The Effects of Increasing Boron on Growth, Yield, and Nutritional Value of Scallion (Allium cepa L.) Grown as a Bunch Harvest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research title “The effects of increasing boron on growth, yield, and nutritional value of scallion (Allium cepa L.) grown as a bunch harvest” is well structured, but it needs clarification and revisions in the methods section. The study highlights the importance of understanding boron’s role in green onion cultivation, particularly in the context of B-contaminated agricultural environments. Further investigation into the effects of higher B levels is warranted to optimize growth and productivity in onion varieties.
Comments/suggestion for Authors:
- Line 102: “The modified Hoagland solution” any reference? No reference was provided.
- Line 131-134: Use appropriate front size.
- Line 122: “spectrophotometer” Which spectrophotometer? What was the control used?
- “We measured membrane permeability (EC, %) with shoot disc samples by the electrical conductivity method as described by Yan et al. [19].” I suggest authors provide further details, just adding reference is not enough.
- Line 127: “The BCF is the ratio of ions in plant organs” what is BCF; BCF and TF stands for what? Authors should mention each abbreviation when it appears for the first time in the text.
- In all figures and tables ensure that all the abbreviations are explained in the figures and tables legends respectively.
- Section 2.5: the authors mentioned here reference [20], which is not a typical reference, “[20]. Moradi, L.; Ehsanzadeh, P. Effects of Cd on photosynthesis and growth of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) genotypes. Photo-synthetica 2015, 53(4), 506-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-015-0150-1”
Author Response
We have provided our item-by-item response to the reviewer's comments as follows: We have also incorporated corrections and revisions into the attached revised text file. Please see the attached files.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main objective of the research is to examine the influence of increasing doses of boron on growth and nutritional content in early-harvested scallions and to help identify any potential negative effects in B-contaminated areas. The tables and figures are clear and informative. The results and discussion sections are comprehensive and well-written. However, the following recommendations should be given main concern by the authors:
The introduction contains some detail regarding Boron’s function in plants but fails to illustrate an obvious relation to the purpose of the study. The authors should review the existing research that has been done on the effect of Boron application rates on the growth, nutrient status and nutritional value of scallions. The authors are advised to clearly explain the gaps in knowledge regarding B's effect of fertilization on scallions and the significance of this research.
Line 93: Add a reference for the Hoagland Solution.
Lines 96-97 How did you measure the amount of water that has to be applied due to evaporation?
Line 117: In the section Materials and Methods, the methods for determining nutrient content in plant tissues are missing.
Name the initials BCF and TF in lines 127 and 129, respectively.
Include a table presenting the F values from the ANOVA analysis, covering both the main effects and interactions. This information will provide readers with a clear and concise overview of the statistical results.
The authors should explain why the results for plant nitrogen content are not presented. It is well known that incorporating an analysis of nitrogen content in scallions when studying the effects of boron application is crucial. The boron and nitrogen impact not just plant growth but also nutrient behavior in terms of uptake efficiency and utilization, making it a vital component of research in this area.
Lines 329-330: Please explain the effect of high B rates on nutrient content.
Author Response
We have provided our item-by-item response to the reviewer's comments as follows: We have also incorporated corrections and revisions into the attached revised text file. Please see the attached files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "The Effects of Increasing Boron on Growth, Yield, and Nutritional Value of Scallion (Allium cepa L.) Grown as a Bunch Harvest" evaluates the impact of increasing boron (B) levels on scallion growth, biomass production, and nutritional status. The research is well-structured, with clear objectives and a logical progression of experimental procedures. The manuscript provides valuable insights into B uptake and its effects on scallion physiology. However, several aspects require clarification, refinement, and further discussion.
Major Comments
- Novelty and Justification
The study highlights the importance of boron in plant metabolism, particularly in cell wall integrity and nutrient translocation. However, the introduction lacks a strong justification for why scallions were chosen as the model crop.
The manuscript should elaborate on the practical implications of the findings. How does this study contribute to agricultural practices or hydroponic cultivation?
-similar y in introduction section authors need to highlight the knowledge gaps; (what is known and what still need to be highlighted); what were aims and objectives and hypothesis of this manuscript.
- Experimental Design and Methodology
-The methodology describes B treatments well, but additional details on experimental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, and light intensity) are necessary to ensure reproducibility.
-Were the B treatments applied in a single dose or gradually increased? A more detailed explanation of application methods would enhance clarity.
-Statistical analysis needs more explanation. Were normality tests conducted before applying ANOVA? If so, which statistical software was used?
- Results and Interpretation
-The results indicate that B did not significantly impact biomass production except for root fresh weight. However, a more detailed explanation of possible physiological mechanisms behind this trend would be beneficial.
-The discussion mentions B toxicity mechanisms but does not relate them effectively to the observed results. Were there any visual toxicity symptoms (e.g., leaf necrosis, chlorosis)? If not, could this be attributed to the species' unique B transport mechanism?
-The study claims that B is phloem-mobile in onions. It would be helpful to compare this with other crops and discuss its implications in nutrient management.
- Clarity and Presentation
-The abstract contains grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. For instance, "Green onions are a leafy vegetable that is consumed with pleasure all over the world…" could be reworded for conciseness and clarity.
-Figure 1 (B-bridging of RG-II) should have a more detailed explanation in the text. How does this process affect the overall morphology of scallions?
Minor Comments
Line 11-12 (Abstract): "…grow quickly, and make money in a short time" sounds informal. Consider rewording to "…grow rapidly and provide economic benefits."
Line 21-23: The statement "there are findings that onion varieties are non-gramineous monocots…" is vague. Clarify the significance of this observation.
Tables and Figures: Ensure all units are clearly labeled. For example, nutrient concentrations should specify whether they are in mg/kg or another unit.
Conclusion: The manuscript suggests that higher B levels should be studied further, but it does not provide specific recommendations. What would be an appropriate B threshold for scallion cultivation?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate english editing is required.
Author Response
We have provided our item-by-item response to the reviewer's comments as follows: We have also incorporated corrections and revisions into the attached revised text file. Please see the attached files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been significantly improved in response to the reviewers' recommendations.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your valuable contributions to our work as a reviewer. Thank you so much.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made notable improvements to the manuscript; however, several important issues still need to be addressed before it can be considered for final publication.
In the Abstract, the key findings should be clearly presented with percentage differences to highlight the significance of the results.
Please ensure that all abbreviations are defined at their first mention in the manuscript. For instance, in the Introduction section, the abbreviation "B" is used for boron without prior clarification—it should be written as boron (B) upon first use.
The hypothesis of the study should be explicitly stated to provide a clearer rationale and scientific basis for the investigation.
It is recommended to include correlation analysis to strengthen the interpretation and presentation of the results.
Lastly, the Conclusion section is overly detailed; it would be more effective if it were made more concise, focusing only on the major findings and their implications.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate english editing is required.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your valuable contributions to our work as reviewers. Thank you very much. We have made all the revisions in detail, added them to the text, and colored them in yellow. You can find the details of what we have done in the attached file. Please let us know if you need additional information and documents in the attached file and the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
