Effects of Rootstock on Water Stress, Physiological Parameters, and Growth of the Pistachio Tree

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors provided data about the effect of rootstock on physiological parameters of scions of pistachio tree. These data are of help for understanding which rootstock is the most suitable for pistachio. Unfortunately, the current data in the manuscript are still very informative and less adequate to build a full story. The reason why pistachio tree growing on different rootstocks having different growth state and drought stress resistance was not detected or discussed. To my opinion, the authors should investigate the physiological parameters of rootstock plants individually and compare their growth rate, stress tolerance. It will be helpful for understanding the mechanism of the rootstock’s effect on scion. That is to say, if the rootstock plant species, which grow fast and have strong stress resistant ability, are more suitable for scions, it will be helpful for selecting similar rootstock plants in the future. If the data did not support this hypothesis, the effect maybe result from the interaction between the rootstock and the scion.

There are still some points need to be revised or supplied:

1. In figure 1, 2, 5 and 6, error bars need to be marked. In figure 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, difference significance should be marked.

2. The data of chlorophyll concentration should be showed as a figure.

3. In the discussion, the authors addressed lots of the results repeatedly, rather than discuss the story. To my opinion, the discussion part should be re-written.

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

First of all, we would like to thank you for your time and dedication to our work. Your comments have been useful to improve our study and enrich our work.

The objective of our work was to study the effects of rootstock-cultivar interaction under controlled conditions. We did not considerer the possibility of including ungrafted rootstock plants in this study. On the other hand, several papers have been published that address the study of water relations in pistachio rootstock seedlings under controlled conditions.

We started from the hypothesis that the three rootstocks present different characteristics of growth and behavior in stress situations. However, the lack of literature comparing in the same trial these three standards, the three most used in Spain, led us to propose a trial with these rootstocks, grafted with the most important variety used in Spanish plantations.

On the other hand, following your advice, the following points have been revised:

1. In figure 1, 2, 5 and 6, error bars need to be marked. In figure 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, difference significance should be marked.

According to your advice, all the figures have been reditated, including in them, letters showing significant differences and bars marking standard error.

2. The data of chlorophyll concentration should be showed as a figure.

Thank you for your appreciation, ‘Figure 2’ has been included to show chlorophyll concentration results.

3. In the discussion, the authors addressed lots of the results repeatedly, rather than discuss the story. To my opinion, the discussion part should be re-written.

Following your advice, we have made changes in the discussion in order to improve the explanations given as well as to emphasize the scientific discussion.

With the changes made, we hope to have corrected the errors of form and content and to have improved the work by following your comments, advice and experience at all times. Once again we would like to thank you for your time and dedication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors:

             I congratulate you on a good study that indicates which factors to focus on in long term rootstock/cultivar field trials and plant improvement programs.  

             I also congratulate you on your ability to write in English; wish I could do as well in your language.

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

We would like to thank you for your interest in our work. We hope to be able to publish later on studying the analyzed responses under controlled greenhouse conditions in the field.

Thank you very much for your praise, one of the members of the team made a stay at UCDavis, which was worth to expand knowledge of water stress not only in pistachio but also in olive and almond trees, as well as improve their knowledge of English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have prepared a manuscript concerning “Effects of rootstock on water stress, physiological parameters and growth of the pistachio tree”. There are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.

Point 1: Please improve the quality of figures. Significant differences and error lines are missing from the figures, and the font sizes in the figures are not uniform.

Point 2: The numerical calculation in the table is inaccurate and the reserved digits are inconsistent. There is a lack of notes, which are necessary supplements and explanations to the relevant contents in the table.

Point 3: It is mentioned in the manuscript that “Measurements were taken at the start of the stress period, at the end of it and at the end of the recovery period”. However, the research process of the experiment is not explained in detail in the part of materials and methods.

Point 4: The discussion part should be based on summarizing the research results, citing relevant literature and increasing the discussion on related research fields. Doing so can increase the academic value and practicability of the research and improve the quality and readability of this manuscript.

Point 5: Line 400-line 401, the statement about this part is not perfect. It is suggested that this part can point out the shortcomings of the research, put forward specific research directions and problems, and discuss the significance and application prospects of the research when looking forward to the future.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3.

First of all, we would like to thank you for the time you spent to our manuscript. It will be improved thanks to your comments and guidance. We would like to apologize for the lack of uniformity in the tables and figures presented in the work: they have been corrected. We are going to answer to your suggestions.

Point 1: Please improve the quality of figures. Significant differences and error lines are missing from the figures, and the font sizes in the figures are not uniform.

Following your recommendation, all figures have been re-edited, including standard error bars, letters indicating significant differences between groups and correcting formatting errors such as the difference in typography between figures.

Section 3. Results

Subsection ‘3.1 Stem water potential (MPa)’

Figure 1. Error bars and letters showing significant differences have been included in the three different periods tested (Start of the stress period, End of the stress period, and end of the recovery period). The meaning of letters and the error bars have been included in the figure caption.

Subsection ‘3.4 Chlorophyll and Other pigments’

Line 291. Old figure 2 has changed to new ‘Figure 3’

Line 296. Old figure 3 has changed to new ‘Figure 4’

Lines 293-294. A new paragraph has been included in order to make more clear the results expressed in the table.

Lines 298-299. A new paragraph has been included in order to explain better the figure.

Subsection ‘3.5 Biomass Weight and Plant Growth’

Line 301. Reference to old ‘Fig. 4’ has changed to ‘Fig. 5’

Line 318. Old ‘Figure 4 has changed to new ‘Figure 5’.

Lines 320-321. A paragraph has been included in order to make clearer the figure.

Line 322. References to old ‘Fig. 5’ and old ‘Fig. 6’ have been changed to ‘Fig. 6’ and ‘Fig. 7’.

Line 332. Old ‘Figure 5’ has been changed to new ‘Figure 6’.

Lines 334-335. A new paragraph has been included explaining better the figure content.

Line 339. Old ‘Figure 6’ has been changed to new ‘Figure 7’.

Lines 340-341. A new sentence has been included to explain better the meaning of figures.

Point 2: The numerical calculation in the table is inaccurate and the reserved digits are inconsistent. There is a lack of notes, which are necessary supplements and explanations to the relevant contents in the table.

In response to your suggestions, we have corrected the error bars found in the tables, as well as we have included an explanation at the foot of the table, clarifying the meaning and acronyms that appear in the ANOVA.

Subsection ‘3.2 Gas exchange and Photosynthesis’

Table 1. Line 255. A note has been included in Table 1, explaining the meaning of ‘ns’ as ‘no significant differences (p≥0.05)’

Subsection ‘3.3 Efficiency of carboxylation and water use’

Table 2. Line 260. A note has been included in Table 1, explaining the meaning of ‘ns’ as ‘no significant differences (p≥0.05)’

Point 3: It is mentioned in the manuscript that “Measurements were taken at the start of the stress period, at the end of it and at the end of the recovery period”. However, the research process of the experiment is not explained in detail in the part of materials and methods.

In order to improve the description of the methodology used, we have re-written, corrected and expanded the explanation in ‘Materials and Methods’ section.

Section 2. Material and Methods

Lines 134-137: In ‘2.1 Plant Material’ subsection, a new paragraph has been included between line 134 and line 137.

Line 143: The words ‘stress period’ have been included.

Line 145: The words ‘recovery period’ have been included

Point 4: The discussion part should be based on summarizing the research results, citing relevant literature and increasing the discussion on related research fields. Doing so can increase the academic value and practicability of the research and improve the quality and readability of this manuscript.

Based on your advice, we have rewritten the discussion to include the changes described below:

Section ‘4. Discussion’

The following changes have been included in discussion section.

Line 343. A sentence has been removed.

Line 385. ‘Figure 2’ has been included.

Line 391. Reference to old ‘Figure 2’ has changed to new ‘Figure 3’.

Line 403. Reference to old ‘Figure 4’ has changed to new ‘Figure 5’.

Line 406. Reference to old ‘Figure 5’ has changed to new ‘Figure 6’.

Point 5: Line 400-line 401, the statement about this part is not perfect. It is suggested that this part can point out the shortcomings of the research, put forward specific research directions and problems, and discuss the significance and application prospects of the research when looking forward to the future.

A new paragraph has been included pointing out the shortcomings of the research, putting forward specific research directions and problems, and discussing the significance and application prospects of the research when looking forward to the future.

With the changes made, we hope to have corrected the errors of form and content and to have improved the work by following your comments, advice and experience at all times. Once again we would like to thank you for your time and dedication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision is acceptable.