Foliar Application of Selenium under Nano Silicon on Artemisia annua: Effects on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential Oil, Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition
, Ekaterina Garsiya 3, Mikhail Fedotov 4, Andrey Alpatov 4, Oksana Shevchuk 2, Liubov Skrypnik 5, Agnieszka Sekara 6 and Gianluca Caruso 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study entitled “Effect of Foliar Biofortification with Selenium under Nano Silicon supply on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential oil, Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition of Artemisia annua Grown in Moscow Region” was quite interesting. Apparently, the experiment was simple, and the results are very clear and interesting. However, there are major mistakes in the article however, the article can be accepted after major revision. Another major problem is that of English language. Therefore, it is suggested that the article must be corrected for English language.
Title:
Please remove “grown in Moscow region”. The word biofortification is not correct here therefore, I would rather suggest something like
“Foliar application of Selenium under Nano Silicon on Artemisia annua: Effects on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential oil, Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition”
Abstract:
Line 26: remove “,”.
Line 27: remove “improvement” and replace “due to” with under
Line 28-29: please rewrite e.g. results showed that…….
Line 30: add “significantly” before decreased… same must be taken care of in the whole abstract.
Line 33: remove “determined by ICP-MS” and move “redistribution” after “either”
Line 34: replace “of” with “in” and what is “levels” do you mean concentration?
Introduction:
Overall, the introduction is short and information on increasing artemisinin synthesis in other species and effects of different elements can be added.
Line 43-44: replace “powerful 43 protective effect” with “its effectiveness” and replace “oxidant” with “oxidative”
Line 56: delete “areas”
Line 57: Replace “One should indicate, that up-” with “However,”
Line 59-61: rephrase please.
Results
There are major flaws in the result section.
Due to language mistakes, at times it becomes impossible to separate the results of the present study from the results of the previous studies.
In description of results, authors used the word “increased” or “decreased” for measured traits, which is incorrect for a scientific article. “Increase” or “decrease” can be significant or non-significant. Therefore, statistical analysis is done precisely to check whether the observed increase or decrease is “significant or not”. Therefore, all the result section must be corrected for “significantly increase or significantly decrease” instead of simple “increased” or “decreased”
Standard errors or SD are not presented with any of reported mean values.
Probability values are completely missing and have not been reported neither in the text, nor in the tables or figures.
Line 224-225: What does this mean. Please rephrase what you are referring to.
Line 233-236: need restructure.
Line 237-241: it is rather introduction than discussion
Line 246-247: this is out of place, not required here.
Line 250-251: tense mistake. Please correct
Line 251-253: these results cannot be drawn until or unless SE or SD are not reported in table 3.
Line 261-2265: restructure the sentence.
Line 268-269: illegible
Tables:
In all the tables, please report the SE or SD range and probability for each measured trait
All the values be reported up to 3 decimals
Figures:
Figure 2 is not necessary and can be deleted
Figure 3,4 and 5: Error bars representing SD or SE must be added otherwise, small letter does not mean anything.
At Y-axis the units must be in parenthesis rather after a comma
Author Response
Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for your help aimed to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all your comments, and the modifications/amendments have been highlighted with the red color.
Answers to Reviewer 1
The study entitled “Effect of Foliar Biofortification with Selenium under Nano Silicon supply on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential oil, Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition of Artemisia annua Grown in Moscow Region” was quite interesting. Apparently, the experiment was simple, and the results are very clear and interesting. However, there are major mistakes in the article however, the article can be accepted after major revision. Another major problem is that of English language. Therefore, it is suggested that the article must be corrected for English language.
Title:
Please remove “grown in Moscow region”. The word biofortification is not correct here therefore, I would rather suggest something like
“Foliar application of Selenium under Nano Silicon on Artemisia annua: Effects on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential oil, Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition”
Answer: addressed.
Abstract:
Line 26: remove “,”.
Answer: addressed.
Line 27: remove “improvement” and replace “due to” with under
Answer: addressed.
Line 28-29: please rewrite e.g. results showed that…….
Answer: addressed.
Line 30: add “significantly” before decreased… same must be taken care of in the whole abstract.
Answer: addressed.
Line 33: remove “determined by ICP-MS” and move “redistribution” after “either”
Answer: addressed.
Line 34: replace “of” with “in” and what is “levels” do you mean concentration?
Answer: ‘of’ has been replaced by ‘in’ and ‘levels’ by ‘concentrations’.
Introduction:
Overall, the introduction is short and information on increasing artemisinin synthesis in other species and effects of different elements can be added.
Answer: The Introduction section has been expanded according to the reviewer’s comments.
Line 43-44: replace “powerful protective effect” with “its effectiveness” and replace “oxidant” with “oxidative”
Answer: addressed.
Line 56: delete “areas”
Answer: deleted.
Line 57: Replace “One should indicate, that up-” with “However,”
Answer: addressed.
Line 59-61: rephrase please.
Answer: addressed, and the Introduction section has been expanded.
Results
There are major flaws in the result section.
Due to language mistakes, at times it becomes impossible to separate the results of the present study from the results of the previous studies.
Answer: we have done all the possible revisions throughout the text.
In description of results, authors used the word “increased” or “decreased” for measured traits, which is incorrect for a scientific article. “Increase” or “decrease” can be significant or non-significant. Therefore, statistical analysis is done precisely to check whether the observed increase or decrease is “significant or not”. Therefore, all the result section must be corrected for “significantly increase or significantly decrease” instead of simple “increased” or “decreased”
Answer: addressed.
Standard errors or SD are not presented with any of reported mean values.
Answer: addressed.
Probability values are completely missing and have not been reported neither in the text, nor in the tables or figures.
Answer: addressed.
Line 224-225: What does this mean. Please rephrase what you are referring to.
Answer: we have revised this section.
Line 233-236: need restructure.
Answer: addressed.
Line 237-241: it is rather introduction than discussion.
Answer: addressed.
Line 246-247: this is out of place, not required here.
Answer: deleted.
Line 250-251: tense mistake. Please correct
Answer: we have corrected ‘demostrates’ to ‘demonstrated’.
Line 251-253: these results cannot be drawn until or unless SE or SD are not reported in table 3.
Answer: SD values have been added.
Line 261-2265: restructure the sentence.
Answer: addressed.
Line 268-269: illegible
Answer: deleted.
Tables:
In all the tables, please report the SE or SD range and probability for each measured trait
All the values be reported up to 3 decimals
Answer: addressed.
Figures:
Figure 2 is not necessary and can be deleted
Answer: Figure 2 has been deleted.
Figure 3,4 and 5: Error bars representing SD or SE must be added otherwise, small letter does not mean anything.
Answer: addressed.
At Y-axis the units must be in parenthesis rather after a comma
Answer: addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your manucript and found it really interesting and matching the focus of the journal. The spectrum of applied techniques was very wide, the aim was presented clearly. In general I would recommend the manuscript to be published, yet a few aspects should be improved.
First all, the major constraint relates to data presentation. As I assume from the methodology section, the manuscript describes the results of a two-year field study. Therefore it should be clearly stated that the data presented are mean values. Additionally data from individual years should be presented and/or the effect of cultivation year estimated statistically. It will allow to clarify whether the observed relations are the outcome of the treatment only or there are other interactions involved.
More detailed chemical composition of soil in individual years should also be presented as well as any applied soil fertilization.
It is quite curious why there were no changes in Si level between treatments even after Si application? Can it be somehow explained? The lack of increase of Si level in leaves after foliar spraying is quite disturbing.
In tables 7, 8, 9 units of element concentration should be presented as well as footnotes explaining the meaning of small letters.
In all tables the n number should be provided either in the title or in footnotes. Also in the material section no information of the number of plants cultivated/harvested/taken for analysis was presented. The centering of values in columns should be aligned to decimal places, also the number of decimal places within a single column should be unified.
Figure 3. I think there is a mistake in percentage change of eucalyptol content for Se treatment - it was lower than in the control, not 450% higher.
Figure 4. the y-axis should start from 0.
Also unify the font throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for your help aimed to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all your comments, and the modifications/amendments have been highlighted with the red color.
Reviewer 2
Dear Authors,
I have read your manuscript and found it really interesting and matching the focus of the journal. The spectrum of applied techniques was very wide, the aim was presented clearly. In general I would recommend the manuscript to be published, yet a few aspects should be improved.
First all, the major constraint relates to data presentation. As I assume from the methodology section, the manuscript describes the results of a two-year field study. Therefore it should be clearly stated that the data presented are mean values.
Answer: addressed.
Additionally, data from individual years should be presented and/or the effect of cultivation year estimated statistically. It will allow to clarify whether the observed relations are the outcome of the treatment only or there are other interactions involved.
Answer: As the differences between the two research years related to the variables examined were not statistically significant, we have just reported the mean values throughout the text.
More detailed chemical composition of soil in individual years should also be presented as well as any applied soil fertilization.
Answer: no fertilization was applied in the present experiment, with the aim to avoid its interference with the Se/Si effect. We have expanded the data of soil chemical composition including Se, S, Ca, Zn, B, Ni, Cd, As, Pb content.
It is quite curious why there were no changes in Si level between treatments even after Si application? Can it be somehow explained? The lack of increase of Si level in leaves after foliar spraying is quite disturbing.
Answer: the phenomenon is connected with low nano-Si concentration applied and high A. annua biomass resulting in great dilution during plant growth, and we have added a detailed part in lines 477-481.
In tables 7, 8, 9 units of element concentration should be presented as well as footnotes explaining the meaning of small letters.
Answer: addressed.
In all tables the n number should be provided either in the title or in footnotes. Also in the material section no information of the number of plants cultivated/harvested/taken for analysis was presented.
Answer: In Material and Methods section we have reported that homogenates of at least 10 plants were used in each determination.
The centering of values in columns should be aligned to decimal places, also the number of decimal places within a single column should be unified.
Answer: addressed.
Figure 3. I think there is a mistake in percentage change of eucalyptol content for Se treatment - it was lower than in the control, not 450% higher.
Answer: corrected.
Figure 4. the y-axis should start from 0.
Answer: addressed.
Also unify the font throughout the manuscript.
Answer: addressed.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The study entitled “Foliar application of Selenium under Nano Silicon on Artemi sia annua: Effects on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential oil, 2 Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition” is quite interesting. Authors has significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still some unavoidable mistakes and must be corrected. Therefore, the article can be accepted for publication after minor revision.
Corresponding author:
“ * ” must be added in the author list to indicate the corresponding author.
Title:
Abstract:
Line 21: replace “stimulates research in its cultivation” with stimulated the research on its cultivation.
Line 22: Add “In this study, the effect of …..”
Line 28: add “significantly decreased”
Line 30: “a significant decrease”
Line 35: “indicted a high possibility”
Introduction:
Line59-60: “of the investigation” and “on the improvement of”
Line 72: Merge the last paragraph with the previous one and start the sentence with “Therefore, the aim of the present ……”
M&M:
Line 85: Photoperiod of 17.20–17.33 in June and 17.26–16.0? please indicate if these are hours? Please check the values.
Results
There are major flaws in the result section.
Due to language mistakes, at times it becomes impossible to separate the results of the present study from the results of the previous studies.
In description of results, authors used the word “increased” or “decreased” for measured traits, which is incorrect for a scientific article. “Increase” or “decrease” can be significant or non-significant. Therefore, statistical analysis is done precisely to check whether the observed increase or decrease is “significant or not”. Therefore, all the result section must be corrected for “significantly increase or significantly decrease” instead of simple “increased” or “decreased”
Standard errors or SD are not presented with any of reported mean values.
Probability values are completely missing and have not been reported neither in the text, nor in the tables or figures.
Line 224-225: What does this mean. Please rephrase what you are referring to.
Line 233-236: need restructure.
Line 237-241: it is rather introduction than discussion
Line 246-247: this is out of place, not required here.
Line 250-251: tense mistake. Please correct
Line 251-253: these results cannot be drawn until or unless SE or SD are not reported in table 3.
Line 261-2265: restructure the sentence.
Line 268-269: illegible
Tables:
In all the table captions please indicate what the values after ± indicates (SE or SD)?
Even if they are ratios, the SE or SD values are missing for the following:
Table 2: Values after ± is missing for leaf weight (% of plant weight).
Table 3: Values after ± is missing for stems/leaves and stems/leaves
Table 4: Values after ± is missing for Chl b/ Chl a and carotene.total chl
Figures:
In the figures 2,3, and 4 all the dotted horizontal lines must be removed.
Figure 3 and 4: I don’t see the point of using colors or textures in the bars. White and black bars must be used.
Figure 3: Small letter must be moved further up….
Figure 4: Small letter must be moved further up…. Secondly, either the error bars are wrong or there are mistake in assigning the small letter. Please correct.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have made all necessary changes according to your comments, highlighting them with the red color
The study entitled “Foliar application of Selenium under Nano Silicon on Artemisia annua: Effects on Yield, Antioxidant Status, Essential oil, 2 Artemisinin Content and Mineral Composition” is quite interesting. Authors has significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still some unavoidable mistakes and must be corrected. Therefore, the article can be accepted for publication after minor revision.
1) Corresponding author:
“ * ” must be added in the author list to indicate the corresponding author.
Answer: addressed.
Title:
Abstract:
2) Line 21: replace “stimulates research in its cultivation” with stimulated the research on its cultivation.
Answer: addressed.
3) Line 22: Add “In this study, the effect of …..”
Answer: addressed.
4) Line 28: add “significantly decreased”
Answer: addressed.
5) Line 30: “a significant decrease”
Answer: addressed
6)Line 35: “indicted a high possibility”
Answer: addressed.
Introduction:
7) Line59-60: “of the investigation” and “on the improvement of”
Answer: addressed.
8)Line 72: Merge the last paragraph with the previous one and start the sentence with “Therefore, the aim of the present ……”
Answer: addressed.
M&M:
9) Line 85: Photoperiod of 17.20–17.33 in June and 17.26–16.0? please indicate if these are hours? Please check the values.
Answer: addressed.
Results
10) There are major flaws in the result section.
Due to language mistakes, at times it becomes impossible to separate the results of the present study from the results of the previous studies.
Answer: We have checked English phrasing and have made the needed corrections.
11) In description of results, authors used the word “increased” or “decreased” for measured traits, which is incorrect for a scientific article. “Increase” or “decrease” can be significant or non-significant. Therefore, statistical analysis is done precisely to check whether the observed increase or decrease is “significant or not”. Therefore, all the result section must be corrected for “significantly increase or significantly decrease” instead of simple “increased” or “decreased”
Answer: addressed.
12) Standard errors or SD are not presented with any of reported mean values.
Answer: addressed.
13) values are completely missing and have not been reported neither in the text, nor in the tables or figures.
Answer: addressed.
14) 224-225: What does this mean. Please rephrase what you are referring to.
Answer: we have replaced ‘the growth stimulation effect …resulted in…’ with ‘the growth stimulation effect… was manifested in …’.
15) Line 233-236: need restructure.
Line 237-241: it is rather introduction than discussion
Line 246-247: this is out of place, not required here.
Answer: we have restructured the whole paragraph according to the Reviewer’s comments.
16) Line 250-251: tense mistake. Please correct
Answer: corrected.
17) Line 251-253: these results cannot be drawn until or unless SE or SD are not reported in table 3.
Answer: SD values have been added to Table 3.
18) Line 261-2265: restructure the sentence.
Answer: addressed.
19) Line 268-269: illegible
Answer: we have modified the whole paragraph: ‘According to Table 3 data, neither separate nor joint application of Se and nano-Si affected nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in A. annua leaves (P>0.05). On the contrary, the same parameters referred to stems showed statistically significant decreased values under separate Se and Si supply, though at small magnitude. Apparently, the effect of sodium selenate foliar supply on nitrates and TDS content in plant leaves is species specific, as 1.5-fold leaf TDS increase and 5-fold nitrate decrease have been reported previously in Indian mustard as a result of selenate biofortification [35]’.
Tables:
20) In all the table captions please indicate what the values after ± indicates (SE or SD)?
Answer: addressed.
21) Even if they are ratios, the SE or SD values are missing for the following:
Answer: we have added SD values.
22) Table 2: Values after ± is missing for leaf weight (% of plant weight).
Answer: we have added SD values.
23) Table 3: Values after ± is missing for stems/leaves and stems/leaves
Answer: we have added SD values.
24) Table 4: Values after ± is missing for Chl b/ Chl a and carotene.total chl
Answer: we have added SD values.
Figures:
25) In the figures 2,3, and 4 all the dotted horizontal lines must be removed.
Answer: addressed.
26) Figure 3 and 4: I don’t see the point of using colors or textures in the bars. White and black bars must be used.
Answer: addressed.
27) Figure 3: Small letter must be moved further up….
Answer: addressed.
28) Figure 4: Small letter must be moved further up…. Secondly, either the error bars are wrong or there are mistake in assigning the small letter. Please correct.
Answer: addressed.
