Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled "Establishment of an efficient somatic embryogenesis protocol for giant reed (Arundo donax L.) and multiplication of obtained shoots via semi-solid or liquid culture" presents a detailed and well-executed study on the in vitro propagation of giant reed biomass. The authors have developed a protocol for inducing somatic embryogenesis from immature inflorescences, followed by the maturation of somatic embryos and subsequent multiplication of shoots using semi-solid or liquid culture.

The abstract provides a clear overview of the research conducted and the key findings of the study. The authors highlight the selection of the optimal explant, the development of embryogenic callus lines, and the successful maturation of the embryogenic callus on specific growth media.

The methodology is well-described, and the authors provide sufficient details on the materials and methods used for the different stages of the protocol. The choice of explant, the selection of growth media, and the use of a temporary immersion system are appropriately justified and supported by previous literature.

The results are well presented and demonstrate the efficacy of the developed protocol.

Overall, this manuscript represents a significant contribution to the field of in vitro propagation and somatic embryogenesis of giant reed. The research is well-designed, the results are well-supported, and the implications of the findings are discussed appropriately.

I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication, after minor revisions, that should be addressed to further improve the manuscript.

 

Suggestions/comments:

Arundo donax is an invasive species in various regions. Its ability to spread rapidly and outcompete native vegetation poses ecological and economic concerns. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the potential impacts associated with the cultivation and use of this species. I suggest that the authors consider incorporating some information in the introduction that highlights the invasive nature of Arundo donax that would provide a more comprehensive context for the study and demonstrate awareness of the broader implications of working with this species.

Lines 51-53: I find this information too technical and a bit decontextualized. I believe most of the target audience, i.e., researchers working in micropropagation are not familiar with this nomenclature.

Lines 203-204: Since no correlation analysis was conducted, it would be more appropriate to use a less definitive statement to describe the relationship between the size of the inflorescences and the rate of contamination. To convey the connection between the inflorescence size and contamination rate and acknowledge the observed relationship without making any assumptions about the specific nature or linearity of the correlation, you could use for example the expressions "association" "link" or "relation".

Line 398-404: This paragraph seems a bit to general to end the discussion. I think this kind of information is more suitable for introduction. Indeed, in the introduction section, one can find a similar paragraph, stressing TIS as a good alternative to overcome limitation faced in classic micropropagation techniques. Not only the idea in this paragraph is a repetition of the last paragraph in the introduction but also the references.

 

Overall, i think the manuscript is written in a comphreensive maner. However, some minor editing of English language is required

 

Line 31: “In the worldwide” should be just “Worldwide”

Line 116: “transferred to” instead of “transferred on”

Line 194: “The remaining” instead of “Remaining”

Line 328: “vigorous” instead of “vigour”. Vigour is a noun, whereas vigorous is the adjective.

Line 417: same as in line 328 (vigour/vigorous)

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for all the suggestions/comments which helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. Here are the revisions we did accordingly: 

1. The reviewer has asked us to mention the invasive nature of Arundo donax to introduction section, and this information is added at the beginning of Introduction. 

2. Lines 51-53: Too technical information is simplified and the sentence is revised.  

3. Lines 203-204: The statement 'linear correlation' is replaced with 'relation'.

4. Line 398-404: This paragraph of Discussion is revised accordingly.  

5. Line 31: “In the worldwide” should be just “Worldwide”; Done.

6. Line 116: “transferred to” instead of “transferred on”; Done

7. Line 194: “The remaining” instead of “Remaining”; Done

8. Line 328: “vigorous” instead of “vigour”; Done.

9. Line 417: same as in line 328 (vigour/vigorous); Done

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

put some suggestions in the text, that might help your manuscript be more readable. you may need to rewrite the introduction and conclusion.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of English language is adequate. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for all the comments and the suggestions of the reviewer, which improved our manuscript. 

He/she suggested to rewrite some parts of the introduction and conclusion. The same comment was done also by the other reviewer, and we revised the related sections accordingly, following all their suggestions.  

He/she suggested to add some information regarding the Plantform System, this information is added and the reader is also addressed to the webpage of Plantform for further details.

He/she suggested that, as we grouped our results in different PGR combination treatments, mentioning them in the methods section would be more clarifying, and we did that; we mentioned the related medium formulation in the last section of the Materials and Methods.   

He/she suggested us to highlight again the best results we obtained in each step (the most appropriate explant type, callus induction medium, embryo maturation medium), and this Information is added to the Conclusion section.