Micropropagation and Acclimatization of Monstera deliciosa Liebm. ‘Thai Constellation’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study aims to evaluate the efficiency of the SETIS bioreactor for micropropagation and the effects of a biostimulant on the acclimatization of Monstera delicious “Thai Constellation”. The topic is interesting given the price of seedlings on the market and the need to produce seedlings of this variety on a large scale.

The text requires some adjustments as indicated below.

Summary – Observations about the need for new studies should be excluded from the summary.

Introduction – The second objective is related to the effect of a single biostimulant.

Material and methods – Item 2.2. is confused. Does the rooting and acclimatization described only refer to plants from semi-solid media or is it valid for plants from the bioreactor? The composition of IQ Forte does not need to be presented as it is a commercial product.

Item 2.6. it must be removed and the information that foliar phosphite fertilizer (15ml/L) was applied every two weeks to prevent microorganisms infection.

Tables and figures present the same data, so you must choose to present the data in table or graph form.

Discussion – line 313 replace “plants” with “species”. Line 386-388 – the same different word appears 3 times. Adjust the language or eliminate the sentence that is not very informative.

Author Response

Good morning and thanks for your comments and review of our manuscript. Following your suggestions, these are the changes performed in the manuscript:

1. Summary - observations about the need of further studies removed from the summary.
2. Introduction - corrected to reflect the evaluation of a single biostimulant.
3. Material and Methods, Item 2.2. - the first line of the first paragraph (line 80) under Acclimatization and Biostimulant states: "In vitro-derived shoots generated from previous bioreactor studies were used for this study".
4. Item 2.6 removed.
5. Tables removed, figures maintained.
6. Discussion: "plants" replaced with "species"; sentence removed on lines formerly 386-388

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a simple study, sometimes preliminary, but has the merit of being the first in addressing various issues around the micropropagation of Monstera deliciosa, including the use of a biostimulant to improve ex vitro hardening.

The text is clear and straightforward and does not require any editorial improvement. The photographs of culures are nice and the layout of Figures adequate.

However, it is apparent that the data included in the tables is the same as illustrated in the histograms which is clearly not acceptable. I suggest to delete the tables and keep the figures, which makes easier for readers to retain the best results.

There are several additional minor issues that will require the author's attention before this work becomes acceptable, and I am attaching a annotated file of the manuscript for their perusal. Among them, how were the concentrations of biostimulant chosen?, when and where did the callus form?, etc

Finally, although the literature seems to have been covered correctly, a few reports that could have been cited to improve it have been overlooked, as follows:

Kakade, P.S., Zimare, S.B. & Malpathak, N.P. Effects of Sargassum ilicifolium seaweed extract on enhanced in vitro seed germination, mass propagation, and accumulation of plumbagin in Plumbago zeylanica L.. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 149, 399–410 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-022-02242-3

Bhattacharyya, P., Lalthafamkimi, L., Sharma, T. et al. Metabolic and tissue-specific expression profiling in micropropagated plants of Malaxis acuminata: an endangered medicinal orchid. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 151, 535–549 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-022-02369-3

Orozco-Ortiz, C., Sánchez, L., Araya-Mattey, J. et al. BIT^® bioreactor increases in vitro multiplication of quality shoots in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. variety LAICA 04-809). Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 152, 115–128 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-022-02392-4

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. These are the changes as per your recommendations:

1. Tables were removed to avoid data duplication. Figures were maintained.
2. The concentration of biostimulant was chosen based on the manufacturer's recommendation.
3. Our shoots formed via direct organogenesis, where axillary buds were used to generate multiple shoots. at the base of the shoots, some nimor callus formation appeared, but shoots were not derived from the callus. Thus, when transferring shoots, we maintained a small portion of the callus at the based and trimmed the roots to facilitate continuos growth and development. That sentence was revised to reflect this.
4. As for the reference to the previous studies, first sentence under acclimatization and biostimulant, we rephrased that sentence to clarify and remove confusion.  It is indicated that the shoots formed in bioreactors were used for the acclimatization study. I believe my former writing suggested we ran a previous study on that, which was not the case.
5. Thanks for the suggestions of references. We have added the reference on sugarcane by Orozco-Ortiz et al., 2022, which seems to be the most relevant to our study.
6. The light spectrum and model details were added for the Valoya LED lights.

Reviewer 3 Report

REVIEW REPORT

The work is well planned and described, and the authors provide directions on how further research on the presented topic should be conducted. The work contains all the necessary elements of scientific research and after minor corrections, the results of the work can be published.

1)      The literature review is well done, it introduces the reader to the issue and explains the most important issues. However, in my opinion, it is too general. There is a lack of specific information about the problems with propagation of described plant – not enough precise reasons why Authors chose it for the experiment. The review only makes a general mention of the existence of these types of problems. Please supplement some more precise information about this in the literature review or discussion section.

2)      The description of the biostimulant composition in the Materials and Methods section is too long (on half a page), with large spaces – check the Journal's guidelines, but I think it need editorial correction. E.g. the composition should be just listed after a comma in a sentence, or if this composition is particularly important, it should be presented in even more detail, e.g. in a table with a description of the individual ingredients, their names, etc. (Line 96-105).

Below are some more minor remarks:

3)      The manuscript text requires justification

4)      Line 228, 359 –"in vitro" should be in italic font

5)      Line 232, 248, 280, 306 – in “p ≤ 0.05” p should be in italic font

6)      Table 2 – in the “dry weight” column – last position – SE jumped to the next line 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments and valuable suggestions. Here are the points addressed:

1. Unfortunately, there is not much information available about Monstera in the literature, specifically related to the propagation of Monstera.  The variegated monstera 'Thai Constellation' is very valuable in the ornamental market. Still, growers are having problems propagating them in large quantities due to several issues, not reported in the literature.  The study was performed to address these issues by the grower and we were able to return a large number of plants to the grower for continuous growth and commercialization.  By proposing a study to address the issue, we were able to develop a successful protocol for that particular variety of Monstera.
2. Composition of IQ Forte removed, which is in  agreement also with reviewer 1.
3. Text has been modified to justified.
4. All "in vitro" text in the manuscript was double checked and converted to italics.
5. All "p < 0.05"in the text modified to italics.
6. Tables were eliminated and figures maintained.