Species-Dependent Response of Brassica chinensis L. to Elevated CO2 Gradients Influences Uptake and Utilization of Soil Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium
and Zhengan Yang 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is suitable for publication in the magazine after minor corrections. The article lacks a description of the abbreviations used. The hypothesis is not very clear. Please replace the word SOIL in pots with soil material and in Figure 4. Describe Figures 1,2,3,4 as a,b,c,d. In the Materials and Methods chapter, incorrect entry of SI units. Table titles are too long. Explanations can be provided below the table. Conclusions -The authors reach numerous conclusions from the data presented; however, a conclusion lacks the necessary supporting data. There is no support for this conclusion.
Author Response
Comments 1: The article lacks a description of the abbreviations used.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. The abbreviation list was added in the end of article.
Comments 2: The hypothesis is not very clear.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. In the original manuscript, the three purposes of the paper were stated without the formulation of hypotheses. In the revised manuscript, hypotheses were added. Please refer to the last paragraph of the introduction in revised manuscript for details.
Comments 3: Please replace the word SOIL in pots with soil material and in Figure 4.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 4: Describe Figures 1,2,3,4 as a,b,c,d.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 5: In the Materials and Methods chapter, incorrect entry of SI units.
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. SI units in the materials and methods section were checked and modified. Changes have been marked in red.
Comments 6: Table titles are too long. Explanations can be provided below the table.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 7: Conclusions -The authors reach numerous conclusions from the data presented; however, a conclusion lacks the necessary supporting data. There is no support for this conclusion.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. The conclusion has been revised. Please refer to the revised manuscript for further details.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle Species-dependent response of Brassica chinensis L. to elevated CO2 gradients influences uptake and utilization of soil nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium by Songmei Shi, Xinju Wang, Huakang Li, Jiajun Song, Xinhua He and Zhengan Yang presents the results of a detailed study of the influence of carbon dioxide on absorption of macroelements by plants of three varieties of Brassica chinensis L.
The manuscript is formatted according to the rules and contains the necessary sections
The work was completed at a good level, has a sufficient degree of reliability and can be published if some problems in the design are corrected.
1. Drawings must be divided and have appropriate symbols, for example 1 a, 1 b...
2. The CO2 triatment designation does not look like a scale designation; it should be in a smaller font and appear under each histogram
3. In Table 1, the explanations and statistics are placed in the title; they must be placed below the table.
4. In the materials and methods section, it is necessary to highlight the description of the research object in a separate paragraph
5. If you use quotation marks to indicate variety names, add them to your bar charts
I recommend that authors draw a diagram/diagrams that will show the overall result of the work where, for example, with arrows of different colors, indicate NPK and show the reaction to concentrations and add this to the graphic abstract
The work is good and should be published after correction
Author Response
Comments 1: Drawings must be divided and have appropriate symbols, for example 1 a, 1 b...
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 2. The CO2 triatment designation does not look like a scale designation; it should be in a smaller font and appear under each histogram
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. The “CO2 treatment” has been changed to “CO2 levels” in both figures and tables, and its size was reduced in figures.
Comments 3: In Table 1, the explanations and statistics are placed in the title; they must be placed below the table.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 4: In the materials and methods section, it is necessary to highlight the description of the research object in a separate paragraph
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 5: If you use quotation marks to indicate variety names, add them to your bar charts
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. All variety names in text, tables and figures were in quotation marks.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1-This article has many abbreviations, so author should be add table of abbreviation list in the end of article
2-Author should be add Figure in M&M as a Layout of field experiments
3-In all reference list author should be add link or DOI to all references list
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Comments 1: This article has many abbreviations, so author should be add table of abbreviation list in the end of article
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The abbreviation list was added in the end of article.
.
Comments 2: Author should be add Figure in M&M as a Layout of field experiments
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. Figure1 as a Layout of field experiments was added in M&M.
Comments 3: In all reference list author should be add link or DOI to all references list
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Species-dependent response of Brassica chinensis L. to elevated CO2 gradients influences uptake and utilization of soil nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium” submitted to the editors of Agronomy is devoted to the study of yieldenhancement of Brassica chinensis using elevated CO2 levels in a closed biosystem
The paper will contain all the required sections and can be published after correcting minor inaccuracies.
The authors should reformat the purpose of the study. As the evaluation of correlation between biomass production, plant and soil nutrients and soil enzyme activity can be considered as one of the objectives of the study.
The title of Tables 1 and 2 should be corrected - Remove the information already provided in the Materials chapter - “The CO2 concentrations include ambient CO2 (C0, 420 ppm) and elevated CO2 (C1, C0 + 33.33% C0, 560 ppm; C2, C0 + 66.67% C0, 700 ppm; C3, C0 + 100% C0, 840ppm).”. And move “Data (means ± SE, n = 6) followed by different letters indicate significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 between four CO2 treatments within the same variety (a, b, c, d) and between three different varieties within the same CO2 treatment (x, y, z). The ANOVA results show that there were no significant differences (ns); *, **, and *** indicate significances at P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01, and P ≤ 0.001, respectively” in the note following the Tables.
Similar note on the title of Figures - remove information that is already provided in the Materials chapter
Correct the Conclusion - it is not correct to start this chapter with the abbreviated term “(eCO2)”. Using the phrase “it can be surmised” is also not appropriate in the Conclusion.
Author Response
Comments 1：The authors should reformat the purpose of the study. As the evaluation of correlation between biomass production, plant and soil nutrients and soil enzyme activity can be considered as one of the objectives of the study.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. Combined with the comments of first reviewer, the paper redefines two purposes and two hypothesis. The specific objectives were to quantify the effects of eCO2 on biomass production, plant and soil nutrient content, nutrient uptake and use efficiency, as well as soil enzyme activities, and to evaluate the correlation between biomass production, plant and soil nutrients and soil enzyme activity.
Comments 2：The title of Tables 1 and 2 should be corrected - Remove the information already provided in the Materials chapter - “The CO2 concentrations include ambient CO2 (C0, 420 ppm) and elevated CO2 (C1, C0 + 33.33% C0, 560 ppm; C2, C0 + 66.67% C0, 700 ppm; C3, C0 + 100% C0, 840ppm).”. And move “Data (means ± SE, n = 6) followed by different letters indicate significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 between four CO2 treatments within the same variety (a, b, c, d) and between three different varieties within the same CO2 treatment (x, y, z). The ANOVA results show that there were no significant differences (ns); *, **, and *** indicate significances at P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01, and P ≤ 0.001, respectively” in the note following the Tables.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 3：Similar note on the title of Figures - remove information that is already provided in the Materials chapter
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 4：Correct the Conclusion - it is not correct to start this chapter with the abbreviated term “(eCO2)”. Using the phrase “it can be surmised” is also not appropriate in the Conclusion.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. The first word “eCO2” in the conclusion has been changed to elevated CO2 and the phrase “it can be surmised” in the Conclusion has been removed.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present manuscript “species-dependent response of Brassica chinensis L. to elevated CO2 gradients influences uptake and utilization of soil nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium” is an interesting idea and it is not written well. However, there are some limitations which must be addressed.
The rationale given at the start of the abstract section (To elevate air CO2 (eCO2), similar to an atmospheric CO2 increase in greenhouse is a common practice to increase vegetable crop yield) is very poor. The quality of English language is quite poor, authors must take care of it and add a good rational and improve the language quality.
Lines 15-18: These lines must be deleted from the text, as there is no need to add these lines here.
The abstract section needs to be fully revised containing some numerical values. In its present form, this section is very poor lacking potential interest and a take-home message for readers.
Keywords: These are very long, revise them and add some attractive keywords.
Line 32: Brassica cultivated in greenhouses due to its economic and agricultural significance. What is need to add this statement here? Do you must of Brassica around the globe is cultivated in greenhouse?
The introduction section is poorly written, and it must be written in the state of art form. It must be start with problem statement, then solution, importance of Brassica, knowledge gaps, hypothesis and clear and attractive objectives.
Line 107-110: These lines must be deleted from the text.
What about the temperature and humidity conditions in a controlled environment?
Please check your experimental design. Are you sure it was a randomized split-plot design?
Line 129: Vegetable and Flower must be converted into vegetable and flower.
Line 132: The soil material was collected must be changed into the soil was collected.
What was procedures used to test soil properties? And soil properties also precise texture percentages.
How fertilizers were applied to pots? Either they were applied in one split? Or different splits?
The manuscript lacks a clear flow, please revisit your manuscript and improve its readability starting from the abstract to the conclusion.
The results section is looking quite awkward, please revise this section and re-write results in a more clear way.
The abbreviations given in all the tables must be explained in footnotes.
Shoot biomass: Longpangq 2.62±0.11b,x: What is x indicting here?
From the discussion section, please delete the sub-headings. The discussion section should contain some key points, and highlight the novelty and implications of the study.
There is a big tendency to repeat the results in the discussion section, please revise this section and avoid using too many results in the discussion section.
Line 421-423. These lines must be deleted from the text.
The conclusion section lacks the study limitations and future research directions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate/Extensive changes are needed.
Author Response
Comments 1：Lines 15-18: These lines must be deleted from the text, as there is no need to add these lines here.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. But we don't think Lines 15-18 can be deleted. The abstract section includes background introduction, material methods, results and conclusions. Lines 15-18 clearly introduce the experimental materials, experimental treatment and measured indices.
Comments 2：Line 32: Brassica cultivated in greenhouses due to its economic and agricultural significance. What is need to add this statement here? Do you must of Brassica around the globe is cultivated in greenhouse?
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. Not all Brassicas are grown in greenhouses. What we want to state here is that Brassica chinensis is now widely grown in greenhouses in China because of its important economic value, and this is indeed the case.
Comments 3：Line 107-110: These lines must be deleted from the text.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Combined with the comments of other reviewers, this part has been rewritten, please refer to the last paragraph of the introduction of the revised manuscript.
Comments 4: What about the temperature and humidity conditions in a controlled environment?
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. Almost similar temperature and humidity between the inside and outside of the growth chambers was also automatically maintained by the CO2 auto-control system. When the humidity inside a chamber is higher than that of outside the air humidity, the inside air was pumped out using another pump controlled by the mini-computer and filtered with solid anhydrous calcium chloride. The temperature is automatically maintained at 0.5 ℃ variation between inside and outside the chamber using an air conditioner controlled by the mini-computer.
Comments 5: Please check your experimental design. Are you sure it was a randomized split-plot design?
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. A schematic diagram showing the experiment layout was added. There were four levels of COâ‚‚ concentration and three plant varieties of B. chinensi in the experiment. Each CO2 treatment owned three chambers, and the 12 chambers were arranged randomly within three blocks. Two pots of each variety were placed in each chamber, resulting in six replicated pots for each CO2 treatment.
Comments 6: Line 129: Vegetable and Flower must be converted into vegetable and flower.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 7: Line 132: The soil material was collected must be changed into the soil was collected. What was procedures used to test soil properties? And soil properties also precise texture percentages.
Response 7: Thanks for your comments. “The soil material was collected” has be changed into “the soil was collected”. Soil pH (soil: water = 1:2.5, v/v) was determined with a digital pH meter (Sartorius pH Meter PB-21, Beijing, China). Soil organic carbon (SOC) was determined by the K2Cr2O7 oxidation method. Soil available nitrogen (AN) was measured by the micro-diffusion technique after al-kaline hydrolysis. Soil available phosphorus (AP) was extracted with 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) at pH 8.5 and measured by colorimetry analyses (UV-1800, AOE Instruments, Shanghai, China). Soil available potassium (AK) was extracted with 1.0 M ammonium acetate (NH4Ac) at pH 7 and the measured by flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AP1200, Aopu instruments, Shanghai, China).
Comments 8:How fertilizers were applied to pots? Either they were applied in one split? Or different splits?
Response 8: Thanks for your comments. Chemical fertilizer was applied in split applications: 40% as basal, 20% at 60 days, 20% at 80 days after planting (DAS) and the remaining 20% at 100 DAS.
Comments 9:The abbreviations given in all the tables must be explained in footnotes.
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion. Done it.
Comments 10: Shoot biomass: Longpangq 2.62±0.11b,x: What is x indicting here?
Response 10: Thanks for your comments. Data (means ± SE, n = 6) followed by different letters indicate significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 between four CO2 treatments within the same variety (a, b, c, d) and between three different varieties within the same CO2 treatment (x, y, z).
