Systemic Uptake of Fluorescent Tracers by Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) Seed and Seedlings
, Suemar A.G. Avelar 3, Daibin Yang 4 and Alan G. Taylor 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article Wang with the co-authors is devoted to the study of systemic Uptake of Fluorescent Tracers by Seed and Seedlings of Soybean. The authors presented new and interesting experimental data, which are of both fundamental and practical interest. The article is well prepared and illustrated. Statistical analysis of the experimental date was performed correctly. I believe that the article can be accepted for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Response to reviewer #1: The authors thanks Reviewer #1 for valuable and positive feedback on this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Crop Seed treatments play a significant role in good crop management. Different treatment ingredients may have a different impact on seeds: contact activity or systemic activity. The compounds showing systemic activity protects the plants during the early stages of seedling growth.
The manuscript showed systemic seed treatment uptake of fluorescent tracers was in seeds and seedlings using yellow seed coated soybean as a model. Fluorescent tracers were used to mimic systemic uptake of agrochemicals applied as seed treatments. The lipophilicity characteristic of the compound was measured as log P. Fluorescence of the tracers was visualized by an In Vivo Imaging System.
The topic is interesting and fits within the aims and scope of the journal. The manuscript provided useful information on systemic seed treatment uptake and served as valuable resources for further research.
Line 21: Provide a full name: NIR
Line 62: correct: radioactively labeled compounds
Line 88: Insert the blank between the words: 13]),and
Line 155: Change the uppercase letter to lowercase: Coumarin 120
Line 175: Delete comma: Six treated seeds were sown in silica sand with 20% moisture content, and
Line 206: Replace were with was: intensity of the controls were …
Line 228: Replace was with were: Coumarin derivatives was…
Line 240: Table 3: correct: Chemical Family into Chemical Family/Class and Arylmethan e Dye.
Uniform the punctuation marks in column “Note”.
Line 254: Delete comma: showed that, TMG
Line 378: Correct: need be addressed into need to be addressed
Author Response
Response to reviewer #2: Authors of this manuscript appreciate the positive feedback from Reviewer #2 for detailed reading of our manuscript and for the valuable comments. Our response (in red) follows:
Point 1: Line 21: Provide a full name: NIR
Response 1: The abstract has been rewritten (Lines 16-29).
Point 2: Line 62: correct: radioactively labeled compounds
Response 2: This has been corrected (Line 87).
Point 3: Line 88: Insert the blank between the words: 13]),and
Response 3: This has been corrected (Line 114).
Point 4: Line 155: Change the uppercase letter to lowercase: Coumarin 120
Response 4: This has been corrected (Line 187).
Point 5: Line 175: Delete comma: Six treated seeds were sown in silica sand with 20% moisture content, and
Response 5: This has been corrected (Line 208).
Point 6: Line 206: Replace were with was: intensity of the controls were …
Response 6: This has been corrected (Line 239).
Point 7: Line 228: Replace was with were: Coumarin derivatives was…
Response 7: This has been corrected (Line 263).
Point 8: Line 240: Table 3: correct: Chemical Family into Chemical Family/Class and Arylmethan e Dye. Uniform the punctuation marks in column “Note”.
Response 8: Chemical Family/Class has been corrected on first column of table 3 as well as line 161 and 275. Punctuations edited in column “Note”.
Point 9: Line 254: Delete comma: showed that, TMG
Response 9: This has been corrected (Line 291).
Point 10: Line 378: Correct: need be addressed into need to be addressed
Response 10: This has been corrected (Line 420).
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Systemic Uptake of Fluorescent Tracers by Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) Seed and Seedlings
Manuscript ID: agriculture-840963
General aspects: The manuscript fits within the scope of the journal. The manuscript is interesting. The title is clear and it is adequate to the content of the article. The results are presented clearly. The conclusions or summary are accurate and supported by the content.
I have some recommendation for authors:
- Present more clearly the purpose of the paper in the abstract and at the end of the introduction.
-
Moderate English changes required;
- Include in abstract some general conclusions!
- From my point of view, the introduction is too large?
- Please include a separate subchapter for materials (reactive….)
- Please highlight the degree of novelty and originality of the work.
- Include in the text potential research directions.
Author Response
Response to reviewer #3: We would like to thank the Reviewer #3 for careful and detailed reading of our manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our response (in red) follows:
Point 1: Present more clearly the purpose of the paper in the abstract and at the end of the introduction.
Response 1: The abstract has been rewritten with the purpose clearly stated, lines 16-29. The purpose of the paper is more clearly presented for the introduction in lines 126-131.
Point 2: Moderate English changes required
Response 2: Several changes in the English were addressed in Reviewer #2 points and were corrected.
Point 3: Include in abstract some general conclusions!
Response 3: The abstract has been rewritten with general conclusions stated, lines 16-29.
Point 4: From my point of view, the introduction is too large?
Response 4: This paper covers 4 objectives and therefore the Introduction was written to provide the reader background on all objectives. Therefore, the authors feel strongly that the introduction should not be shortened.
Point 5: Please include a separate subchapter for materials (reactive…)
Response 5: The Material and Methods were written and outlined with 5 subchapters: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. Therefore, the submitted draft already has subchapters.
Point 6: Please highlight the degree of novelty and originality of the work.
Response 6: The Conclusion of the paper covers these points (lines 408-421). In summary, amassing data from 32 tracers clearly illustrates that seed uptake is not governed by log P that is a well-established physical/chemical property that governs root uptake. Moreover, the use of fluorescent tracers is highlighted to have much broader application than for seed science and technology and the list of tracers with physical/chemical properties provides researchers in other fields a reference for their particular application. Some changes were made in the text to emphasize these points.
Point 7: Include in the text potential research directions.
Response 7: The Conclusion of the paper covers future direction (lines 416-421). An additional sentence was added to the text to emphasize this point.
