Effect of Irrigation Water Containing Iodine on Plant Physiological Processes and Elemental Concentrations of Cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivated in Different Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript raises a topic of current interest, the work is well planned and developed, with appropiate methods; however, from the physiological point of view, the manuscript does not provide novel results. The only novelty is that it studies the effect of soil type; however, in mineral nutrition studies is also very important to study the influence of soil pH. Wor impossible to repeat since the varieties used are not described, a very important aspect in horticulture. Also note, that the experiment only has one series with three replicates, which is insufficient for a solid conclusion.

It can be argued that the nutritional benefits of cabbage and tomato are as antioxidants (glucosinolates and lycopene). Are the content of these compounds affected by iodine nutrition?

As a general reflection, to say that biofortification issues can lead to health problems since an excess of iodine as well as other elements considered beneficial for human health that plants accumulate (as Se) can become harmful. What if there was a trend for all plants based foods to be I foortified? I consider that forcing certain contents of elements in plants as Se, I, can be more harmful than beneficial.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Dobosy P. et al. is reporting iodine biofortification on edible tissues of cabbage and tomato grown in three types of soils. The experimental design, practice, and analysis were well conducted. The reviewer indicates requirement of addition of aims and implication of the experiments to ABSTRACT, because such information may give the readers social and agronomical implication quickly. Reviewer also suggests several comments.

Comment 1 (Abstract, lines 18-31): Add the aims and implication of the experiments. The note shown in lines 282-283 is important as Aims and the results in lines 252-254, 298-299, and 354-357 are important as implication of the experiments

Comment 2 (line 22): After ‘sandy silt soil’, words for example ‘with iodine treatment’ is necessary.

Comment 3 (line 162): When did you harvest cabbage and tomato?

Comment 4 (Tables 2 and 3, 176-179): The information shown in Tables 2 and 3 is not for readers but for the authors’ confidence. The two tables can be removed.

Comment 5 (Line 186): What does ‘glht’ mean?

Comment 6 (line 197): The sentence here can be “positive effect on the CCI (except tomato on silt soil). However, it has to be emphasized that”.

Same problem is found in line 285.

Comment 7 (line 207): The sentence here can be “increasing pH of the soil (Table 1). However, this phenomenon was not observed in the case of”.

Comment 8 (line 227): ‘it’ can be ‘iodine concentration’

Comment 9 (line 237): The sentence here can be “observed, compared to those on sand soil".

Comment 10 (line 246): ‘transported’ can be ‘partitioned’.

Comment 11 (Line 247): ‘proportion’ can be ‘partitioning’.

Comment 12 (line 258): ‘inhibitor’ can be ‘inhibitory’ or ‘harmful’.

Comment 13 (line 261): ‘transport’ can be ‘concentrations’.

Comment 14 (line 275): What do you mean by ‘similar’?

Comment 15 (line 291): ‘on’ can be ‘by’.

Comment 16 (lines 306-307): The sentence here can be “These results can be explained by the fact that iodine amended to the soil by irrigation water partially bound to”.

Comment 17 (line 310): ‘quality’ can be ‘properties’.

Comment 18 (line 316): ‘evaluable’ can be ‘investigated’.

Comment 19 (line 333): ‘leaf’ can be ‘foliar’.

Comment 20 (line 348): ‘physical and chemical methods’ can be ‘physiological and chemical analysis’.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Report on agronomy-793962

An interesting, but not so novel manuscript. The only novelty is the inclusion of different soil types, but otherwise all the results are well known, and many former publications are referred to in the list of references.

The presentation of the manuscript can be considerably improved, and I have annotated extensively, and copied in the attached pdf. I do not need to repeat all the comments here, but will for a couple since they are important.

Reference to ‘content’ is in reality ‘concentration’, for content = concentration X mass. Please remember this. I realise that the meter for chlorophyll is misnamed a content meter, but in fact it is concentration.

Care when using ‘on the other hand’ if one hand has not been mentioned. Also, I have removed sentences such as lines 203 and 224, for this adds nothing to the sense.

There are no details as to the dates and numbers of plants used for harvest..?

Did you analyse for interactions between species, concentration and soil types? You should..

Lines 206 to 213 are all ‘ns’, so why so much space used to present them..?

Care with use of the term ‘biomass’ [line 211]. What does it mean?

What are numbers in parentheses in Table 5?

Units in line 226 do not match Figure 1??

What is the ‘transfer factor’, define..

Units in Figure 1, dry weight or fresh weight?

Some of the results in lines 256-264 do not seem to be correct, according to the data presented.

How about presenting means across soil types, and are interactions significant in Table 7?

Reconcile data in line 318 and line 97? Likewise for lines 323-327.

Titles in references for articles do not use capitals.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no suggestiocns.

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluation of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Notes for revised version 2 of Agronomy 793962

In the main the authors have done a good job at tidying up the manuscript, of course the major detraction is that this is a single experiment but given that nowadays many publications are based on a single experiment I’ll let this go. The data are reasonably clear-cut.

There are a few minor changes to be made and then the manuscript should be publishable.  

Line 31 'concertation'??

Line 67 bound, not bounded

Is section 2.1 necessary, better to put in where first mention of chemical use.

Line 169 indicate dates of harvest.

There are still occurrences of ‘content’ when it should be concentration [e.g., line 239]. Do a search and change..

Table 2 and others Caption must indicate what numbers in parentheses mean

Line 221 put in ‘showing’ for ‘having’.

Line 224 replace ‘in the case of’ with ‘for’

Line 226 do you mean aerial mass or what? Total including fruit. Specify.

Line 239 this is self-evident so omit: ‘probably due to the much lower control dry mass on sandy silt soil.’

Line 254 use ‘However’ instead of ‘Although’

Line 288 to read ‘A Positive..’

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx