Morphological, Physiological, and Biochemical Responses of Zinnia to Drought Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors aimed to determine the effects of different irrigation levels on the morphological, physiological, and enzymatic responses of zinnia plants. In my opinion, moderate English changes are required for this manuscript. The Material and Methods chapter should be improved with some data. The reference list must be check.
- Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the abbreviation should be added in parentheses after the written-out form.
- Please provide the exact developmental stages (e.g. BBCH scale) of the plants at the beginning and end of the stress treatment.
- Please clarify in the Material and Methods chapter the year of the experiment and the duration time of the experiment.
- Please specify the exact name and manufacturer of the used devices.
- Please clarify which method was used to determine the relative water content of the soil.
- Please specify which leaves were measured by the stoma characteristics measurements and in which developmental stage was the measurement.
- It is written “The amount of water manually added to each pot was 1.88, 1.41, 0.92 and 0.47 respectively for 100%FC, 75%FC, 50%FC and 25%FC” in Line 217-218, please provide proper units to this sentence.
- The authors should take into consideration to highlight the significant differences between the different stress treatments as well and not just the differences between the stress and the control treatments.
- The authors may take into consideration to figure the changes in water-use efficiency values.
- The authors should mention Principal Component Analysis in the Material and Methods chapter as well.
- Line 333-353 should be transferred to the Introduction chapter, in my opinion, these sentences belong rather there.
- The References No. 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67 are not matching with the listed ones. Please check all of the references.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
In this manuscript, the authors aimed to determine the effects of different irrigation levels on the morphological, physiological, and enzymatic responses of zinnia plants. In my opinion, moderate English changes are required for this manuscript. The Material and Methods chapter should be improved with some data. The reference list must be check.
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like thank for your comments and evaluation. The manuscript has been accordingly revised also in English language. Corrections and suggestions have been implemented in the current version of the manuscript. The modification are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. We hereby provide a point-by-point answer.
The authors
Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the abbreviation should be added in parentheses after the written-out form.
A.A. We have added the full names of the abbreviations to both Abstract, Introduction sections, and first figure or table as suggested.
Please provide the exact developmental stages (e.g. BBCH scale) of the plants at the beginning and end of the stress treatment.
A.A. thanks for the suggestion; we now reported in the text the developmental stages; we don’t use the BBCH scale because, in consideration of characteristics of experiment and plant feature, we don’t believe that BBCH scale, and hence quantify the plant phenology, is necessary.
Please clarify in the Material and Methods chapter the year of the experiment and the duration time of the experiment.
A.A. The year and the duration time of the experiment were added in the material and methods chapter.
Please specify the exact name and manufacturer of the used devices.
A.A. Done
Please clarify which method was used to determine the relative water content of the soil.
A.A. The Relative water content of the soil was added in the material and methods.
Please specify which leaves were measured by the stoma characteristics measurements and in which developmental stage was the measurement.
A.A. The information were added.
It is written “The amount of water manually added to each pot was 1.88, 1.41, 0.92 and 0.47 respectively for 100%FC, 75%FC, 50%FC and 25%FC” in Line 217-218, please provide proper units to this sentence.
A.A. Done
The authors should take into consideration to highlight the significant differences between the different stress treatments as well and not just the differences between the stress and the control treatments.
A.A. The results have been revised according to your suggestions.
The authors may take into consideration to figure the changes in water-use efficiency values.
A.A. The Water Use efficiency figure was added.
The authors should mention Principal Component Analysis in the Material and Methods chapter as well.
A.A. Done
Line 333-353 should be transferred to the Introduction chapter, in my opinion, these sentences belong rather there.
A.A. The sentence was transferred in the introduction.
The References No. 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67 are not matching with the listed ones. Please check all of the references.
A.A. Sorry for the mistakes. The numbers of references were modified.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present work detailing the impact of drought stress on growth and development of Zinnia. The paper details impacts on overall physiology (photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, respiration), biomass, relative water content, proline content, and the activity of several antioxidant enzymes. Overall the authors found mild drought stress was well handled by Zinnia, but significant negative impacts on growth and development occurred at more severe drought stress (25% FC). Overall I think the paper is very straightforward and has appropriate presentation of the data and conclusions drawn. A few minor comments:
-Some acronyms should be defined (FC, RWC) when first presented.
-A few grammatical errors are present throughout the manuscript and should be corrected. Also the use of thesis was used throughout the manuscript. Treatment seems like a more appropriate term to use.
-It is unclear why the authors only measured 4 stomata for pore length (section 2.3). It seems a higher number would be a more accurate representation of the variability with a given leaf.
-It is suggested that the authors measure total antioxidant capacity versus the activity of single enzymes. Or at least further justify the selection of individual enzymes versus looking at total antioxidant capacity.
-A few statements in the conclusions seemed a little overstated for the scope of the work. For example, the authors states that "elevated RWC values were detected p to 50%FC; this indicates that the species can tolerate high levels of drought stress" (line 399). RWC is just one metric by which a plant can be deemed drought tolerant, so this seems a little overstated.
Author Response
The authors present work detailing the impact of drought stress on growth and development of Zinnia. The paper details impacts on overall physiology (photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, respiration), biomass, relative water content, proline content, and the activity of several antioxidant enzymes. Overall the authors found mild drought stress was well handled by Zinnia, but significant negative impacts on growth and development occurred at more severe drought stress (25% FC). Overall I think the paper is very straightforward and has appropriate presentation of the data and conclusions drawn. A few minor comments:
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like thank for your comments and evaluation. The manuscript has been accordingly revised. Corrections and suggestions have been implemented in the current version of the manuscript. The modification are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. We hereby provide a point-by-point answer.
The authors
-Some acronyms should be defined (FC, RWC) when first presented.
A.A. The acronyms were added.
-A few grammatical errors are present throughout the manuscript and should be corrected. Also the use of thesis was used throughout the manuscript. Treatment seems like a more appropriate term to use.
A.A. As you suggest, the word thesis was replaced with treatment.
-It is unclear why the authors only measured 4 stomata for pore length (section 2.3). It seems a higher number would be a more accurate representation of the variability with a given leaf.
A.A. More information in material and methods were added
-It is suggested that the authors measure total antioxidant capacity versus the activity of single enzymes. Or at least further justify the selection of individual enzymes versus looking at total antioxidant capacity.
A.A. The antioxidant activity was determined as you suggested and was reported in the materials and methods, results and discussion.
-A few statements in the conclusions seemed a little overstated for the scope of the work. For example, the authors states that "elevated RWC values were detected p to 50%FC; this indicates that the species can tolerate high levels of drought stress" (line 399). RWC is just one metric by which a plant can be deemed drought tolerant, so this seems a little overstated.
A.A. Thanks for the comment; the discussion was modified according your suggestion.
