Apical Dominance and Branching in Plantlets of Colt Cherry Lines Expressing Different Light and Auxin Signalling Sensitivities
, Roberto Mancinelli 2, Rosario Muleo 2 and Ivano Forgione 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction is long and some information is repeated
- Writing needs to be revised, as there are spelling errors as a result of error or forgetfulness.
Writing needs editing, as there are spelling errors as a result of error or forgetfulness.
Author Response
The introduction is long and some information is repeated
We kindly thank the referee for the observation. We modified as requested the introduction section.
- Writing needs to be revised, as there are spelling errors as a result of error or forgetfulness.
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. We have revised the manuscript and we have corrected typos and errors. Additionally, we have revised the English language from the prof. Brian Thomas, which is English professor at the University of Warwick.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Apical dominance and branching in plantlets of cherry Colt lines expressing different light and auxin signalling sensitivity.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of cherry rootstocks to light, mediated by the photoreceptor, Phytochrome, and its effect on the role of auxin in driving branching by AD.
The title and subject of the manuscript are very interesting from the methodological and practical point of view, suitable and adequate. The scientific content contributes to the space in which it develops. The manuscript is well designed and written, and therefore could be acceptable after minor revision for possible publication in Agronomy. However, some corrections should be considered as listed below:
The introduction provides a good understanding of the subject and its importance, with a significant quantity of information. But, please include the missing information to the introduction section (research gaps and the significance of your research, advantages). Why it is required to run such research?
The introduction should be enriched based on new studies.
Line 80-81, Please add the below reference at the end of sentence:
Light quantity, duration, quality, and direction are fundamental for the development and growth of plants (Leonel et al., 2023; Kazemi et al., 2023; Croce et al., 2023).
Leonel, L.V., de Oliveira Reis, F., de Assis Figueiredo, F.A.M.M. et al. Light intensity and hydrogel soil amendment differentially affect growth and photosynthesis of successional tree species. J. For. Res. 34, 257–268 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01552-8.
Kazemi, D., Dehestani-Ardakani, M., Hatami, M. et al. Research on the Differences in Phenotypic and Photosynthetic Biophysical Parameters of Begonias (Begonia rex) Cultivars Under Various Light Spectral Compositions. J Plant Growth Regul (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-023-11059-z
Croce, J., Badano, E.I., Trigo, C.B. et al. Experimental approaches to select tree species for forest restoration: effects of light, water availability and interspecific competition in degraded areas. J. For. Res. 33, 1197–1207 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-021-01401-0
Materials and methods are standard and well-drafted but authors should clarify about their reasons on choosing type of experimental design and Mean test used in this research?
The discussion needs to be more critical, with more recent references. Please use the below one:
Cavallaro V, Pellegrino A, Muleo R, Forgione I. Light and Plant Growth Regulators on In Vitro Proliferation. Plants. 2022; 11(7):844. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070844
Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study. What suggestions do you have for future research in this field?
Author Response
The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of cherry rootstocks to light, mediated by the photoreceptor, Phytochrome, and its effect on the role of auxin in driving branching by AD.
The title and subject of the manuscript are very interesting from the methodological and practical point of view, suitable and adequate. The scientific content contributes to the space in which it develops. The manuscript is well designed and written, and therefore could be acceptable after minor revision for possible publication in Agronomy. However, some corrections should be considered as listed below:
The introduction provides a good understanding of the subject and its importance, with a significant quantity of information. But, please include the missing information to the introduction section (research gaps and the significance of your research, advantages). Why it is required to run such research?
We kindly thank the referee for the observation. We added the following sentence in the introduction: “In plant nursery farm which uses micropropagation as multiplication procedures, branching degree represents the possibility of increase the number of plants to commercialize with relevant economic aspect.” Moreover, in the Discussion and Conclusions section we have discuss the significance and the utility of our research.
The introduction should be enriched based on new studies.
Line 80-81, Please add the below reference at the end of sentence:
Light quantity, duration, quality, and direction are fundamental for the development and growth of plants (Leonel et al., 2023; Kazemi et al., 2023; Croce et al., 2023).
Leonel, L.V., de Oliveira Reis, F., de Assis Figueiredo, F.A.M.M. et al. Light intensity and hydrogel soil amendment differentially affect growth and photosynthesis of successional tree species. J. For. Res. 34, 257–268 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01552-8.
Kazemi, D., Dehestani-Ardakani, M., Hatami, M. et al. Research on the Differences in Phenotypic and Photosynthetic Biophysical Parameters of Begonias (Begonia rex) Cultivars Under Various Light Spectral Compositions. J Plant Growth Regul (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-023-11059-z
Croce, J., Badano, E.I., Trigo, C.B. et al. Experimental approaches to select tree species for forest restoration: effects of light, water availability and interspecific competition in degraded areas. J. For. Res. 33, 1197–1207 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-021-01401-0
We kindly thank the referee for the observation. As suggested, we added the references.
Materials and methods are standard and well-drafted but authors should clarify about their reasons on choosing type of experimental design and Mean test used in this research?
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. In our experimental design we have used two control conditions: the first without IBA (IBA0) to highlight the behaviour of each genotype and the second with the addition of IBA 0.1 mgL-1 (IBA01), without inhibitors. The use of IBA01 reflects the usual/standard conditions applied in in vitro micropropagation. Moreover, because in the preliminary experiments in some auxin inhibitors the higher concentrations completely inhibited the plantlets growth, we decide to perform statistical analyses for each auxin inhibitor obviously by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA test), based on a completely randomized block design.
The statistical Mean separation test was already present as appear in the line 172-177.
The discussion needs to be more critical, with more recent references. Please use the below one:
Cavallaro V, Pellegrino A, Muleo R, Forgione I. Light and Plant Growth Regulators on In Vitro Proliferation. Plants. 2022; 11(7):844. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070844
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. We have refreshed the manuscript with recent literature.
Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study. What suggestions do you have for future research in this field?
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. We have improved the conclusion and we have introduced some consideration of advance study in the in vitro culture.
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall manuscript is written well.
1. Line 129-130 In-text references not properly cited as per journal guidelines.
2. In the Material and Method section: mentioned that transgenic lines were obtained from other researchers and were reported 15 years ago. Therefore, authors should include the generation of transgenic lines.
2. English writing needs more improvement.
3. CIted works of literature are very old, Authors should include the latest references in the text.
4. Significance of work is not properly justified, author need to revised it as per the experimental design.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
The overall manuscript is written well.
- Line 129-130 In-text references not properly cited as per journal guidelines.
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. We have corrected the citations.
- In the Material and Method section: mentioned that transgenic lines were obtained from other researchers and were reported 15 years ago. Therefore, authors should include the generation of transgenic lines.
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. In the line 144 we have introduced the number of subcultures that elapsed between the generation of transgenics, their selection and identification (T1 generation), and the start of the reported experiments.
- English writing needs more improvement.
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. We correct typos and errors. The prof. Brian Thomas is emeritus professor at the university of Warwick (England). He is English professor and has revised the manuscript. However, we have introduced the American language form of English.
- Cited works of literature are very old, Authors should include the latest references in the text.
We kindly thank the reviewer for the observation. We added and replaced some old reference with others more recent: Leonel et al. 2023; Kazemi et al. 2023; Croce et al. 2022; Cavallaro et al. 2022; Beveridge et al. 2023.
- Significance of work is not properly justified, author need to revised it as per the experimental design.
We kindly thank the referee for the observation. We added the following sentence in the introduction: “In plant nursery farm which uses micropropagation as multiplication procedures, branching degree represents the possibility of increase the number of plants to commercialize with relevant economic aspect.”
Moderate editing of English language required.
We kindly thank the referee for the observation. We have revised the English language from the prof. Brian Thomas, which is English professor at the University of Warwick.
