The Physiological Mechanism of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal in Regulating the Growth of Trifoliate Orange (Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf.) Under Low-Temperature Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear,
Some corrections requested in the previous review have been made, but there are still some adjustments needed:
- The need to specify the name of classifiers (the first time they appear in the text) and the abbreviation of the organism's genus (from the second time they appear in the text) was not fully observed;
- Data on the infectivity and storage of the tested mycorrhizal inoculum were not provided;
- The tables, considering that the experiment is factorial, should have at least two columns and two rows to compare 0 and 9 hours, as well as the treatment with or without FMA, for each parameter evaluated. The authors placed everything in a single column, which is not correct for comparison between lowercase letters. As presented, the interpretations are incorrect;
- Some methodologies need to be detailed, as pointed out in the previous review.
Therefore, I consider that the paper is not suitable for publication and recommend its rejection.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much again for peer review this MS (horticulturae-3740887) and with helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions with red background that you can immediately recognize where the changes have been made. Furthermore, the MS has also the English Editing by MDPI, with the aim of correcting grammatical errors and further enhancing reading fluency.
Now, I will answer reviewers’ comments one by one.
Response to the comments of Reviewer #1:
Some corrections requested in the previous review have been made, but there are still some adjustments needed:
- The need to specify the name of classifiers (the first time they appear in the text) and the abbreviation of the organism's genus (from the second time they appear in the text) was not fully observed;
Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem in our manuscript. We have made the modifications according to your suggestions. Such as Malondialdehyde (MDA), Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), proline (Pro), and Relative Conductance Rate (REC).
- Data on the infectivity and storage of the tested mycorrhizal inoculum were not provided;
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the related information about the infectivity and storage of the tested mycorrhizal inoculum in Materials and Methods.
- The tables, considering that the experiment is factorial, should have at least two columns and two rows to compare 0 and 9 hours, as well as the treatment with or without FMA, for each parameter evaluated. The authors placed everything in a single column, which is not correct for comparison between lowercase letters. As presented, the interpretations are incorrect.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem in our manuscript. According to your suggestion, we made adjustments to Tables 3-8.
- Some methodologies need to be detailed, as pointed out in the previous review.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We provided detailed explanations for some methodologies, such as the Mycorrhizal colonization rate, storage of the AMF, and so on.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presented in this article is of great interest, especially in the context of abrupt climate change. However, the originality of the study is not clearly highlighted in the manuscript.
The abstract is too long and presents the results in a repetitive manner.
Key words: Growth parameters, light quantum
In the first paragraph of the introduction, the information related to the Citrus genus is misplaced. It should be moved to paragraph five. The introduction needs to be entirely rewritten in a more coherent way, with a stronger focus on the plant under study.
In the “Materials and Methods” section, it is essential to begin by providing detailed information about the plant material used (seeds, cuttings, seedlings), the developmental stage, and the growing conditions.
4-leaf-old of seedlings ?? Seedlings at the 4-leaf stage?
The entire Materials and Methods section needs to be rewritten and structured, with many tests to be detailed and additional precision to be provided in each part.
The same remark applies to the Results section, which contains many repetitions and where the results are not clearly presented.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much again for peer review this MS (horticulturae-3740887) and with helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions with red background that you can immediately recognize where the changes have been made. Furthermore, the MS has also the English Editing by MDPI, with the aim of correcting grammatical errors and further enhancing reading fluency.
Now, I will answer reviewers’ comments one by one.
Response to the comments of Reviewer #2:
The work presented in this article is of great interest, especially in the context of abrupt climate change. However, the originality of the study is not clearly highlighted in the manuscript.
- The abstract is too long and presents the results in a repetitive manner.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem in our manuscript. We have already condensed the Abstract.
- Key words: Growth parameters, light quantum.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have added Growth parameters and Light quantum in Keywords.
- In the first paragraph of the introduction, the information related to the Citrus genus is misplaced. It should be moved to paragraph five. The introduction needs to be entirely rewritten in a more coherent way, with a stronger focus on the plant under study.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. We have made the necessary revisions according to your suggestions.
- In the “Materials and Methods” section, it is essential to begin by providing detailed information about the plant material used (seeds, cuttings, seedlings), the developmental stage, and the growing conditions. 4-leaf-old of seedlings ?? Seedlings at the 4-leaf stage?
Response: Thanks for your consideration. We have made the necessary revisions according to your suggestions. The trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf) was used as plant material in this study, which donated by Huazhong Agricultural University in the form of seeds. We germinate the trifoliate orange seeds, and when the trifoliate orange seedlings at the 4-leaf stage, we transplant them and treated with AMF.
- The entire Materials and Methods section needs to be rewritten and structured, with many tests to be detailed and additional precision to be provided in each part. The same remark applies to the Results section, which contains many repetitions and where the results are not clearly presented.
Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. We have rewritten and structured the Materials and Methods and the Results sections. Such as plant material, AMF treated, roots scanned and analyzed, mycorrhizal colonization rate determined method, The chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic parameters determined method, SOD and CAT activities determined method, and so on.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has addressed all the reviewers' comments by modifying the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References; therefore, the paper is now accepted.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much again for peer review this MS (horticulturae-3740887) and with helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions with red background that you can immediately recognize where the changes have been made. Furthermore, the MS has also the English Editing by MDPI, with the aim of correcting grammatical errors and further enhancing reading fluency.
Now, I will answer reviewers’ comments one by one.
Response to the comments of Reviewer #3:
The author has addressed all the reviewers' comments by modifying the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References; therefore, the paper is now accepted.
Response: Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript (MS) entitled “Physiological mechanism of AMF regulating the growth of tri- 2 foliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata, L. Raf.) under low tempera- 3 ture stress” is important for this species. I note that the MS has been corrected and adapted for better understanding. I do not have the previous version; however, substantial revisions were made; however, the MS requires revisions.
-The Abstract is too long, it should be shortened.
- Figure 1A needs to be improved; spores must be visible during colonization, and a photo of the control treatment without mycorrhiza (without spores) is required.
- Figure 2 is unnecessary or included within Figure 1
-Tables and figures should be more descriptive in their initials and treatments. These should be self-explanatory.
- The manuscript presents an excess of tables, some of which can be combined.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much again for peer review this MS (horticulturae-3740887) and with helpful suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions with red background that you can immediately recognize where the changes have been made. Furthermore, the MS has also the English Editing by MDPI, with the aim of correcting grammatical errors and further enhancing reading fluency.
Now, I will answer reviewers’ comments one by one.
Response to the comments of Reviewer #4:
The manuscript (MS) entitled “Physiological mechanism of AMF regulating the growth of tri- 2 foliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata, L. Raf.) under low tempera- 3 ture stress” is important for this species. I note that the MS has been corrected and adapted for better understanding. I do not have the previous version; however, substantial revisions were made; however, the MS requires revisions.
- The Abstract is too long, it should be shortened.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem in our manuscript. We have already condensed the Abstract.
- Figure 1A needs to be improved; spores must be visible during colonization, and a photo of the control treatment without mycorrhiza (without spores) is required.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We made modifications to the Figure1 based on your suggestions. For instance, we modified Figure 1A to show the mycelium and spores of the AMF. However, unfortunately, we did not take any photos of the root systems of non-AMF before. We are very sorry that we failed to make all the necessary modifications to Figure 1 as per your request.
- Figure 2 is unnecessary or included within Figure 1.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have deleted Figure 2.
- Tables and figures should be more descriptive in their initials and treatments. These should be self-explanatory.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We made modifications to the Tables and Figures based on your suggestions.
- The manuscript presents an excess of tables, some of which can be combined.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have combined Tables 5 and 6, Tables 7 and 8.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear,
Some corrections requested in the previous review have been made, but there are still some adjustments needed:
- Data on the infectivity (% or Number of Infectious Propagules) and storage (temperature) of the tested mycorrhizal inoculum were not provided. This information needs to be added before the article is accepted for publication.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much again. Now, we have added the data on the mycorrhizal infectivity (60.40%) and storage temperature (4℃) of the tested mycorrhizal inoculum in revised MS.
Wish you good health and success in your work.
Changlin Li and Dejian Zhang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCan be accepted
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Thank you very much again. Now, we have added the data on the mycorrhizal infectivity (60.40%) and storage temperature (4℃) of the tested mycorrhizal inoculum in revised MS.
Wish you good health and success in your work.
Changlin Li and Dejian Zhang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for selecting me to review the manuscript entitled "Physiological mechanism of AMF regulating the growth of trifoliate orange under low temperature stress." by Changlin Li et al. The manuscript presents a well-structured study on the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in mitigating low-temperature stress in trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata).
I have reviewed the article and found several issues:
Abstract
- Lines 25, 26, 39, and 40: Some points are repeated multiple times, such as the increase in soluble sugars, proline, CAT, and SOD activities. This redundancy should be reduced.
- Lines 40 and 42: The conclusion section repeats the phrases "It can be concluded" and "In conclusion," which creates redundancy and weakens the flow of the abstract.
- The authors should include numerical data to provide a more quantitative representation.
- The abstract describes too many results, making it long and repetitive. I recommend focusing only on the key findings to make it more concise.
Introduction
- Line 53: Why is cotton mentioned here?
- Lines 54-55: The article discusses trifoliate orange, so why is maize included? It would be more appropriate to mention the studied plant instead.
- Lines 57-64: This section is poorly structured, with unclear transitions between physiological and biochemical aspects.
- The paragraph lacks logical connections between ideas, making it feel like a series of disconnected sentences.
Determination and Methods
- The study focuses only on basic parameters that do not contribute new scientific insights.
- These parameters have been extensively studied in plants, so they lack novelty.
General Recommendation
In my opinion, the article should be written in a more scientifically structured manner, ensuring better coherence between ideas. Additional parameters should be included to enhance the scientific impact and make the study more valuable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and Authors
The paper is very interesting and contains very relevant data. My comments are in the pdf attachment. Please correct the paper according to my comments. Especially the methods should be improved and written more clearly. The Discussion is very long, could you compensate it. The References are selected correctly and presents the latest reports.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear,
The article ‘Physiological mechanism of AMF regulating the growth of tri-foliate orange under low temperature stress’, despite not bringing any new information to the field, is interesting, but there are some adjustments that need to be made:
Names of fungi and plants should be accompanied by the classifier (the first time they appear in the text); then, the genus should be abbreviated and the classifier should no longer be mentioned;
Detailed data on the AMF used should be added: Inoculum production method, informing the host used for this; inoculum storage temperature and time; infectivity potential of the inoculum or most likely number of propagules of the inoculum tested;
Describe in detail how the experiment was conducted in pots. How much substrate was used? Was there a hydroponic experimental period? Duration of the experiment before exposure to light? It is important that a clear sequence is presented so that the experiment can be understood;
Provide all references for the methods tested. No method is referenced. It is important that all methods have references;
In the tables, the coefficient of variation must be provided for each variable tested;
The data on the effect of temperature and inoculation must be presented as factorial, considering the comparison of capital letters between temperature treatments and lowercase letters between inoculation treatments. As presented, it is a completely randomized experiment. It is important to review the statistics (considering a factorial experiment), which will impact the results and, obviously, the discussion and conclusions;
The study is relevant, but there are several basic errors, such as insufficient description of the experimental conduct, lack of references for all methods used, and use of statistics that are inappropriate for the experimental design adopted. Therefore, I consider that the paper is not fit for publication.
Sincerely,
