Effects of Selenium/Iodine Foliar Application and Seasonal Conditions on Yield and Quality of Perennial Wall Rocket

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study evaluated the response of biofortification with selenium/iodine and seasonal conditions on yield, quality, antioxidant properties and mineral composition of greenhouse-grown perennial wall rocket.

 

·        Abstract- Clear and informative

·        Introduction- All is in order

Materials and Methods- Why is the amount or volume of selenium and Iodine not the same??? 50 and 100 mg/L.

What was the ratio of the two mineral nutrients in the combined treatment??? (1:1) or a different ratio???

300 ml/ plant was used, was it enough even when the leaves were taller or bigger???? Perhaps say the treatment was applied until runoff but you know how you did it...

·        The results section is combined with the discussion, therefore the section should be named ‘Results and Discussion’

 

·        This section needs to be revised, either the authors separate it into two sections or combine them and make a comprehensive discussion of results. About 80% of this section is the description of results or with minimal discussion. The authors are advised to engage with the literature and explain the how the results are behaving this way. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The quality of the English language is acceptable but could be improved. 

Author Response

Answers to the Reviewer 1 comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and all the amendments/modifications performed across the text have been marked by red color.

 

The present study evaluated the response of biofortification with selenium/iodine and seasonal conditions on yield, quality, antioxidant properties and mineral composition of greenhouse-grown perennial wall rocket. 

• Abstract- Clear and informative
• Introduction- All is in order
• Materials and Methods- Why is the amount or volume of selenium and Iodine not the same??? 50 and 100 mg/L.

Answer: Dear Reviewer, we have added the required information in the Materials and Methods section (lines 145-147).

• What was the ratio of the two mineral nutrients in the combined treatment??? (1:1) or a different ratio???

Answer: We have used the same Se and I doses in the combined treatment as in the single applications, as reported at the line 145.

• 300 ml/ plant was used, was it enough even when the leaves were taller or bigger???? Perhaps say the treatment was applied until runoff but you know how you did it...

Answer: We addressed the above comment at the line 149-152.

• 4)  The results section is combined with the discussion, therefore the section should be named ‘Results and Discussion’. This section needs to be revised, either the authors separate it into two sections or combine them and make a comprehensive discussion of results. About 80% of this section is the description of results or with minimal discussion. The authors are advised to engage with the literature and explain the how the results are behaving this way. 

Answer: We have changed the title of the section to ‘Results and Discussion’, revised the text and included the additional information about the relationship between the parameters tested, the effect of crop cycles and Se/I treatments on yield, antioxidant status and Se/I accumulation.

6) Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The quality of the English language is acceptable but could be improved. 

Answer: Addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: It is recommended to change it. The current title is long and very specific.

 

Abstract: It is recommended to write the number 3 in full. Make the objective of the work clear in one sentence and the treatments adopted in another sentence. End the abstract with a conclusive sentence of the work.

 

Keywords: It is recommended to use keywords different from the words in the title.

 

Introduction: It is recommended to refer to foliar fertilization, since this was the form of application used. Why was this form of application chosen for these elements?

 

Material and methods: Although the methodology used is cited, it is recommended to describe how the analyses, quality control, detection limits and quantification were performed.

 

Results: It is recommended to replace the tables with graphs and use contrasting colors in the graphs, as they are more attractive to readers.

 

Discussion: It is recommended to improve the discussion by focusing on the results obtained and the implications for the physiology of the plant. Searching for other studies carried out with the same plant or plants from the same family can help in discussing the results.

 

Conclusion: It is recommended to improve the writing of the conclusion. Given the results obtained, what conclusion can be drawn?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ask someone fluent in English and in scientific writing to review the manuscript.

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer 2 comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and all the amendments/modifications performed across the text have been marked by red color.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)Title: It is recommended to change it. The current title is long and very specific.

 Answer: Dear Reviewer, we have addressed your comment.

2)Abstract: It is recommended to write the number 3 in full. Make the objective of the work clear in one sentence and the treatments adopted in another sentence. End the abstract with a conclusive sentence of the work.

Answer: We have revised the Abstract as recommended. 

3)Keywords: It is recommended to use keywords different from the words in the title.

 Answer: Addressed.

4)Introduction: It is recommended to refer to foliar fertilization, since this was the form of application used. Why was this form of application chosen for these elements?

Answer: The required explanation has been added in the Introduction section.

 5)Material and methods: Although the methodology used is cited, it is recommended to describe how the analyses, quality control, detection limits and quantification were performed.

Answer: The required information has been added in the Materials and Methods section.

6)Results: It is recommended to replace the tables with graphs and use contrasting colors in the graphs, as they are more attractive to readers.

Answer: Several Figures have been added to the text to draw more attention to the obtained results (Figures 1,2,5,7), and all the Figures were produced in contrasting colours.

7)Discussion: It is recommended to improve the discussion by focusing on the results obtained and the implications for the physiology of the plant. Searching for other studies carried out with the same plant or plants from the same family can help in discussing the results.

Answer: We have expanded the discussion of the results and cited further research related to the subject. Moreover, we have included and discussed the correlations between the examined parameters.

8)Conclusion: It is recommended to improve the writing of the conclusion. Given the results obtained, what conclusion can be drawn?

Answer: The Conclusions section has been revised according to the above comments.

 

9)Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ask someone fluent in English and in scientific writing to review the manuscript.

Answer: Addressed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides a broad overview of the importance of selenium (Se) and iodine (I) in human nutrition, highlighting their health benefits and the consequences of deficiency. However, the discussion is overly generic and lacks a specific focus on the agronomic context and challenges associated with biofortification in leafy crops such as perennial rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia). A more targeted introduction would strengthen the connection with the study objectives. Further work on biofortification using Diplotaxis tenuifolia should be increased, or the scale of such work should be emphasized in the Introduction. The physiological aspects of nutrient uptake should also be highlighted. How are iodine and selenium absorbed by plants? And how is the translocation of these elements within plant metabolism? Finally, the hypotheses should be clear in the introduction.

 

The results are presented clearly enough, supported by tables and figures. However, minor adjustments to improve figure legends and ensure that all trends are easily interpretable could be helpful. One example is the addition of colors in the figures and the coefficient of variation in the tables.

 

The conclusions are well aligned with the presented data, showing the benefits of Se/I biofortification. Some additional discussion on potential limitations and broader implications of the results would further substantiate the conclusions. How can iodine and selenium biofortification be replicated and applied on a large scale?

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer 3 comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and all the amendments/modifications performed across the text have been marked by red color.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)The introduction provides a broad overview of the importance of selenium (Se) and iodine (I) in human nutrition, highlighting their health benefits and the consequences of deficiency. However, the discussion is overly generic and lacks a specific focus on the agronomic context and challenges associated with biofortification in leafy crops such as perennial rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia). A more targeted introduction would strengthen the connection with the study objectives. Further work on biofortification using Diplotaxis tenuifolia should be increased, or the scale of such work should be emphasized in the Introduction. The physiological aspects of nutrient uptake should also be highlighted. How are iodine and selenium absorbed by plants? And how is the translocation of these elements within plant metabolism? Finally, the hypotheses should be clear in the introduction.

Answer: Dear Reviewer, the Introduction section has been expanded according to your comments. 

2)The results are presented clearly enough, supported by tables and figures. However, minor adjustments to improve figure legends and ensure that all trends are easily interpretable could be helpful. One example is the addition of colors in the figures and the coefficient of variation in the tables.

Answer: All the Tables and Figures have been revised, and the Discussion section has been expanded using the correlation coefficients between the examined parameters.

 3)The conclusions are well aligned with the presented data, showing the benefits of Se/I biofortification. Some additional discussion on potential limitations and broader implications of the results would further substantiate the conclusions. How can iodine and selenium biofortification be replicated and applied on a large scale?

Answer: the Conclusions section has been revised as recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The research has shown that Selenium/Iodine foliar biofortification, combined with seasonal conditions, can effectively optimize the yield, quality, antioxidant properties, and mineral composition of Perennial Wall Rocket grown in greenhouses. This study is highly innovative and provides a strong foundation for the development of innovative functional foods. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed in the results: In Section 3.3, Table 5 indicates that magnesium (Mg) reached its minimal accumulation in the third cycle, exceeding that of the first cycle by approximately 40%, and potassium content significantly decreased in the third cycle, showing lower values by about 10%. However, the results presented show incorrect values and opposite trends. Please explain the reason for this discrepancy. Neither Figure 1 nor Figure 2 indicates significant differences, while significant differences are only marked in the table. I believe that significant differences should be clearly marked in the bar charts. Additionally, the error line in Figure 1 is too large, suggesting that the data statistics may be inaccurate. The references are appropriate. There are no additional comments on the tables and figures. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English writing needs further improvement.

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer 4 comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and all the amendments/modifications performed across the text have been marked by red color.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research has shown that Selenium/Iodine foliar biofortification, combined with seasonal conditions, can effectively optimize the yield, quality, antioxidant properties, and mineral composition of Perennial Wall Rocket grown in greenhouses. This study is highly innovative and provides a strong foundation for the development of innovative functional foods. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed in the results:

• In Section 3.3, Table 5 indicates that magnesium (Mg) reached its minimal accumulation in the third cycle, exceeding that of the first cycle by approximately 40%, and potassium content significantly decreased in the third cycle, showing lower values by about 10%. However, the results presented show incorrect values and opposite trends. Please explain the reason for this discrepancy. Neither Figure 1 nor Figure 2 indicates significant differences, while significant differences are only marked in the table. I believe that significant differences should be clearly marked in the bar charts. Additionally, the error line in Figure 1 is too large, suggesting that the data statistics may be inaccurate. 

Answer: Dear Reviewer, we have revised the Tables, added the SD values to all the examined parameters and included additional Figures to indicate the most significant changes recorded in this research. We apologize for mistakenly inverting the headings ‘Mg’ and ‘K’ in the Table 5.

Moreover, we have added the correlation matrix which reveals the relationship significance between the parameters tested, particularly referred to yield, antioxidant status and mineral content of plants.

• the references are appropriate. There are no additional comments on the tables and figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English writing needs further improvement.

Answer: Addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors significantly improve the manuscript, and it now meets my expectations. I therefore accept it for publication in its present form. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in this paper still needs to be improved. 

Author Response

Answers to reviewer 1 comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and all the amendments/modifications performed across the text have been marked by red color.

 

The authors significantly improve the manuscript, and it now meets my expectations. I therefore accept it for publication in its present form. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in this paper still needs to be improved. 

Answer: Addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Once the authors have made the requested corrections, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable assistance.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Once the authors have made the requested corrections, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Answer: Taking into account the comments about the quality of English, we have made appropriate changes indicating all modifications  by red color.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the necessary revisions to the article and can consider publishing it, but there are still some details that need to be revised again.

1. There is no space at the beginning of line 71.

2. There is an extra space at the beginning of line 115, 169 and 183. Similar issues exist in other paragraphs as well. Please carefully modify the formatting issue.

3. The lowercase letters of the significant differences in the bar chart are not aligned with the columns. Please correct them again to ensure image quality.

4. Please carefully check the punctuation marks in the article.

 

Author Response

Answers to Reviewer 4 comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our manuscript.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and all the amendments/modifications performed across the text have been marked by red color.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the necessary revisions to the article and can consider publishing it, but there are still some details that need to be revised again.

1. There is no space at the beginning of line 71.

Answer: Addressed.

2. There is an extra space at the beginning of line 115, 169 and 183. Similar issues exist in other paragraphs as well. Please carefully modify the formatting issue.

Answer: We have addressed the above comments across the text, as recommended.

3. The lowercase letters of the significant differences in the bar chart are not aligned with the columns. Please correct them again to ensure image quality.

Answer: Addressed.

4. Please carefully check the punctuation marks in the article.

Answer: Addressed.