Effects of Different Agricultural Wastes on the Growth of Photinia × fraseri Under Natural Low-Temperature Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

 

 Effects of Different Agricultural Wastes on the Growth of Pho-2 tinia × fraseri under Natural Low-Temperature Conditions

 

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The topic is interesting due to the plant species used in the research. However, the substrate treatments are not new and still lack important information.

 

However, the study has scientific merit, provided that corrections and improvements are made to the manuscript.

 

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The research interest is related to the species used in the experiment.

 

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The methodology is good, no suggestions.

 

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

Improve, write more texts. The authors obtained many results, and are using only one paragraph to conclude the study. Increase the text size.

 

Take advantage and write a future research perspective to complement your study and reinforce your results.

 

• Are the references appropriate?

Yes.

 

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Increase photo size and improve resolution.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1:
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
Response: Thank you very much. The research explores the effects of 16 agricultural wastes on the growth of P. fraseri under natural low-temperature conditions and evaluates its cold resistance capacity. The excellent cultivation substrate was screened out. And SOD activity and Pro content can be used as the main indicators for the evaluation of P. fraseri low temperature resistance identification. In addition, the chemical properties of the substrate have been clarified to affect plant growth.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
Response: Thank you very much. I think this topic is original in this field, and it addressed a specific gap in the field. Because this study explores the effects of 16 agricultural wastes on the growth of P. fraseri under natural low-temperature conditions and evaluates its cold resistance capacity.
3. The topic is interesting due to the plant species used in the research. However, the substrate treatments are not new and still lack important information.
Response: Thank you very much. I fully agree with your opinion. P. fraseri has strong resistance and is widely used. The substrate treatments are not new, and their important information need to be further explored.
4. However, the study has scientific merit, provided that corrections and improvements are made to the manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much. We have modified the text.
5. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Response: Thank you very much. The influence of the substrate on plant growth was investigated under natural low temperature conditions. Proline content plays a key role in cold tolerance.
6. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
Response: Thank you very much. we have modified the discussion and conclusion.
7. Improve, write more texts. The authors obtained many results, and are using only one paragraph to conclude the study. Increase the text size.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have modified the text and increased its size, including the conclusion.
8. Take advantage and write a future research perspective to complement your study and reinforce your results.
Response: Thank you very much. And based on your suggestion, we have reinforced our results.
9. Any additional comments on the tables and figures. Increase photo size and improve resolution.
Response: Thank you very much. We have increased the photo size and improve resolution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this manuscript submitted to the journal Horticulturae. The manuscript proposes to explore the effects of 16 different types of agricultural wastes on the growth and development of Photinia × fraseri (specifically the 'Red Robin' variety) under natural low-temperature conditions, with the aim of assessing the plant’s cold resistance and providing a theoretical and practical basis for its cultivation and management. Additional morphological, physiological, and photosynthetic aspects related to the growth and cold tolerance of P. fraseri are also addressed, and I provide the following comments:

Restructuring the abstract to follow a more logical sequence would be relevant—for instance, briefly but more clearly addressing the importance of low temperature for plant growth and the research gap regarding agricultural waste use for P. fraseri, followed by a concise methodological description—mentioning, for example, that 16 types of agricultural wastes were tested in different substrate combinations, and that soil chemical indicators, as well as morphological and physiological plant traits, in addition to a membership function analysis, were evaluated. Key results could be summarized with more quantitative coverage. It would also be appropriate to remove excessive numeric detail when not critical to overall understanding, keeping only the most impactful or representative values.

Regarding the introduction, this section lacks more substantial information on how low-temperature stress affects plants from morphological, anatomical, physiological, molecular, biochemical, and functional standpoints. After discussing the importance of cold resistance and the susceptibility of P. fraseri to low temperatures, the introduction should more clearly articulate the research gap namely, that although P. fraseri’s resistance to abiotic stress has been studied, research on the influence of different agricultural wastes on its cold tolerance remains limited. The rationale for using agricultural waste should also be introduced earlier in the text—briefly mentioning, for example, that the use of such waste as a cultivation substrate is a sustainable practice that can influence plant growth and stress resistance—and the objectives should be presented more clearly.

Methods section: It would be useful to provide more textual and detailed data on the natural low-temperature conditions and the experimental temperature settings in the main text—this was not clearly described. In Section 2.4 ("Measurement of Physiological and Photosynthetic Indicators"), the choice of enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants was not fully clear to me, and the methodology for these antioxidants was not well described or sufficiently detailed.

Results: Rather than merely listing the group with the highest or lowest values, it would be helpful to connect these findings with the substrate properties or other relevant measurements when possible. For instance, when presenting Group A results for BN, BL, and BD, it would be beneficial to briefly recall its high nitrogen content or other favorable traits, creating a stronger logical connection.

Discussion:
The statement “This study also found that... indicating that SOD plays a significant role in the low-temperature tolerance of P. fraseri” (lines 309–311) indeed is not fully supported by the literature incorporated into the manuscript. By considering that it is well known that higher activity or quantity of certain antioxidants does not necessarily equate to greater stress tolerance in plants, I recommend that the authors significantly improve the discussion related to plant antioxidants, incorporating more robust and trustworthy literature on this subject.

It would also be relevant to more explicitly and deeply discuss how the morphological results of Group A align with or differ from the physiological outcomes of the other groups, and how the comprehensive evaluation (membership function) balances these factors to conclude optimal growth. Furthermore but also important expanding the discussion on how other substrate chemical properties (OM, APH, APO, TPH, TPO, pH) influenced the results observed in Group A and other groups would be valuable. For example, how might the alkaline pH in all treatments have affected plant growth or nutrient uptake?

Indeed it would also be beneficial to reinforce the practical importance of selecting Group A's substrate for cultivating P. fraseri in low-temperature regions, and how this also contributes to the sustainable reuse of agricultural waste.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2:

 

1. Restructuring the abstract to follow a more logical sequence would be relevant—for instance, briefly but more clearly addressing the importance of low temperature for plant growth and the research gap regarding agricultural waste use for P. fraseri, followed by a concise methodological description—mentioning, for example, that 16 types of agricultural wastes were tested in different substrate combinations, and that soil chemical indicators, as well as morphological and physiological plant traits, in addition to a membership function analysis, were evaluated. Key results could be summarized with more quantitative coverage. It would also be appropriate to remove excessive numeric detail when not critical to overall understanding, keeping only the most impactful or representative values.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have reorganized the abstract.

 

2. Regarding the introduction, this section lacks more substantial information on how low-temperature stress affects plants from morphological, anatomical, physiological, molecular, biochemical, and functional standpoints. After discussing the importance of cold resistance and the susceptibility of P. fraseri to low temperatures, the introduction should more clearly articulate the research gap namely, that although P. fraseri’s resistance to abiotic stress has been studied, research on the influence of different agricultural wastes on its cold tolerance remains limited. The rationale for using agricultural waste should also be introduced earlier in the text—briefly mentioning, for example, that the use of such waste as a cultivation substrate is a sustainable practice that can influence plant growth and stress resistance—and the objectives should be presented more clearly.

Response: Thank you very much. We fully agree with your suggestion. and we have modified the introduction.

 

3. Methods section: It would be useful to provide more textual and detailed data on the natural low-temperature conditions and the experimental temperature settings in the main text—this was not clearly described. In Section 2.4 ("Measurement of Physiological and Photosynthetic Indicators"), the choice of enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants was not fully clear to me, and the methodology for these antioxidants was not well described or sufficiently detailed.

Response: Thank you very much. We have modified the Methods section. The experimental system of these several enzymes in our laboratory is relatively mature, of course, other kinds of enzymes are also very important. In subsequent research, we will further the research system. The detection method referenced the article published in horticulturae. In the published article, the detection method referenced these two books:

[1] Wang, X.; Huang, J. Principles and Techniques of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Experiment; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2015.

[2] Li, Z.; Gong, M. Comprehensive and Designed Experiments in Plant Physiology; Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press: Wuhan, China, 2014.

 

4. Results: Rather than merely listing the group with the highest or lowest values, it would be helpful to connect these findings with the substrate properties or other relevant measurements when possible. For instance, when presenting Group A results for BN, BL, and BD, it would be beneficial to briefly recall its high nitrogen content or other favorable traits, creating a stronger logical connection.

Response: I strongly agree with your suggestion, creating a strong logical connection is very important. And we had modified the Results section.

 

Discussion:

5. The statement “This study also found that... indicating that SOD plays a significant role in the low-temperature tolerance of P. fraseri” (lines 309–311) indeed is not fully supported by the literature incorporated into the manuscript. By considering that it is well known that higher activity or quantity of certain antioxidants does not necessarily equate to greater stress tolerance in plants, I recommend that the authors significantly improve the discussion related to plant antioxidants, incorporating more robust and trustworthy literature on this subject.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the discussion about the SOD section.  

 

It would also be relevant to more explicitly and deeply discuss how the morphological results of Group A align with or differ from the physiological outcomes of the other groups, and how the comprehensive evaluation (membership function) balances these factors to conclude optimal growth. Furthermore, but also important expanding the discussion on how other substrate chemical properties (OM, APH, APO, TPH, TPO, pH) influenced the results observed in Group A and other groups would be valuable. For example, how might the alkaline pH in all treatments have affected plant growth or nutrient uptake?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the discussion section.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary
Authors presented a well-structured investigation of the effects of various agricultural wastes on the growth performance of Photinia × fraseri. This study provides valuable insights into sustainable horticultural practices through comprehensive evaluation of different growth substrates. While the experimental approach and data presentation are thoroughly described, the discussion requires deeper analysis of key findings proposed below.

Abstract
The abstract effectively summarizes the study's objectives and key findings. It provides a clear overview of the experimental approach.

Materials and Methods
The methodology is generally well-described, though additional details would enhance reproducibility. The description of "garden soil" should be supplemented with physical composition data (e.g., texture class, particle size distribution, bulk density) to complement the excellent chemical characterization provided in Table 2. This information is crucial for proper interpretation of substrate effects on plant growth.

Results
The results are clearly presented with appropriate visual support. Figure 4 effectively demonstrates phenotypic variation but would benefit from quantitative leaf morphometric data. Based on this figure, I encourage authors including measurements of Leaf area, Lamina length and width, Petiole length and diameter (mm).
These parameters, easily obtainable through ImageJ analysis, would provide objective evidence of treatment effects on leaf development. Statistical comparisons of these traits in relation to the different wastes would strengthen the morphological analysis.

Discussion
The discussion requires expansion to fully interpret the study's findings:

Temperature Effects: The observed temperature fluctuations during the growing cycle likely influenced plant responses.

Leaf Color Variation: The striking color differences in Figure 4 warrant detailed physiological explanation: Correlation between chlorophyll content and visual coloration; Potential anthocyanin accumulation in response to stress; Nutrient-specific influences on chloroplast development

The high variability observed in the number of branches should be discussed highlighting on complex physiological interactions. These, may include the cold stress effects on apical dominance linked to the different hormone response.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3:

 

Abstract

The abstract effectively summarizes the study's objectives and key findings. It provides a clear overview of the experimental approach.

Response: Thank you very much. The work is ongoing, and some mechanisms will continue to be revealed. Of course, it may take a long time and overcome many difficulties.

 

Materials and Methods

The methodology is generally well-described, though additional details would enhance reproducibility. The description of "garden soil" should be supplemented with physical composition data (e.g., texture class, particle size distribution, bulk density) to complement the excellent chemical characterization provided in Table 2. This information is crucial for proper interpretation of substrate effects on plant growth.

Response: I completely agree with your suggestion. I think its characteristics are between sandy soil and clay. Its characteristics are crucial for correctly interpreting the impact of substrate on plant growth. However, the students have not returned to school yet. Next research article, we will well describe the physical composition data (e.g., texture class, particle size distribution, bulk density).

 

Results

The results are clearly presented with appropriate visual support. Figure 4 effectively demonstrates phenotypic variation but would benefit from quantitative leaf morphometric data. Based on this figure, I encourage authors including measurements of Leaf area, Lamina length and width, Petiole length and diameter (mm).

These parameters, easily obtainable through Image J analysis, would provide objective evidence of treatment effects on leaf development. Statistical comparisons of these traits in relation to the different wastes would strengthen the morphological analysis.

Response: I completely agree with your suggestion. I have heard of Image J software, but it will take some time to learn how to use it. We will show the measurements of leaf area, lamina length and width, petiole length and diameter (mm) in the next article, including the types of pigments and so on.

 

Discussion

The discussion requires expansion to fully interpret the study's findings:

Response: I completely agree with your suggestion. we have modified the discussion section.

 

Temperature Effects: The observed temperature fluctuations during the growing cycle likely influenced plant responses.

Response: I completely agree with your suggestion.

 

Leaf Color Variation: The striking color differences in Figure 4 warrant detailed physiological explanation: Correlation between chlorophyll content and visual coloration; Potential anthocyanin accumulation in response to stress; Nutrient-specific influences on chloroplast development.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, which also provide us with very good research ideas for our next step. we have modified the discussion section.

 

The high variability observed in the number of branches should be discussed highlighting on complex physiological interactions. These, may include the cold stress effects on apical dominance linked to the different hormone response.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, which also provide us with very good research ideas for our next step. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2:

1. I have no more comments.

Response: Thanks very much. And i will check the manucsipt again.