Application of the Impedance Measurement Method to Evaluate the Results of Winter Grafting of Pear Cuttings Using Cold Plasma
, Alexei Solovchenko 2,3, Dmitry Khort 1, Igor G. Smirnov 1, Alexey I. Kutyrev 1, Roman V. Pobedonostsev 4 and Denis V. Yanykin 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hello, thank you for reading our article in detail, according to your comments, we have made a number of changes to improve our article, namely.
We have reworked section 3, placed the necessary references to those works where the electrical model of the branching section of the tree is better described, and deciphered the abbreviations.
We described the device and gave a link to a more detailed description of the principles of its operation.
Section 3 has been redesigned, part of the section has been moved, formulas have been added.
Added information about the number of plants in the experiment. The effect of using CAPS and PTS is there, this is indirectly confirmed by the best indicators of foliage and seedling growth, although it is possible that at other concentrations and modes the effect will be better. Measuring the impedance modulus helps us to track the healing dynamics over time, in any case we will need to continue these experiments. Figure 9 has been changed and signed.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study by Filippov et al. investigates a potential application of a powerful technology of EIS (electrical impedance spectroscopy) in the process of winter grafting of pear cuttings using cold plasma. The study might be useful for the application in the future.
The manuscript is okay to read, but many small errors are scattered throughout the manuscript. I recommend a thorough check of the grammar/ formatting.
Some major comments listed below:
1) The statistical significance of differences does not emerge either in the text or in the graphs (Figures 4, 5, 7, 8), which is a serious problem that makes it impossible to evaluate the EIS signal and the effectiveness of the treatments.
2) Figure 9, no text talked about it. No labeling on the figure too. It’s better to show Control, PTS:DW c, 30 sec DBD CAP.
Grammar/ formatting error listed below:
Line 22” CAP and PTS “ need a full name spelling.
Line 33” Assessment of steady-state metabolism with consistent physiological parameters and biochemical reactions.” It’s not a sentence.
Line 37” of modern intensive fruit growing .As” a formatting error here.
Line 54-55” Such indicators as moisture content, development of the vascular system, the rate of healing of internal injuries, for example, when grafting plants, are also evaluated.” This sentence did not make sense.
Line 111 “with GOST R 53135-2008.Cuttings” here should have a space.
Line 114 “cold plasma to affect fresh cuttings of cuttings [21].” delete “of cuttings”.
Line 117 and 118 “is described” to “was described”.
Line 151-152 “Cells and intercellular fluid The fluid forms the basis of almost any biological tissue and the electrical properties”, grammar error. This sentence did not make sense.
Line 153 “The fluid inside and outside the cell consists of water and electrolytes dissolved in it, salt, etc.,” This sentence did not make sense.
Line 188 ” (100-300mm) every 100mm”. 300 mm, every 100 mm. It should have a space here.
Line 195 to 201 “The obtained data of the correlation of the impedance modulus depending on the length of the seedling section on which the measurement was performed indicate the applicability of formula (1) for our case, with the exception of small deviations in the results obtained at frequencies 2 and 3 kHz, analyzing these deviations of the dependence of the impedance on the frequency, it can be assumed that in our measurement scheme after Additionally, a "capacitor" with a capacity of about 0.6UF is connected to the test sample” This sentence did not make sense with grammar error. suggest to use a few simple sentences.
Author Response
Hello, thank you for reading our article in detail, according to your comments, we have made a number of changes to improve our article, namely.
- We added a description of the methods used by us to the text, and also added data on the conduct of the experiment to better show statistical significance.
- The drawing was changed and captions were added to it.
The rest of the comments were eliminated.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
View of my previous comments were addressed. Please try again.
Author Response
In Figure 7, I marked with the icon *, statistically significant values that we received at 4,5,6 weeks, as well as from the 9th to the 15th week of observation.
The description of lines 256-273 has been changed in the text.
As shown (Figure 8) by measurements of seedlings, the result in growth became more noticeable 6 months after grafting, and the change in impedance can be compared at earlier stages. Perhaps the growth changes in the seedlings will be more obvious in a year, we will definitely compare them.
In the caption to Figure 7, we added All the data are average ± SD. The statistical significance relative to the control was calculated using the Student's t-test and indicated: *P < 0.05
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of my comments. But, still a few important comments need to be addressed.
1) The statistical significance of differences is very important to evaluate whether does the author's system work well. I didn't see any real improvement on it. please calculate it carefully, specially in Figures 7, 8.
Although in main text, the author stated that some increase in the treated samples for the data in Figure 7 and some decrease in the treated samples for the data in Figure 8. However, from the data shown in Figure 7 and 8, the bar are quite large, I couldn't see whether the different are significant or not.
Suggest the author to add the following important information in figure legend, such as "All data are mean ± SD (standard deviation) or SE (standard error), n = xx. Statistical significance relative to control was calculated with Student’s t-test and is indicated: **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05". Then, the author can add "**" or "*" on the linear graph at the special point if p<0.01 or p<0.05.
2) why did the author change the "figure 4" to "figure 5" in Line 228?
Author Response
Thank you so much for your advice that will help make our article better.
Comment
1) The statistical significance of differences is very important to evaluate whether does the author's system work well. I didn't see any real improvement on it. please calculate it carefully, specially in Figures 7, 8.
Although in main text, the author stated that some increase in the treated samples for the data in Figure 7 and some decrease in the treated samples for the data in Figure 8. However, from the data shown in Figure 7 and 8, the bar are quite large, I couldn't see whether the different are significant or not.
Suggest the author to add the following important information in figure legend, such as "All data are mean ± SD (standard deviation) or SE (standard error), n = xx. Statistical significance relative to control was calculated with Student’s t-test and is indicated: *P < 0.01, *P < 0.05". Then, the author can add "" or "" on the linear graph at the special point if p<0.01 or p<0.05.
Reply
In Figure 7, I marked with the icon *, statistically significant values that we received at 4,5,6 weeks, as well as from the 9th to the 15th week of observation.
The description of lines 256-273 has been changed in the text.
As shown (Figure 8) by measurements of seedlings, the result in growth became more noticeable 6 months after grafting, and the change in impedance can be compared at earlier stages. Perhaps the growth changes in the seedlings will be more obvious in a year, we will definitely compare them.
In the caption to Figure 7, we added All the data are average ± SD. The statistical significance relative to the control was calculated using the Student's t-test and indicated: *P < 0.05
Comment
why did the author change the "figure 4" to "figure 5" in Line 228?
Reply
You're right, they accidentally changed it during the correction, thank you so much for telling me about this typo. Of course, figure 5 is correct.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
