Elevated CO2 Increases Severity of Thermal Hyponasty in Leaves of Tomato
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following suggestions are listed for reference:
The first four and half lines in “Abstract” is needed to condense.
In the text including the abstract, “CO2” and “oC” is needed correction in forms.
There is no hypothesis for the study?
In the part “methods”, it is suggested to add a few sub-titles for increasing readability of the text.
L143, “watered as needed to prevent drought stress”, how could a moderate moisture be kept? What was the moistures during the period? How could the waterlogging be avoided?
L145-146, “The resulting angle was subtracted from 90° to determine the abaxial angle for comparison”, why should we do this, why do we not use the tested “angle between the stem and the adaxial surface of the petiole”?
L157, “n=8”, does it mean the number of plants?
L163-164, “the flowering stage also included an additional treatment group at 35°C and 800 ppm CO2 (n=8)”, why should you complement the treatment group?
In the part “results”, it is strongly suggested to add a few sub-titles for increasing readability and logicality of the text.
L199, “F3, 26 = 113.5” should be “F3, 26=113.5”. (“3,15” should be subscript)
L209, what is “one standard error”?
L239, “35 °C and 800 ppm”, but it was “36 °C and 800 ppm” in Fig 5.
L240, “Fig. 6” should be “Fig. 5”.
L255, “Fig. 7” should be “Fig. 6”.
L257, “Fig. 7 and 8” should be “Fig. 6 and 7”.
L259, “Fig. 9” should be “Fig. 8”.
L279, “Fig. 10” should be “Fig. 9”.
I suggest the authors supplement some references published in 2022 and 2023.
English language is satisfactory.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript “Elevated CO2 Increases Severity of Thermal Hyponasty in Leaves of Tomato.” by Thomas et al., the effects of two levels of CO2 (400 and 700 ppm) and temperature (30 and 37°C) were tested in tomato plants, and the leaf angle, dry weight, trichomes, fruit grown etc. of tomato plants were analyzed. This is of great significance for the cultivation and sustainable development of tomatoes.
Moreover, I have some other concerns, listed as following:
1. In the “Abstract”, the author wrote “Only two levels of CO2 (400 and 700 ppm) and temperature (30 and 37°C) were tested in young vegetative plants,”, whereas, in “Results”, Figure 2, leaf angle and dry weight of tomato were analysed under elevated CO2 (800 ppm) and different temperatures (29, 32, 35 or 38°C); Figure 3 analysed under 38°C and 400 (ambient), 600, 800, or 1000 ppm CO2, etc. So, a detailed description of the corresponding processing and results in the abstract as needed.
2. In the “Abstract”, carbon dioxide, the author wrote CO2, but in the main text, the author wrote CO2, with 2 being the subscript. Please unify in the manuscript.
3. Please refer to the journal format and unify the citation of references in the article.
4. All data were analyzed for variance, except for Figure 9. Therefore, the variance analysis is suggested, and the significance of differences between different treatments should also be noted in Figure 9.
5. Figure can be further beautified. For example, the Leaf angle in Figures 2 and 3, as well as Figure 4A, should have complete vertical coordinates, as shown in Figures 6 and 9.
6. The reference should refer to the requirements of the journal, and the author should verify whether all the literature has been cited to prevent omissions.
7. This experiment measured a lot of data and obtained many results, but lacked a summary part. Suggest the author to add a conclusion.
The paper is written smoothly with reasonable graphics and text. So I recommend accepting this manuscript after minor revision.
The paper is written smoothly, and the author still needs to carefully verify to avoid errors.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall it is a nice work with reasonably designed experiments, result intepretion, and well written text.
The study provides advanced understanding of tomato responses to high temperature, elevated CO2, and their combinations, as well as light quality, which are pretty much what all plants on the earth are facing. It also explored the genetic mechanisms underlying the responsive changes in thermal hyponasty and reduced biomass, increase trichome density, ..., by using ethylene and auxin signaling mutants,
Authors discussed these responsive phenotypes, in relations with putative molecular mechanisms, mainly auxins, BR-related signaling, that are likely functioning in these responses in their study.
The only weak points are, authors did not examine some key genes, associated with leaf bending, hyponasty, such as WUS, WOX, TCP, KNOX, etc. under these warming+eCO2 conditions in wild-type or ethylene- and auxin-mutants backgrounds.
Furthermore, light signaling is an inevitable signaling in the hyponasty responses, PhyA and PhyB might be discussed with an increased strength.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is an interesting one stating the impact of elevated CO2 on thermal hyponasty in tomato leaves. This research found that elevated CO2 affects the well-characterized thermal hyponastic response of leaves. The paper needs the following revisions:
1. L 16: check the symbol of degree C.
2. In the introduction part, the authors need to establish the research gap.
3. L 136: Mention a brief description of the growth chamber.
4. How did the authors maintain the level of elevated CO2? In methodology part everything needs to be clear.
5. Results section is well-written with proper illustrations of tables and graphs.
6. L 301-302: What might be the reason behind not changing the petiole angle steadily with elevated CO2?
7. The conclusion part is missing.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
May be accepted now.
