Relationships between Nutrient Uptake and Nitrogen Fixation with Aflatoxin Contamination in Peanut under Terminal Drought
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found the Authors' findings with respect to relationship between nutrient uptake, nitrogen fixation and aflatoxin contamination under terminal drought in peanut significant to the peanut community. Authors reported a negative correlation between nutrient uptakes, nitrogen fixation and aflatoxin contamination and aflatoxin infection. However, it would have been interesting to see the role of expression of specific genes (RT-PCR) featuring nitrogen fixation pathway and nutrient uptake. Do Authors intend to conduct such study as a part of this study or in near future to substantiate the findings?
Also, the Authors should define terminal drought with in the introduction.
Author Response
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and we agree with all your suggestions (blue front was used to identify the revision in the manuscript).
Reviewer 1
I found the Authors' findings with respect to relationship between nutrient uptake, nitrogen fixation and aflatoxin contamination under terminal drought in peanut significant to the peanut community.
Authors reported a negative correlation between nutrient uptakes, nitrogen fixation and aflatoxin contamination and aflatoxin infection.
However, it would have been interesting to see the role of expression of specific genes (RT-PCR) featuring nitrogen fixation pathway and nutrient uptake.
Do Authors intend to conduct such study as a part of this study or in near future to substantiate the findings?
We agree and add more detail in introduction as “Moreover, the expression of specific genes (RT-PCR), which plays an important role in featuring nitrogen fixation pathway and nutrient uptake, could be a next step to substantiate the finding” (line 51-52)
Also, the Authors should define terminal drought with in the introduction.
We agree and define as “TD is a drought during the pod and seed forming stages has been shown to reduce pod yield of peanut” (line 34-35)
Thank you so much.
Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
About 50% of citations are over 10 year old and they need to be limited to 5-8% of the total references used in the MS.
Rephrase the Line 54-55.
Re-write as 2010-2012
use nutrient uptake instead of uptakes.
Line120: Typo. Soil is used in wrong place
Line 259-260: Confusing statement
Author Response
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and we agree with all your suggestions (blue front was used to identify the revision in the manuscript).
Reviewer 2
About 50% of citations are over 10 year old and they need to be limited to 5-8% of the total references used in the MS.
Response: We agree and we revised the citations. However, most of 10 year old citations are principle of methodology.
Rephrase the Line 54-55.
Response: We agree and rephrase as “AI is a serious worldwide problem for peanut quality because of its potential major health hazards and huge economic losses” (lines 58-59)
Re-write as 2010-2012
We agree and rephrase as “2010-2012”
use nutrient uptake instead of uptakes.
We agree and use nutrient uptake instead of uptakes
Line120: Typo. Soil is used in wrong place
We agree and delete this word.
Line 259-260: Confusing statement
We agree so we omitted this statement to avoid confusing.
Thank you so much.
Regards,
