Exploring Effects of Exogenous Selenium on the Growth and Nutritional Quality of Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

2.1.1. Article

These are original research manuscripts. The work should report scientifically sound experiments and provide a substantial amount of new information. The article should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (optional) sections, with a suggested minimum word count of 4000 words. Please refer to the journal webpages for specific instructions and templates.

Unfortunately, the article presents thorough results before the materials and methods.  They should be 1st and all the figures and tables will need to be reworked and resubmitted so the material and content flows appropriately.  Good paper.  Needs to be reworked and resubmitted.

Author Response

Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments and either enter it in the box below or upload it as a Word/PDF file. Please write down "Please see the attachment." in the box if you only upload an attachment. An example can be found here.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

In the present manuscript, the effects of different concentrations of selenite application on growth and nutritional quality of cabbage were investigated

 

I have some concerns about the used form of Se because inorganic Se is not absorbed by plants and the unabsorbed Se may pose threats to the environment.  Moreover, the authors should indicate whether is allowed in organic farming or not, since they mentioned the organic Se-enrichment of cabbage.

 

Abstract

Line 27: correct to dose.

Introduction

Line 62: correct to vegetables.

Add a few details about the recommended daily intake for Se. Moreover, the authors should highlight which forms of selenite are allowed in organic farming, since it is one of the aims of this study (see Line 68). They should also add some details about the effectiveness of the absorption of inorganic Se from plants, which is usually very low, especially in soil applications, and probably may pose environmental threats.

 

Materials and methods

It is not clear what were the growing conditions for plants (where the same as the seedlings)?

What were the sources of N and P used?

Add more details about the growing medium.

What was the number of plants used for each treatment?

In Line 64, the authors mentioned the soil application of selenite, whereas in Line 258 they mentioned the spraying of selenite. Where the authors sprayed the soil of the foliage of plants?

Results

The statistics in Table 1 should be checked (head size). The legend should be above the Table. The statistical criterion for the comparison of means should be indicated in the footnote.

The statistics in Table 2 should be checked (SeO3).

Check if figures quality can be improved.

Conclusion

The authors should suggest the amounts of cabbage that have to be consumed in order to obtain the recommended amounts of Se.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Exogenous - you used spraying method so this means foliarly sprayed, which would be best to use. 

L17: different concentration OF selenite

in L 28-29 you mention nutrition - cabbage with added Se - you could calculate the dose of Se in an eatable portion of cabbage - in this way you can then mention the nutritional value of cabbage with added Se - what is the dose to reach the proper Se content for consumption etc.

First you stated thaht low conc is 0,1-0,4 mmol/L and high 0,8-1,6 mmol/L, in lines 20-24 you set this value for low 0,1-0,2 and high 0,4-1,6 mmol/L - please correct this.

Introduction lacks several studies about fortification on cabbage, broccoli etc.

There is also no aim of the study, which has to be clearly stated in the introduction.

Results

2.1 paragraph: you write about growth, then head weight and you compare this two parameters. Please rewrite this and compare the same parameters for different concentrations.

in the fig 2 you have total Se conc in mg/kg in the table 2 you use ug/g - please have the same units for Se content.

Discussion

first paragraph you compare weight, head size etc with pak choi and cucumber - it was all done also on cabbage which would be more suitable for you to compare.

3.1: you compare content of SeMet with potato and wheat but there are studies on cabbage. You should compare cabbage to cabbage. 

Methods

4.2 Did you used the reference material for Se content?

4.4. Chlorophyll is measure at 2 different wave lenghts. Howcome you measure only at one?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I was very pleased with the presented scientific article, as it deals with the biofortification of vegetable species with selenium. In Slovakia, our research is also focused on the biofortification of various vegetable species (peas, broccoli, basil, tomatoes, carrots) with selenium, which is very effective, as the soils of Slovakia are poor in selenium. This also applies to other countries, so when we want to ensure the supply of organically bound selenium to the human body, foliar biofortification is very effective, and soil contamination with selenium is excluded. The presented scientific work monitors all important parameters that can change after biofortification, and especially organically bound selenium. Therefore, after removing minor flaws, I support the publication of the post.

My comments are:

-         -  It is necessary to add to the methodology how many repetitions (how many plastic pots) you started from each variant and how much plant material you used to create an average sample

-          - Line 304: add the name 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol

-          - Figure 5, picture A, mU/mg FW should be added on the y-axis

-          - In Table 2, instead of ND, the LOD (Limit of Detection) value of the device should be indicated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English is required to be looked at again before publications, especially regarding singular vs plural, tense (past, present, future)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the manuscript according to my suggestion. They still have to better address these issues:

6.      Add more details about the growing medium.

What was the exact medium e.g. peat, soil?

11.      The statistical criterion for the comparison of means should be indicated in the footnote.

The authors added the significance level (p) without indicating the criterion (e.g. Duncan, LSD, Tukey HSD test). The same applies for figures too.

12.      The statistic in Table 2 should be checked (SeO3)

The authors should use a and b letters instead of a and c.

 

Remove section 6 in Line 367.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc