and TE treatments can be useful for paulownia cultivation?  Please do clarify.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for quite positive review. Especially the last questions are very relevant. As these issues were not directly related to the purpose of the presented research and were not supported by the results, I decided to remove them from Conclusions. Nevertheless, I included an extended paragraph in  Discussion where I tried to answer these questions.

1. What variant of control was used in processing of plant treatments? The control plants were sprayed with solution of adjuvants, without PGRs. It was mentioned in M&M and Tables, etc.
2. Figure 1 quality should be improved. Figures are very small. I enlarged the photos. However, I can provide photos as separate files to the Editorial Office.
3. What do the strikethrough letters in the tables 3, 4 mean? I added an explanation below the tables : The F test result (SL=ns), being superior, does not allow the LSD test results to be considered as significant.
4. Dear authors, please explain how can your research help to grow of paulownias in moderate/cold climate zones? Moreover, what specific results from GAx, BA, and TE treatments can be useful for paulownia cultivation? Please do clarify. I included an extended paragraph in Discussion where I tried to answer these questions.

Thank You fort work! I hope the revised manuscript meets Your requirements.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors, the manuscript is in my opinion too overloaded but it is not the opposite of its value.

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

The study “Growth of Paulownia interspecific hybrid ‘Oxytree’ nursery plants under the influence of plant growth regulators”, Wojciech and his colleagues explored the effect of plant growth regulators on the growth of paulownia plants. Although I find their experimental approach was reasonable and logical, I think the authors should pay attention to some details, for example, the author should add details on spraying the PGR, such as how often and how? the main parts of spraying, etc. Another question is that the Fig.1 lack the bar. please add the information.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

        Thank You for positive opinion. I have added some more precise information about PGR treatment in M@M. I have also placed bars in all photos of Figure 1. I hope that the changes made will meet Your requirements.

                                                       Sincerely yours, Wojciech Litwińczuk

Reviewer 2 Report

The research theme is important because it deals with the application of plant growth regulators (PGR) in the growth of paulownia plants. The critical point of this research is involved in the application of these products and their evaluation. In the case of foliar application of these products or others, it does not mean that these products will be absorbed. In a survey, the authors need to detail the foliar spraying so that readers believe that these compounds were absorbed. Without this guarantee, research loses its scientific foundation and does not contribute anything to the advancement of knowledge. For example, what was the temperature and relative humidity of the air at the time of spraying? In relation to the size of the drop sprayed on the leaf? Sprayer nozzle data and the pressure used. The description of the sprayer? The volume of syrup sprayed on the leaves? What was the pH value of the water used? Was the source of this water deionized or distilled? What is the water quality? To describe.

The other critical point is related to the previous point. Why was the content of these compounds applied to the plant not measured? Without this, it is not possible to prove its direct effects on the metabolism of the plant and consequently on the physiology and growth of the plant.

Research in this area is important, but it is necessary to have high scientific rigor so that the research has scientific validity and can generate knowledge. There are many studies in this area but little valid science.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

      I am grateful for a harsh, and honest opinion, and for pointing out the importance of additional analysis in this type of research. As a matter of fact, when planning the experiment, we followed several publications describing the impact of PGRs on various plant species. They were published in Scientia Horticulturae, Plant Growth Regulation, as well as in Agronomy. The authors of these studies did not determine the content of the growth regulators used in plants. Unfortunately, we also did not take this type of analysis into account. The authors also did not provide many details about the application of the tested compounds. Hence, I admit their (and our) studies contributes little to basic sciences, like plant physiology. Nevertheless, they may be important for applied science and practical use. In revised version I have added some more precise information about PGR treatment, properties and volumes of working solutions, timing and method of their application, etc. I realize that revised version of the manuscript will not fully meet Your requirements. However, I hope it will meet the minimal ones.  Sincerely yours, Wojciech Litwińczuk

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Os problemas científicos do trabalho foram previamente discutidos no primeiro parecer indeferindo o trabalho para publicação. Modificações no manuscrito não podem reverter essa situação.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Unfortunately, I don't speak Portuguese. However, I translated Your comment. In the earlier revised version, I added some more precise information. However, I am not able to determine the content of active ingredients, it is too late. There are many articles in good scientific journals that also do not contain such information. So we have different opinions on that matter. Thank you for your work. Sincerely, Wojciech Litwińczuk