Maize Grain Germination Is Accompanied by Acidification of the Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Your subject of study is interesting but unfortunately all of your sections to write the article are incomplete. please rewrite your paper. i mentioned some cases in the file. Best regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
# 1 line 12: please mention when?where?why this study was done?
We think that this information should not be given in the abstract. But we have added this in the M & M chapter.
#2 line 18: use the value in the abstract.
OK, done.
#3 line 25: The introduction is very short. the first you must mention the problem which you want to solve them and what happen before this and what is your new idea to this
We have added some information to the introductory chapter. However, we believe that in the introductory chapter we have outlined the scientific question, described how we approached it methodologically and discussed the results in detail.
#4 line 47: where is study was done?
OK, added.
# 5 line 53: when this study was done?
OK, added.
#6 line 63: you must describe complete M&M.
Although reviewer 3 clearly states that the methods are adequately described (see Review Report Form), we have added some explanatory phrases.
# 7 line 69: What approaches you used for data analysis. which software?
OK, information added.
# 8 line 72: Your work topic is very interesting, but the report that has been prepared is very incomplete. You should spend more time to prepare the report.
We do NOT agree. This is an all-round criticism without specific points of criticism that we could have taken into consideration. Furthermore the overall positive comments of reviewer 2 and 3 demonstrate that they do not feel the same, e.g. „The manuscript is well written and organised good. The figures and illustrative are very informative. The authors conducted excellent experiment that addressed details about an unexpected pH shift during the imbibition of maize grains.“
# 9 line 288: where is your conclusion?
Even though a separate conclusion is not mandatory and our discussion is neither complex nor unusually long, we added a short conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
1.The discussion part is overlaid with results. Please rewrite in context to your results. In many a times the results are already discussed in results section. So keeping this in mind improve both these two sections to make it more coherent.
2. Provide a concrete conclusion at the end of discussion.
3. A few lines in abstract are direct lift from introduction section. Do change the language.
4. Figure legends are explained well. The methods section should be elaborated.
5. Please provide some more background information in the introduction section.
English is good.
Author Response
#1: The discussion part is overlaid with results. Please rewrite in context to your results. In many a times the results are already discussed in results section. So keeping this in mind improve both these two sections to make it more coherent.
We agree and have moved all interpretive sentences from the results to the discussion.
#2: Provide a concrete conclusion at the end of discussion.
Ok, done.
#3: A few lines in abstract are direct lift from introduction section. Do change the language.
We have changed the language in the introduction to avoid repetition.
#4: Figure legends are explained well. The methods section should be elaborated.
Ok, we improved the comprehensiveness and clarity of this section.
#5: Please provide some more background information in the introduction section.
We have added some additional information.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer #1
Journal name: Agronomy - MDPI
Manuscript title: Maize Grain Germination is Accompanied by Acidification of 2 the Environment
Authors: Konrad Wellmann et al., 2023
Minor comments:
The manuscript is well written and organised good. The figures and illustrative are very informative. The authors conducted excellent experiment that addressed details about an unexpected pH shift during the imbibition of maize grains. Particularly, the authors used direct pH measurements of soak water, the pH indicator methyl red, and anatomical analysis to shed light on the acidification associated with maize (Zea mays L.) seeds germination.
Comments:
1. Authors provided in the Fig. 3A. Colour scale of methyl red at pH values between 6.5 and 4.2. Is that any specific reason, why do you used the specific pH ranges!
2. Do you think how similar this outcomes for other seeds germination in particular pH shift during the imbibition of barely, rice etc. Discuss your idea.
3. Page no. 3, Figure number typos mistake. Please correct it.
4. Introduction looks very precise and clear information. Though, the author may extent to improve with the recent information.
5. Reference 3 format was incorrect. Author should check the all citations in reference section.
Author Response
# 1: Authors provided in the Fig. 3A. Colour scale of methyl red at pH values between 6.5 and 4.2. Is that any specific reason, why do you used the specific pH ranges!
OK, we added an explanation.
# 2: Do you think how similar this outcomes for other seeds germination in particular pH shift during the imbibition of barely, rice etc. Discuss your idea.
Maybe reviewer 3 has overlooked pH data for other species (Secale cereale, Avena sativa, Raphanus sativus, Sinapis alba, Helianthus annuus, Glycine max, and Phaseolus vulgaris) but we have mentioned this on page 3 and fig. 1B of revised ms). However, we have focussed our discussion on the strong and early/rapid acidification in maize (up to pH 4.5; see Fig. 1) because this occurred only in maize. Nevertheless, we have also discussed the late/delayed acidification in maize and other species (see page 7 of revised ms).
# 3: Page no. 3, Figure number typos mistake. Please correct it.
OK, done.
# 4: Introduction looks very precise and clear information. Though, the author may extent to improve with the recent information.
OK, we added additional information.
# 5: Reference 3 format was incorrect. Author should check the all citations in reference section.
OK corrected and all citations checked.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author's,
I have carefully reviewed your recent revisions, but I still believe that the introduction and materials of your method remain incomplete and require further revision. I would like to emphasize that the current version does not adequately address the core problem at hand or provide a clear justification for conducting this research. I kindly request that you carefully consider my comments in the introduction and methods section, as they provide valuable insights into areas that require improvement.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Author Response
There is no core problem that led to this work, but we added now a justification for conducting our research.
All previous criticisms have been addressed and information added in the last round and we consider all chapters to be complete. We could not find any other concrete suggestions for improvement that we could follow.
