Hydroponic Production of Selenium-Enriched Baby Leaves of Swiss Chard (Beta vulgaris var. cicla) and Its Wild Ancestor Sea Beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima)
, Irene Rosellini 2, Fernando Malorgio 1, Alberto Pardossi 1 and Beatrice Pezzarossa 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In Figure 1, renaming the x-axis to indicate that it represents the Se concentration in each treatment would be better.
What about the control Se leaf concentration?
In the results, ‘LS’ is introduced but never explained. I guess it is leaf succulence, but it should be explained when first time introduced.
Methodology talks about the determination of chlorophyll a and b, but the results talk about total chlorophylls.
The last sentence of conclusions:’ The present study therefore confirms that sea beet could be a valid alternative to Swiss chard in human nutrition,’ is grandioso and not in line with the research objectives (Se intake increase)
Author Response
We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.
The manuscript has been corrected and improved in accordance with Reviewers’ comments, suggestions and corrections.
In details:
In Figure 1, renaming the x-axis to indicate that it represents the Se concentration in each treatment would be better.
The x-axis has been renamed according to the Referee’s suggestion.
What about the control Se leaf concentration?
The Se concentration in leaves of control plants was below the limit of quantification = 0.0125 mg Se kg-1 DW, as reported at lines 169-170. We added this information also in the caption of Figure 1.
In the results, ‘LS’ is introduced but never explained. I guess it is leaf succulence, but it should be explained when first time introduced.
We added the explanation of “LS” (leaf succulence) at line 114.
Methodology talks about the determination of chlorophyll a and b, but the results talk about total chlorophylls.
The equation reported by Welburn and Lichtenthaler calculates the concentration of chlorophyll a and . We calculated the total chlorophyll content as the sum of chlorophyll a and b. This information has been added at line 138.
The last sentence of conclusions:’ The present study therefore confirms that sea beet could be a valid alternative to Swiss chard in human nutrition,’ is grandioso and not in line with the research objectives (Se intake increase)
This sentence has been removed from conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please refer to attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of the language was of a high standard, very minor edits are suggested.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.
The manuscript has been corrected and improved in accordance with Reviewers’ comments, suggestions and corrections.
In details:
The manuscript was generally well written and the arguments presented were easy to follow. The results were clearly stated, and the relevance thereof was contextualised within the study as well as with suitable reference to published work. The authors are commended on a well presented manuscript. Very few, and minor, detailed comments are outlined below.
Detailed comments
L20: it is not advisable to start a sentence with an abbreviation
“Se” has been replaced by “Selenium”.
L20 and throughout: the correct preposition to use is “compare with”
“compared to” has been replaced by “compared with” throughout the manuscript.
L43: should be “work” not “works”
Text has been corrected.
L50: clarify what is meant by “and not increased” – does this mean that the antioxidant capacity is reduced or remains the same?
The meaning of “and not increased” has been clarified.
L75: replace with “for continuous monitoring of”
Done.
L83: should be “greenhouse conditions”
Done
L113: should be “multiplied by”
Done.
L115: What is meant by “dried and leaf samples”?
We apologize for the mistake: “dried and leaf samples” has been corrected in “dried leaf samples”.
L116: delete “a”
Done.
L122: Should be “dried leaf samples”
Done.
L125 and throughout the methods: the concentration should be mentioned before the chemical, i.e. 0.25 M HCl – for consistency and this is also general practice.
Text has been corrected throughout the methods.
L126 and throughout: write ‘ in full for consistency (min is written on L135)
Done.
L157-160: it is general practice to calculate the average of experiments that are repeated
The two experiments were very similar, but not identical replications, since the growing conditions (the number of days of treatment and the cumulative solar radiation) slightly differed. Thus, we preferred to show only the results of the second experiment and report the results of the first experiment in the Supplementary Material.
Figure 1: label as A and B for selenium concentration and BAF
Done
L190: extra full stop after (LS)
Removed.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is interesting and useful that the authors have investigated the potential of fortifying Swiss chard and sea beet with selenium. In total, the MS was written well. The introduction was clearly presented the objectives of this study. The M&M was in detail. The results was statistically analyzed. The conclusions was based on outcomes of the data. Hence, it is recommended to be published in the present form.
Author Response
We thanks the Reviewer for the useful comments to this manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article, which was submitted for review “Hydroponic production of selenium-enriched baby leaves of Swiss chard and its wild ancestor sea beet’’, raises the interesting issue of the possibility of using wild plants. However, a few comments to the authors:
1. Introduction - introduces the reader adequately to the issues of the article
2. Methodology - described in detail the assumptions of the experiment, typical
3. Why figure no. 3 is in the discussion?
4. Not very clear table 2, what results from what? It would be appropriate to add e.g. the average result
5. Incomprehensible the statistics , why are the results from 2 plants combined and give an average? Shouldn't this be presented for one plant
6. Why is the yield from all fertilization levels averaged?
7. Tables 2 and 3 and S2 and S3 differ in internal notation and font size
8. Conclusions - based on the results presented
9. Please read the MS once more and correct any minor shortcomings, e.g. punctuation, etc,
Author Response
We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions.
The manuscript has been corrected and improved in accordance with Reviewers’ comments, suggestions and corrections.
In details:
The article, which was submitted for review “Hydroponic production of selenium-enriched baby leaves of Swiss chard and its wild ancestor sea beet’’, raises the interesting issue of the possibility of using wild plants. However, a few comments to the authors:
- Introduction - introduces the reader adequately to the issues of the article
- Methodology - described in detail the assumptions of the experiment, typical
- Why figure no. 3 is in the discussion?
Figure 3 has been moved to the Results and has become “Figure 2”.
- Not very clear table 2, what results from what? It would be appropriate to add e.g. the average result
“Mean effect” has been added in both Table 2 and 3.
- Incomprehensible the statistics , why are the results from 2 plants combined and give an average? Shouldn't this be presented for one plant.
Growth parameters were measured on samples of two or more plants and were expressed per unit of ground area based on crop density.
- Why is the yield from all fertilization levels averaged?
When a 2-way ANOVA is performed, it is general practice to present the results of the interaction as well as the mean effect of individual factors to show how the single factor affect the parameters apart from the interaction.
- Tables 2 and 3 and S2 and S3 differ in internal notation and font size.
Internal notation and font size have been standardized.
- Conclusions - based on the results presented
- Please read the MS once more and correct any minor shortcomings, e.g. punctuation, etc,
Done.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have made the recommended corrections. In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication.
