Effects of Water-Deficit Stress on the Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Chloranthus spicatus Seedlings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Effects of water-deficit stress on the growth and physiological characteristics of Chloranthus spicatus seedlings” by Shang et al. focuses on understanding how different levels of water-deficit (WD) stress affect the growth and physiological characteristics of Chloranthus spicatus seedlings. Specifically, the study aims to identify the optimal soil moisture content for the cultivation of C. spicatus in regions prone to water stress, such as Huangshan.
This study is highly relevant to the field of plant physiology, particularly in the context of agricultural practices in regions facing water scarcity. The research addresses a significant gap by exploring the specific effects of varying WD levels on a plant species widely cultivated for its aromatic properties.
Compared to other published material, this study adds depth to the understanding of how mild to moderate WD can actually benefit plant growth, contrary to the traditional view that any form of water stress is detrimental. The findings that mild and moderate WD enhance certain physiological parameters (such as shoot length, biomass, and photosynthetic efficiency) while severe WD inhibits them provide nuanced insights into how plants can be managed under varying water availability conditions. This contrasts with more generalized studies that do not differentiate between the degrees of water stress.
The conclusions drawn by the authors are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The study convincingly shows that mild and moderate WD stress can be beneficial for C. spicatus growth, while severe stress is detrimental. The experimental results support the main conclusions regarding the optimal soil moisture content for cultivation.
However, while the main questions posed by the study are addressed, there could be more explicit connections made between specific physiological changes and their impact on the overall fitness and adaptability of the plant. Additionally, the study could discuss the potential long-term implications of the findings for large-scale cultivation, particularly in the context of climate change and increasing water scarcity.
The references cited in the study appear to be appropriate and relevant to the subject matter.
This study provides valuable insights into the effects of water-deficit stress on C. spicatus seedlings and offers practical recommendations for optimizing cultivation practices in water-scarce regions.
The article can be published after some minor adjustments just like:
- Figure 3 shows a very small font that is difficult to see. I suggest re-editing the graph with a larger font and higher resolution.
- Increased photosynthesis in moderate stress should be further discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Effects of water-deficit stress on the growth and physiological 2 characteristics of Chloranthus spicatus seedlings
The study investigated the effects of different water stress levels on the growth and physiological parameters of Chloranthus spicatus seedlings. The results showed that C. spicatus can withstand mild, moderate and severe water stress as seen by improved growth and biomass. This is a significant study as it revealed that actually reducing the soil moisture content actually necessary for the growth of Chloranthus spicatus. The research work is original, data is sufficient, analytical method is correct, the conclusion and the references are up to date. I am happy to recommend this research article for publication after minor revision.
Minor comments to the authors
Abstract:
· Line 13 – 14, is an incomplete sentence “The experimental design comprised a control group (CK) and three treatment groups, namely mild WD (T1), moderate WD (T2), and severe WD (T3)”
· See the an example of revised sentence “The experimental design comprised a control group (CK) and three treatment groups, namely mild WD (T1), moderate WD (T2), and severe WD (T3) namely mild WD (75 – 80%; T1), moderate WD (55 – 60%; T2), and severeWD (35 – 40%; T3).
Introduction:
· Introduction is well structured, and covered the scope of the research. References are relevant and recent literature.
· Acknowledge the source of the picture shown in figure 1.
Materials and Methods:
· Growth conditions are missing, nursery day/night temperatures.
· In line 78 to line 80, include the Physical and chemical properties of the nutrient and garden soil.
· In line 82 -83, Authors must be specific about the chemicals or treatments that were applied for weed and insects’ control.
Results:
· Under the abstract (Line 21), Authors wrote that T3 negatively affected shoot length, however, in line 167 Authors showed that shoot length improved by 22% under T3 same applies to shoot diameter. I suggest that this sentence be revised, because although the increase is not significant, however, there is an increase. Same must be revised in the concluding remarks.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have produced an interesting manuscript with interesting results and discussion. According to the described methods, it seems that they did the measurements only on two occasions at the beginning and at the end of the 45-day period, which is relatively small number of measurements, but they used triplicates and different treatments, which can compensate for this shortcoming. Particularly, physiological and biochemical indicators are measured only once, after 45 days? Maybe this is too late? However, I don't have experience in this particular species, but in Vitis vinifera plants, where drought impact on plant is fast, and changes both gene expression and biochemical paramteres significantly change in a first couple of days (4-8), depending on stress severity. It is unusual, why the authors did not use ABA metabolites or proline in the analysis, whether the analyzed metabolites were previously used in similar research, it would be good to clarify why exactly these metabolites were analyzed, as ABA and proline are generally very good markers for drought stress. Also, time is very important, so it would be recommended to emphasize and clarify through the paper when exactly something was measured? to which time frame a particular result refers? Time changes in drought stress play important role.
Additionally, the authors are recommended to put the researched species in a context, whether it is anisohydric/isohydric, if there are previous data, or experience? (If the authors consider this information relevant).
Otherwise, the paper seems very interesting, the content important and the authors draw practical conclusions.
Please, in the pdf attachment of the manuscript, you can find several comments related to this manuscript.
Wish you all the very best.
Kind Regards,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx