Effects of Iron Deficiency Stress on Plant Growth and Quality in Flowering Chinese Cabbage and Its Adaptive Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

language quality neds improvement.

There are many technical and formatting issues.

Please put a space rather than a middle dot between units.

In table 1; Please replace aboveground by shoot. Actually, you measured shoot fresh weight.

Why dry weight has not been taken. This is important.

In Fig. 2, why y-axis mentions both leaf and root POD activity whereas other figures do not state that. Please be consistent.

Do not keep decimal points when comparing the values. Just the round figures are fine.

Some of the references are old. Please update.

References are not formatted as per MDPI.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The present manuscript deals with the impact of Iron Deficiency on the growth and development of the Flowering Chinese Cabbage. The study included parameters like, plant characteristics as well as enzymes and antioxidant enzymes. The manuscript is well written and collated with tables and figures. All the sections are presented very well. However below are the comments needed to be addressed by the authors:  

Remarks

1. On many occasions, references are missing in the introduction (authors may consider recent reference and be included this recent work 10.3390/plants10112254) 
2. What was the reason for selecting specific dosage like, 5.6 mg·L^-1, 2.8 mg·L^-1and 0 mg·L^-1 
3. It is not so clear neither in the introduction that why ACC and Cobalt chloride were used in the study, nor in the discussion, how it helped or affected the plant. Kindly state a clearer hypothesis of using them and discuss its findings.
4. Line 21, 23, 135, : correct Fe3+ 
5. Please do not superscript the in-line citations, maintain the formatting provided by Agronomy MDPI 
6. Line 34-37 provide references 
7. Line 43, 46: suggested to use scientific names with common names under the bracket  
8. Line 54-56: Provide references 
9. Line 72, 80: Provide the year  
10. Line 80: also mention the number of days after sowing of seeds, crops were harvested 
11. Line 85: Provide a reference for the estimation method of vit C 
12. Provide figure 2 with better resolution 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents some interesting results on the plant responses to Fe deficiency. The authors investigated some growth responses and flowering traits. The experimental design and the topic are valid however it is poorly organized and the presentation quality needs improvement. The authors stated much unnecesiry information. For example , in the abstract, they mentioned: "...development of the human body...". This paper is on plants. Therefore such information should be overlooked. The authors included 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC), and cobalt chloride (Co2+) but their justification was not mentioned in the abstract. In the abstract, some of the terms are abbreviated which are appeared only once. The abstract is standalone. So, such abbreviations are not required. Intriduction is too poor. There are many background information. But I suggest the relevant facts and clear hypothesis and justification. There are many formatting issues in the manuscript, e.g. Fe3+, Co2+, ·L-1 etc. They must be superscripted. The authors must check them critically. Brassica campestris and all other scientific names must be Italic. NR, POD, CAT, etc must be abbreviated when they appeared first. Please note again that the abstract is not the part of the main text. Overall, the manuscript is very poorly written and it needs to be edited by a technical person and English must be edited by a language expert. In the results, no need to include decimal points when comparing treatments. I think stomatal conductance values are too low. What is the reason behind it? The colors of the bars of the figures are too old. Please use decent color. The results are too wordy. Please make them concise. On Fig. 3 please add lsd bars or statistical lettering. The authors have measured POD, SOD and CAT. Why these three enzymes only. These three enzymes do not completely describe ROS scavenging. Also, the H2O2 content is missing. The authors must provide this. What is "6. Patents"? References are not formatted properly and they are inconsistent. Please fix them.

Author Response

Reviewer 1：

This article presents some interesting results on the plant responses to Fe deficiency. The authors investigated some growth responses and flowering traits. The experimental design and the topic are valid however it is poorly organized and the presentation quality needs improvement.

• The authors stated much unnecesiry information. For example, in the abstract, they mentioned: "...development of the human body...". This paper is on plants. Therefore, such information should be overlooked.

Response：dear reviewer, we have deleted this part.

• The authors included 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC), and cobalt chloride (Co2+) but their justification was not mentioned in the abstract.

Response：

• In the abstract, some of the terms are abbreviated which are appeared only once. The abstract is standalone. So, such abbreviations are not required.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

• Introduction is too poor. There are many background information. But I suggest the relevant facts and clear hypothesis and justification. There are many formatting issues in the manuscript, e.g. Fe3+, Co2+, ·L-1 etc. They must be superscripted. The authors must check them critically.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

• Brassica campestris and all other scientific names must be Italic.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

• NR, POD, CAT, etc must be abbreviated when they appeared first. Please note again that the abstract is not the part of the main text. Overall, the manuscript is very poorly written and it needs to be edited by a technical person and English must be edited by a language expert.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part. On the other hand, we invited professionals to make language modifications for our manuscript.

• In the results, no need to include decimal points when comparing treatments. I think stomatal conductance values are too low. What is the reason behind it? The colors of the bars of the figures are too old. Please use decent color.

Response：dear reviewer, Iron is required for synthesis of certain chlorophyll-protein complexes in chloroplasts. About 75% of iron in cells binds to chloroplasts, and up to 90% of iron in leaves binds to lipoproteins in chloroplast and mitochondrial membranes. Plant ferritin storage in leaves is necessary for the formation of plastids, hence, the stomatal conductance values was significantly decreased in 0Fe treatment compared with 1/2 and 1 Fe treatment. In addition, the low content of stomatal conductance under different treatments may be caused by the environment of the artificial climate chamber.

• The results are too wordy. Please make them concise. On Fig. 3 please add lsd bars or statistical lettering. The authors have measured POD, SOD and CAT. Why these three enzymes only. These three enzymes do not completely describe ROS scavenging. Also, the H2O2 content is missing. The authors must provide this.

Response：dear reviewer, the activities of GR, APX and other enzymes were also determined, we chose three of them for our manuscript, and we also measured the H₂O₂ content, and we provided this data in the reply to the reviewer's letter. As showed in figure 1, the H₂O₂ content in roots and leaves had different trends under the different treatments, compared with the 1/2 Fe and 1 Fe treatments, the content of H₂O₂ was significantly increased. In addition, our manuscript are mainly focused on Fe deficiency stress could induce nitrogen metabolism, photosynthesis, reactive oxygen metabolism, pH of root medium, and Fe³⁺ reductase activity that was related to physiological adaptive response and tolerance mechanisms. Meanwhile, we also showed that ethylene could involve in regulating the adaptive response to Fe deficiency stress and improve the availability of Fe in flowering Chinese cabbage. So we didn't include a lot of antioxidant data to avoid ambiguity.

Figure 1. The contents of H₂O₂ in flowering Chinese cabbage treated with Fe deficiency stress. Data are mean ± SE (n=3). Different letters above the columns show significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments.

• What is "6. Patents"? References are not formatted properly and they are inconsistent. Please fix them. 

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

 

As mentioned above, the manuscript has been revised according to your comments. We trust that with the revision and above discussion, we have addressed all your concerns and the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in agronomy. Finally, I would like to thank you for your careful and patient reviews which contribute greatly to improve our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Xian Yang, PhD,

College of Horticulture, South China Agricultural University.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is original and valuable contribution to essential publication in an international Agronomy.

The results are interesting and presented appropriately. However, a major revision should be done before publishing.

1. The abstract does not include research results.
2. The introduction needs to be improved as there is no description of the quality characteristics of the cabbage.
3. Keywords too general? Keywords should be changed.
4. The section material and methods require a large correction. There is no precise description of the test methods for the quality characteristics of the cabbage? There is no description of what type of laboratory equipment was used for the tests - name, model, country of the manufacturer? There is no explanation in section 2.9 why testing was performed once in 3 and another time in 6 replications? There is no literature source for this research method – section 2.7.
5. The section Results. SI units should be used. Should be corrected to kg, m in tables 1, 2, 3 and figures 2, 3. This also applies to writing in the text.
6. In the conclusions section. The influence of iron deficiency on the quality characteristics of cabbage included in the manuscript should be clarified.

Author Response

Reviewer 2：

The paper is original and valuable contribution to essential publication in an international Agronomy.

The results are interesting and presented appropriately. However, a major revision should be done before publishing.

1. The abstract does not include research results.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

2. The introduction needs to be improved as there is no description of the quality characteristics of the cabbage.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

3. Keywords too general? Keywords should be changed.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

4. The section material and methods require a large correction. There is no precise description of the test methods for the quality characteristics of the cabbage? There is no description of what type of laboratory equipment was used for the tests - name, model, country of the manufacturer? There is no explanation in section 2.9 why testing was performed once in 3 and another time in 6 replications? There is no literature source for this research method – section 2.7.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

5. The section Results. SI units should be used. Should be corrected to kg, m in tables 1, 2, 3 and figures 2, 3. This also applies to writing in the text.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

6. In the conclusions section. The influence of iron deficiency on the quality characteristics of cabbage included in the manuscript should be clarified.

Response：dear reviewer, we changed this part.

 

As mentioned above, the manuscript has been revised according to your comments. We trust that with the revision and above discussion, we have addressed all your concerns and the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in agronomy. Finally, I would like to thank you for your careful and patient reviews which contribute greatly to improve our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Xian Yang, PhD,

College of Horticulture, South China Agricultural University.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised is appropriate to me.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are no comments