Silicon and Strigolecton Application Alleviates the Adversities of Cadmium Toxicity in Maize by Modulating Morpho-Physiological and Antioxidants Defense Mechanisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Please state the reasons for choosing the concentrations of Cd, Si, and SL in the experiments;

2. Please note the correct uasge of supercript in the manuscript;

3. Line 343, increase should be increased;

4. Line 344, Under should be under;

5. Line 346, Appliation should be application'

6. Please carefully check the spelling of words throughout the manuscript.

Some minor mistakes of spelling should be carefully check and corrected.

Author Response

Reviewer 01

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please state the reasons for choosing the concentrations of Cd, Si, and SL in the experiments

 

Response:  These concentrations of Cd, Si, and SL were optimized from the preliminary screening experiments

2. Please note the correct usage of superscript in the manuscript

Response:  corrected as suggested by the reviewer

3. Line 343, increase should be increased;

Response:  corrected

4. Line 344, Under should be under;

 

Response:  corrected

5. Line 346, Application should be application'

Response:  corrected

6. Please carefully check the spelling of words throughout the manuscript.

Response:  We have thoroughly checked the spelling of the whole manuscript and have been corrected as suggested by the reviewer 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor mistakes of spelling should be carefully check and correct

Response:  All the minor grammatical and spelling mistakes have been checked and corrected in the whole manuscript

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Silicon and strigolactone application alleviates the adversities of cadmium toxicity in maize by modulating morpho-physiological and antioxidants defense mechanisms” investigated the effects of silicon and strigolactone on the amelioration of cadmium stress in maize seedlings. please see the comments below:

Extensive editing of English language and style required. Professional editing is recommended. Please revise all the manuscript for grammatical mistakes and English polishing. The paper contains some long and repetitive sentences.

 

Abstract

The abstract is not well structured, with long results and weak conclusions.

The main problem of the abstract is related to the first line. The authors without mentioning the goal of the study and also highlighting the importance of the study, jump to the methods!!!!!!!!!!!! The result is very long; In the abstract section, the authors should bring the main result. Please modify the abstract.

keywords should be different from title words. Make them specific.

 

Introduction

The introduction is poorly written, with repeated statements and without enough background, unclear hypothesis, and novelty. The introduction needs to be improved and the innovation of the study should be clear at the end of this section. Background of the research is not enough. I would suggest that the authors review and include the following study to improve the manuscript.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-022-05910-4

 

Material and methods

Line 122: P2O5 and K2O kg−1 à use the correct subscript/superscript; check at whole text.

 K2Oà K₂O    /  kg−1à kg⁻¹

Lines 124-125: Please bring references for choosing this level for cd application.

Line 135: Why after one week?! provide reference(s).

Result and discussion

These sections are well written.

Conclusion

The conclusion is not appropriate. Conclusions should describe what the authors derive from their findings (what the authors would tell other researchers or farmers, etc.) and not be rather like a summary.

References

 

The article contains 6 self-citations by the authors. references number 3, 11, 16, 17, 28, 54. Please replace some of these references, because 6 self-citation is high for scientific research.

Extensive editing of English language and style required. Professional editing is recommended. Please revise all the manuscript for grammatical mistakes and English polishing. The paper contains some long and repetitive sentences.

Author Response

Reviewer#02

 Response to reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions

The MS provides a comprehensive overview of the negative impacts of cadmium toxicity on plant growth, the potential benefits of silicon application in mitigating these effects, and the underlying mechanisms involved in the plant's defense against oxidative stress. It cites previous research to support its claims and findings and effectively emphasizes silicon's potential as a protective measure for plants facing cadmium-induced stress. Generally, it is a good paper and deserves to be published. There are some comments:

1. The introduction could be more specific on Cd stress

Response: Added as suggested by the reviewer

2. It is important to choose only figures or tables but not both for results.

Response: All the tables have been converted in the figures as suggested by the reviewer

3. The chlorophyll decrease should be explained in the discussion.

Response: It has been explained in the discussion section of the manuscript

4. The conclusions could be more detailed.

Response: Conclusion section has been expanded as suggested by the reviewer

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The MS provides a comprehensive overview of the negative impacts of cadmium toxicity on plant growth, the potential benefits of silicon application in mitigating these effects, and the underlying mechanisms involved in the plant's defense against oxidative stress. It cites previous research to support its claims and findings and effectively emphasizes silicon's potential as a protective measure for plants facing cadmium-induced stress. Generally, it is a good paper and deserves to be published. There are some comments:

The introduction could be more specific on Cd stress

It is important to choose only figures or tables but not both for results.

The chlorophyll decrease should be explained in the discussion.

The conclusions could be more detailed.

Moderate editing of the English language required.

 

Author Response

Reviewer No. 03:

Response to Reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions

The manuscript entitled “Silicon and strigolactone application alleviates the adversities of cadmium toxicity in maize by modulating morpho-physiological and antioxidants defense mechanisms” investigated the effects of silicon and strigolactone on the amelioration of cadmium stress in maize seedlings. Please see the comments below:

Abstract

1. The abstract is not well structured, with long results and weak conclusions.

Response: Abstract section has been revised with solid and strong conclusion of the study

2. The main problem of the abstract is related to the first line. The authors without mentioning the goal of the study and also highlighting the importance of the study, jump to the methods!!!!!!!!!!!! The result is very long; In the abstract section, the authors should bring the main result. Please modify the abstract.

 

3. Response: Abstract section has been revised with solid and strong conclusion of the study

 

4. Key words:should be different from title words. Make them specific.

 

Response: modified the key words of the study as suggested by the reviewer

Introduction

5. The introduction is poorly written, with repeated statements and without enough background, unclear hypothesis, and novelty. The introduction needs to be improved and the innovation of the study should be clear at the end of this section. Background of the research is not enough. I would suggest that the authors review and include the following study to improve the manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-022-05910-4

Response: Introduction section has been revised and novelty and hypothesis of the study has been highlighted as suggested by the reviewer

Material and methods

6. Line 122: P2O5 and K2O kg−1 à use the correct subscript/superscript; check at whole text.K2Oà K₂O    /  kg−1à kg⁻¹

Response: All the subscript/superscript have been corrected in the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer

7. Lines 124-125: Please bring references for choosing this level for cd application.

 Response: The level of Cd application was selected after the preliminary screening experiments, from where we have selected sub-lethal level of Cd that cause only toxicity not lethal for maize seedlings 

8. Line 135: Why after one week?! provide reference(s).

      Response: reference has been added 

Result and discussion

These sections are well written.

Conclusion

• The conclusion is not appropriate. Conclusions should describe what the authors derive from their findings (what the authors would tell other researchers or farmers, etc.) and not be rather like a summary.

 

      Response: Conclusion has been revised as suggested by the reviewer      

References

 The article contains 6 self-citations by the authors. References number 3, 11, 16, 17, 28, 54. Please replace some of these references, because 6 self-citation is high for scientific research.

  Response: No.03 is not reference of the authors, 16 and 17 have been replaced and other references are most relevant.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate that. The present version is fine with me.