The Electrical Conductivity of Nutrient Solution Influenced the Growth, Centellosides Content and Gene Expression of Centella asiatica in a Hydroponic System
, Md Obyedul Kalam Azad 3, Byeong Ryeol Ryu 4, Jong Kuk Na 1 and Ki Young Choi 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle “The electrical conductivity ….. hydroponic system” delas with the role of electrical conductivity of solution on the growth of an herbaceous and medicinal plant Centella asiatica under hydroponic system. The aim of authors to optimize EC of nutrient solution for the growth of plant under hydroponics. Further effect on a specific metabolic pathway was also studies. My concern is as follows :–
1. Centella asiatica is a perennial plant and therefore developing a hydroponic system for its growth is not advisable and also not feasible because of different reasons including, plants life-span, and cost to maintain the condition for years. How authors will justify the need of hydroponic system for this plant.
2. From Section 2.1, it is clear that study was performed for a month (from 5 October 2021 to 3 November 2021). Within a month of study, how authors will conclude higher production of metabolites and suitability of the system. Please be noted that plant is perennial in nature and therefore will show different metabolic response at the different stage of growth (life-cycle).
3. There is no data on photosynthesis, which is an important parameter for the growth study.
4. Similarly, some physiology indicators should also study as EC is involved in the study.
5. For Real-time based gene expression analysis, a melt-curve analysis data is also required to confirm the primer specificity. Please provide as supplementary.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. We edited our manuscript including your review points.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I kindly invite the authors to check the points mentioned below:
Improve your keyword selection.
Line 52-57- citation needed.
The introduction and background section of the research needs to be improved.
Did all treatments have the same nutrient solution concentration? What method was used to control the EC level?
How and with what device was the Leaf Area measured?
In the material and method section it is not clear how the experiment was designed and how many repetitions were carried out.
Separation of traits in the results section is not suitable, bioactive compounds with growth and yield parameters are presented together in one section, it should be separated from section 3.1.
Line 164-165: please delete the “Furthermore, the petiole length of T2-treated plants was significantly 59% 164 higher than those grown in T1.” because this sentence is repeated in line 161.
The manuscript discussion should be improved, especially in section 3.1.
The treatments should be defined in the captions of the tables and figures.
Line 208-209: It is a repetition of the results and should be removed.
The results section must include the chromatogram of bioactive compounds (centellosides) that were analyzed using HPLC.
For the first time, the full genus name (Centella asiatica) should be written and then when it is repeated in the text, its summary should be written (C. asiatica).
Line 211-213: Please add a citation.
Line 216: needs to be rewritten.
Line 226: Centelloside content should not be Italic.
Line 216: For the first time and all abbreviations, authors should add the full name of all provided abbreviations. For example SPAD.
Line 236: EC 1.2 (T2). No need to redefine treatment.
Additionally, the authors should check their punctuation and spelling as there are some errors in the manuscript due to a lack of consistency. Please be consistent with the space between the number and the unit.
The style of writing of the references is not uniform.
General revisions of English are suggested.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGeneral revisions of English are suggested.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. We edited this manuscript including your review points.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsResponse is satisfactory
