Cucurbita ficifolia Rootstock Enhances Resistance to Low-Temperature Stress in Cucumber
, Chunmei Guo 1, Songmei Shi 1, Shuilian He 1,* and Zheng’an Yang 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors prepared a manuscript on the topic Cucurbita ficifolia Rootstock Enhances Resistance to Low-temperature Stress in Cucumber. In this manuscript, the study of cucumber rootstock as a tool of increasing cucumber endurance to low temperatures. The introduction discusses the relevance of the topic and the benefits of grafting.
Methods 2.4. What is in the formula OD and DO - add an explanation.
Is this data for one year? If I understand correctly, the selected cucumber variety is suitable for both spring and autumn cultivation. When did you grow it for this experiment? Did you do it in both seasons?
Table 3 - add the information about statistics. Different letters in columns show significant differences?
Do not describe the data in the figure title, only provide explanations of what is presented in each figure and an explanation of the statistics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle Cucurbita ficifolia Rootstock Enhances Resistance to Low-temperature Stress in Cucumber by Haojun Xiao, Wenxin Deng, Chunmei Guo, Songmei Shi, Shuilian He, Zheng’an Yang, Bilal Ahmad presents comparative results of the experiment to identify the physiological consequences of grafting on the resistance of cucumber to low positive temperatures.
The manuscript is designed in accordance with the rules and contains all the necessary parts.
The introduction presents the issues of grafting and the objects used, but does not fully reflect the physiology of damage to cucumber by low positive temperatures, which is important for this study.
Also, in the last paragraph, the authors placed information about the results, but did not formulate hypotheses and tasks that were set in the study.
In the methodological section, it would be appropriate to show a photo of the grafts and describe in detail how tall the plants were.
The results section is well done and contains detailed information, but a photo would improve the demonstration of the results. The discussion adequately evaluates the results, but I recommend that the authors additionally consider grafting as a mechanical stress that affects the status of the antioxidant system and can shift physiological parameters.
In conclusion, it should be noted that even trauma during grafting gave a positive effect, but the selected rootstock was more interesting.
The work is integral, presents theoretical and practical interest and should be published after minor correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction
The introduction describes the problem of the current research well, and the tasks for the current study set well by the authors .
However, I have a question that is not covered in the introductory part of the article:
The crop being studied is intended to be grown in the open ground or not only in the open ground, but also in greenhouses. This is a very important aspect for highlight in text, because the effect of abiotic factors is more pronounced when crops is growing in the open ground.
Please highlight this aspect in the article.
In the materials and methods section, the authors just say that the study was conducted in a greenhouse.
Also in the introduction, it is necessary to explain the choice of indicators characterizing morphological changes (Plant height and stem diameter) and indicators of the effect of low temperatures on the physiological status of plants (electrolyte leakage rate, malondialdehyde content, compounds affecting osmotic pressure, antioxidant activity) with appropriate references confirming the significance of these indicators for current research.
Materials and methods
It is necessary to add in materials and methods section how many samples of each group (ZG, HH, NH) were taken in the experiment? How many biological parallels for each part of the current study have been studied ?
Lines 75-96 In the text there is no description of the control group, which must be done.
Point 2.3.
Were the measurements (point 2.3) made using seedlings after 7 days of cold stress in the climate chamber?
Line 119 blank conductivity value do you measure using distilled water as a control?
Line 120-121 It is necessary to describe the method used to measure MDA. Do you use KIT to produce an adduct, TBA-MDA? Is the MDA concentration measured on a spectrophotometer? At what wavelength
Lines 134-138
In addition to information about the KITs using in the experiment, it is necessary to mention the principle of methods for measuring enzyme activity: colorimetry, UV spectrometry, etc.
Results
In the sections 3.1 , 3.2, it is necessary to supplement the comparison of the results obtained for each groups (ZG, HH, NH) with the results of the control group. Such a comparison will add clarity in the text of the manuscript.
The parameter changes in the НН group should also be noted.
The authors introduced the concept of a control group. If there is a control group, then all the results must be compared with it.
Line 200-202 is better to write that the samples of the НН group had intermediate values of SP compared to NH and ZG.
Line 209-213
The caption to Figure 2 should not contain a description of the results; it should be moved to the test of the article.
Lines 228-233
The caption to Figue3 should not contain a description of the results, it should be moved to the test of the article.
Line 223-226 The sentence needs to be rephrased, as the meaning is not clear in its present form.
Lines 241-242 Include in the sentence the name of the sample group (NH) with which you are comparing the ZG data.
Line 245-246 it is better to write that the samples of the НН group had intermediate POD values compared to NН and ZG.
Line 255-259
The caption to Figure 4 should not contain a description of the results, it should be moved to the test of the article.
Line 279-276
The caption to Figure 5 should not contain a description of the results, it should be moved to the test of the article. The figure shows the data for the control group.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is necessary to reflect whether the authors recommend the method they have tested for growing crop, in the open ground or in a greenhouse. This is fundamental, because there are significant differences of the crop's production in open and greenhouses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did a good job and took all the comments into account.
However, in the section "3.2 C. ficifolia, as grafting rootstock, increased the light and pigment content of cucumber", the authors need to add a description of the results obtained at 5 degrees.
Author Response
Comments 1: In the section "3.2 C. ficifolia, as grafting rootstock, increased the light and pigment content of cucumber", the authors need to add a description of the results obtained at 5 degrees.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have added a description of the results obtained at 5 degrees. (lines 224-229)
