Effects of Low-Phosphorus Stress on Use of Leaf Intracellular Water and Nutrients, Photosynthesis, and Growth of Brassica napus L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work entitled "Effects of low phosphorus stress on use of leaf intracellular water and nutrients, photosynthesis and growth of Brassica napus L.", presents merit on the topic, however it needs to present a more robust introduction, mainly in relation to electrophysiology, which I understand to be It's the main part of the job.

Another point that needs to be systematically reviewed is the discussion, it needs the main points highlighted in the results to be explained with the literature, in a way that directs the reader to a conclusion, which should be based on your objective.

Author Response

1. It needs to present a more robust introduction, mainly in relation to electrophysiology, which I understand to be It's the main part of the job.

Response: Absolutely, we agree with the reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions. The electrophysiology related intracellular substances use traits are the main part of the job. We have supplemented the statements about the electrophysiology in the Introduction part.

2. Another point that needs to be systematically reviewed is the discussion, it needs the main points highlighted in the results to be explained with the literature, in a way that directs the reader to a conclusion, which should be based on your objective.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind and useful reminding, we have added relevant literatures to explain the main points highlighted in the results, and through revising the Discussion part, we seek to direct the readers to a conclusion that based on the objective of this study.

All the revision details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Changes made I suggest publishing them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. "Phosphorus" should be revised.

Response: Thanks for reviewer's kind reminding. We have replaced “Phosphorus” with “P”.

2. The L. in Glycine max (L.) is not italicized.

Response: Have been done.

3. The word "uptake" is more appropriately used in the article than "absorption".

Response: Thanks for reviewer's suggestion, we have replaced the corresponding words.

All the revision details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study adds new information to the scientific community however there is need to revisit the introduction to ensure more emphasis is given to Brassica napus. L. There are some editorials to be done as indicated in the uploaded detailed review. There is also need to revisit the discussion to make sure the findings are compared and contrasted with the findings by other authors. It will also be interesting to know what your recommendations are going forward regarding your findings as the results are not applicable to field conditions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

1. The topic is original and relevant to the field as B.napus L is an important crop in China and the region where it is mostly grown is prone to low P conditions to which it is very sensitive to. The study managed to address a specific gap as it came up with specific thresholds of low P that are tolerated by B.napus L.

The study managed to come up with tolerance threshold1 and napus L to low P of 0.125mmol-1 and it also determined that photosynthesis and growth were maximized at 0.250 mmol-1 P level information which has not been brought up by other published material.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable comments. By using electrophysiological technique, we aimed at exploring the dynamics of leaf intracellular substances and their correlation with photosynthesis and growth in order to understand better the response mechanisms of B. napus L. to P deficiency. The use of the intracellular substances plays an important role in plant adaptability to low P conditions, we found that B. napus L. exhibited the best adaptability at 0.250 mmol L^-1 P level, but had a tolerance threshold of 0.125 mmol L^-1 P level in this study.

2. The introduction seems to be too general concentrating on nutrient uptake by different crops and nothing much about Brassica napus L.. The authors need to revisit the introduction to ensure more emphasis is given to Brassica napus L., and ensure that the main question is well articulated as it is not obvious.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind reminding and useful suggestions. We have made changes in the Introduction part and added relevant references to emphasis on B. napus L., the main question has been well articulated. The details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

3. The last paragraph of the introduction seems to concentrate on materials and method instead of giving the justification and main aim of the study.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s good suggestion. We have revised this paragraph to better highlight the main objective of this study. The details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

4. The authors need to justify selection of the variety Ningyou 26 for use in the study is it the widely grown variety in China?

Response: Thanks for your kind reminding. The aim of this study was to analyze the response mechanism of Brassica napus L. to low phosphorus. B. napus L. is an important crop in China. It is widely cultivated in karst areas and is sensitive to phosphorus deficiency. It is often affected by low phosphorus stress in karst areas. Ningyou 26 is a new variety developed by Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences based on B. napus L.. It has the advantages of good resistance and high yield, and is also suitable for spreading cultivation in China, including southwest karst area. The results of this study have certain guiding significance for the cultivation and popularization of B. napus L. and establishing method to determine the fertilization strategy of this type of plant. The corresponding part in the Methods section have been revised.

5. How many healthy and uniform seedlings were selected for low P treatments and what was the targeted plant population? What was the experimental design used for the study?

Response: Thanks for reviewer's valuable comments. We have explained the related information in details in the corresponding part of the revised manuscript.

“96 healthy and uniform seedlings were randomly selected for low P treatments, and 24 seedlings were treated at each level, where four seedlings in each 12-hole tray were taken as a repetition, with a total of six repetitions. The experiment was arranged in a completely randomized design.”

6. How many fresh leaves were selected per plant?

Response: At least three plants (one plant per 12-hole tray) were selected for each treatment, and three leaves per plant were selected for measurement. Finally, at least three effective measurement repetitions were ensured for each treatment. The corresponding part has been revised.

“At least three fresh leaves per plant were selected and clamped between the self-made parallel electrode plates connected with the LCR tester.”

“The measurement was repeated three times at each level by selecting three different plants in different 12-hole trays.”

7. The editorial on the results needs some revision.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind and good advice, we have made corresponding modifications to the result part.

8. There is need to revisit the discussion to make sure the findings are compared and contrasted with the findings by other authors, as it should be structured in such a way that results are discussed relative to findings by other authors.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's good suggestions, we have added relevant literatures to the corresponding Discussion parts to make sure the findings are compared and contrasted with the findings by other authors, and ensure the results are discussed relative to findings by other authors.

9. The conclusions are consistent with evidence and the arguments presented and they address the main question posed although it sounds more of an academic study whose results cannot be applied practically in a field situation. It will also be interesting to know what your recommendations are going forward regarding your findings as the results are not applicable to field conditions.

Response: Absolutely, we know there is still limitation of the results of this study applying practically in a field situation. However, the purpose of this study is to investigate the response mechanism of B. napus L. to low P from the perspective of dynamic metabolism and utilization of intracellular substances. The results can help to improve the accuracy of the detection of plant P demand information or plant adaptability, and provide a new idea for the construction of a rapid detection method of plant P demand information by using the electrophysiological technique which has advantages of simple measurement and sensitive response, the results help to promote the further study of precision fertilization.

10. Some of the references are appropriate but the majority are mostly on general nutrient uptake or utilization by other crops other than the crop in question Brassica napus L.

Responses: The corresponding parts in the Introduction part have been revised.

11. Ensure Tables are not cut between pages, all abbreviations in the Table are explained below the Table and not in the title and the same should apply with the figures.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind suggestions. We have made corresponding modifications to the tables and figures.

All the revision details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The evaluated work is of great interest from a physiological perspective, focusing on how the studied plants respond to low phosphorus availability. Through the analysis of electrophysiological measurements, measurements related to cell wall elasticity, gas exchange, leaf anatomy, and changes in water or nutritional status depending on phosphorus availability, the authors construct a valuable article. They determine whether, at low phosphorus concentrations, the analyzed plants can still grow and develop reasonably well, which implies significant and sustainable savings in chemical fertilizers, specifically concerning the nutrient phosphorus.

However, there are weaknesses that need to be addressed and resolved before the article can be accepted. Therefore, I believe that the publication should be reconsidered after major revisions before it can be accepted: 

1) I notice a lack of a section in the introduction, discussion, and/or conclusion on the importance of reducing phosphorus use in agriculture due to Its decreasing availability

Phosphorus (P) is a critical nutrient for plant growth and agricultural productivity, playing a vital role in energy transfer, photosynthesis, and nutrient movement within plants. However, the global availability of phosphorus is diminishing, raising significant concerns for sustainable agriculture and food security.  The importance of reducing phosphorus use in agriculture, taking in account the critical issues associated with its declining availability is the relevant importance. For example:

- Finite nature of phosphorus resources: phosphorus is primarily obtained from phosphate rock, a non-renewable resource. The finite nature of these reserves means that once depleted, they cannot be replaced. Estimates suggest that the quality and accessibility of phosphate rock are declining, leading to increased extraction costs and environmental impacts. Reducing phosphorus use can extend the lifespan of these reserves, ensuring that this essential nutrient remains available for future generations.

- Environmental impact of phosphorus mining: the extraction and processing of phosphate rock have significant environmental consequences. Mining operations can lead to habitat destruction, soil erosion, and contamination of water bodies with heavy metals and radioactive elements. By reducing phosphorus use, the demand for mining can be decreased, thereby mitigating these environmental impacts and promoting more sustainable agricultural practices.

- Soil and water pollution: excessive use of phosphorus fertilizers in agriculture can lead to nutrient runoff, causing eutrophication in water bodies. This process results in the overgrowth of algae, depletion of oxygen, and loss of aquatic life, severely impacting ecosystems and water quality. Reducing phosphorus application can help prevent nutrient runoff, protecting freshwater and marine environments from pollution.

- Economic considerations: as high-quality phosphate rock becomes scarcer, the cost of phosphorus fertilizers is expected to rise. This poses a significant economic challenge for farmers, especially in developing countries where agricultural inputs already represent a substantial portion of production costs. By optimizing phosphorus use and adopting efficient fertilization practices, farmers can reduce input costs and improve their economic resilience.

- Enhancing agricultural sustainability: sustainable agriculture aims to balance the need for food production with the preservation of natural resources. Efficient phosphorus use is a cornerstone of sustainable farming practices. Techniques such as precision agriculture, soil testing, and the use of organic amendments can optimize phosphorus availability to crops, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers and enhancing soil health.

- Promoting nutrient recycling: the recycling of phosphorus from agricultural and food waste is an important strategy to reduce dependency on phosphate rock. Technologies for recovering phosphorus from manure, compost, and wastewater can create a circular nutrient economy, minimizing waste and providing a renewable source of phosphorus for agricultural use.

- Adapting to global food demand: With the global population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, the demand for food will increase significantly. Ensuring an adequate and sustainable supply of phosphorus is crucial for meeting this demand. Reducing phosphorus use and improving its efficiency in agricultural systems can help secure food production while conserving critical resources.

2.1) Another important aspect to address is improving the description of the statistical analysis within the materials and methods section. The authors mention that they applied a multiple comparisons test, such as Duncan's Test, but they do not specify if a prior ANOVA analysis was conducted.

It is essential to perform an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to determine if there are any statistically significant differences between the means of different groups. ANOVA is crucial because it allows for the comparison of multiple groups simultaneously while controlling for Type I errors, which can occur when conducting multiple pairwise comparisons independently. However, ANOVA relies on several assumptions:

1. Independence of observations: Each group's samples must be independent of each other.
2. Normality: The data within each group should be approximately normally distributed.
3. Homogeneity of variances: The variances among the groups should be equal.

If these assumptions are not met, the results of the ANOVA may not be valid. Therefore, before applying ANOVA, the following diagnostic checks should be performed:

• Normality tests: Use tests such as the Shapiro-Wilk or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to assess the normality of the data.
• Levene's test: To check the homogeneity of variances across the groups.

If the data do not meet these assumptions, non-parametric alternatives should be considered. Non-parametric methods do not assume normality or homogeneity of variances, making them more robust under these conditions. Suitable non-parametric alternatives to ANOVA include:

1. Kruskal-Wallis H test: This test is used for comparing more than two independent groups. It is the non-parametric equivalent of the one-way ANOVA and does not assume a normal distribution of the data.
2. Friedman test: This is used for repeated measures or paired samples, similar to a repeated measures ANOVA but for non-parametric data.

2.2) Another important point in the statistical analysis is the limited sample size used by the authors (n=3). Were the experiments conducted in triplicate?

Furthermore, it is crucial to address the importance of sample size rigorously and exhaustively, and how to determine the ideal sample size according to the experimental design.

Importance of sample size:

1. Statistical power: The sample size directly affects the statistical power of a study, which is the probability of detecting a true effect when it exists. A small sample size (like n=3) typically results in low statistical power, increasing the risk of Type II errors (failing to detect a true effect).

2. Precision: Larger sample sizes provide more precise estimates of the population parameters. With a limited sample size, the confidence intervals around estimates are wider, indicating less certainty in the results.

3. Generalizability: Adequate sample size ensures that the findings can be generalized to the broader population. A small sample size may not accurately represent the variability within the population, leading to biased conclusions.

4. Assumption validation: Many statistical tests, including ANOVA, require certain assumptions to be met. With a small sample size, it is challenging to validate these assumptions, such as normality and homogeneity of variances.

Determining ideal sample size:

1. Power analysis: Conduct a power analysis to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect an effect of a given size with a specified level of confidence. This involves considering:

   • Effect size: The magnitude of the difference or relationship you expect to find.
   • Significance level (α): The probability of a Type I error, typically set at 0.05.
   • Power (1-β): The probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis, commonly set at 0.80.

2. Pilot studies: Conducting a pilot study can provide preliminary data to estimate variability, which can then inform the required sample size for the main study.

3. Experimental design: Consider the complexity of the experimental design. More complex designs with multiple factors or interactions may require larger sample sizes to accurately detect effects and interactions.

4. Literature review: Review similar studies in the literature to determine the sample sizes used and the justification provided. This can provide a benchmark for determining an appropriate sample size for your study.

5. Software tools: Utilize statistical software tools that can perform power analysis and sample size calculations. Tools like G*Power or statistical functions in R and Python can aid in these calculations.

3) The authors should improve the quality of the figures, specifically the font size used to indicate significant differences and the use of a grayscale or color scale for the different treatments applied.

Author Response

1. I notice a lack of a section in the introduction, discussion, and/or conclusion on the importance of reducing phosphorus use in agriculture due to Its decreasing availability.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's good suggestions, we have added the relevant statements into the introduction, discussion parts of the revised manuscript.

2. Improve the description of the statistical analysis within the materials and methods section. The authors mention that they applied a multiple comparisons test, such as Duncan's Test, but they do not specify if a prior ANOVA analysis.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's good and valuable comments. The corresponding description about ANOVA analysis was missed in this manuscript. In fact, we used SPSS software to perform one-way analysis of variance on the results using Duncan 's multiple comparisons at the 5 % significance level (p ≤ 0.05). This part has been revised to clearly describe the statistical analysis of the data in the revised manuscript.

3. Another important point in the statistical analysis is the limited sample size used by the authors (n=3). Were the experiments conducted in triplicate? Furthermore, it is crucial to address the importance of sample size rigorously and exhaustively, and how to determine the ideal sample size according to the experimental design.

Response: Thanks for reviewer's good comments. 24 seedlings were treated at each level, where four seedlings in each 12-hole tray were taken as a repetition, with a total of six repetitions. The experiment was arranged in a completely randomized design. When conducting the measurement, at least three plants (one plant per 12-hole tray) were selected at each treatment level for measurement, and three leaves per plant were selected for measurement, that means the measurement was repeated three times at each level by selecting three different plants in different 12-hole trays. Finally, at least three effective measurement repetitions were ensured for each treatment. Besides, the measurement of photosynthetic parameters at each treatment level was repeated three five times since this measurement was non-destructive.

4. The authors should improve the quality of the figures, specifically the font size used to indicate significant differences and the use of a grayscale or color scale for the different treatments applied.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion, we have modified the figures.

All the revision details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written and requires minor corrections. Congratulations on the excellent work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. “As a result, the photosynthesis and growth of plants were maintained.” In what way? Was there a reduction or an increase?

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's good comments. We have changed the statement to make the description clear. “As a result, the photosynthesis and growth of plants were maintained at the same level as that of control group.”

2. Insert a keyword, mentioning the culture. No keywords mention phosphorus.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's good suggestion, we have supplemented the keywords.

3. Fix a few wrong or inappropriate words in the preface.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's good suggestions. We have made corresponding modifications, including add reference, remove etc.

4. Separate units from numbers and add units to some parameters.

Response: Have been done. The unit of physiological capacitance (C) is pF, and the unit of physiological resistance (R), impedance (Z), capacitive reactance (X_C) and inductive reactance (X_L) is MΩ. In addition, the inherent electrophysiological parameters (IC, IR, IZ, IXC, IXL) are derived according to formula fitting, they are relative values and are dimensionless, so there are no units.

5. Separate units from numbers and add units to some parameters.

Response: Have been done. Among them, the LIWHC, LIWUE, LIWTR, TNTC, NSUE are also derived according to formula fitting, they are relative values and are dimensionless, so there are no units.

6. Is the force (F) in the formula for Hooke's law correct?

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind reminding. The “F” has been replaced with “F_e” in order to distinguish with the expression of clamping force (F).

7. insert the wavelength of each element used in the determinations in the atomic absorption photometer spectrum.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind reminding. We have added the wavelengths of P determination (700 nm) and Ca determination (422.7 nm) in the revised manuscript.

8. Check the units and formulas for the photosynthetic parameters.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind reminding. The units and formulas have been checked and revised. The revision can be seen in the corresponding part of the revised manuscript and the Figure 4 (photosynthetic parameters). The WUE_i was calculated according to P_N and E, the unit should be μmol (CO₂)·mmol^‒1 (H₂O).

9. Inverter. First the analysis is carried out and then the figures.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's kind reminding and good suggestion. This section has been revised.

10. Remove the border of the figure.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion. We have made corresponding changes to all the figures.

11. “Arabidopsis Thaliana” is in italics

Response: Have been done.

All the revision details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors added the missing points in the introduction, however the discussion still requires greater care, as they made some dangerous results relationships, such as, for example, the 0.250 mmol.L-1 treatment with high calcium accumulation in the leaf, which would be related to kinase activity for stomatal opening, however another treatment also had greater stomatal conductance and calcium accumulation in the leaves was not observed. Be careful with affirmations.

Author Response

1. The authors added the missing points in the introduction, however the discussion still requires greater care, as they made some dangerous results relationships, such as, for example, the 0.250 mmol·L^-1 treatment with high calcium accumulation in the leaf, which would be related to kinase activity for stomatal opening, however another treatment also had greater stomatal conductance and calcium accumulation in the leaves was not observed. Be careful with affirmations.

Response: Thank you for your kind reminding and good comments. The statements in this part have been revised and improved, the revision is as follows:

“The accumulation of Ca could promote the activities of related proteins and enzymes, such as Ca-dependent protein kinase, which indirectly regulates the stomatal movement [47]. The high Ca accumulation might contribute to the open of leaf stomata at this level. Moreover, the stomatal movement was also closely correlated with the water status within leaves, slight increase in LIWHC and stable LIWTR indicated that plants at this level showed slightly better water status within leaf cells compared with plants at control.”

“As a result, the LIWHC was significantly increased. The stable and good water status within leaf cells, which was reflected by the slight increase of LIWHC and LIWTR values compared to those at 0.250 mmol·L^-1 P treatment level, helped to maintain the open of the leaf stomata at 0.125 mmol·L^-1 P treatment level. Meanwhile, the stable transpiration provided a continuous driving force for water transport in plants, in this case the use of the intracellular water was continuously maintained stable even if the WUE_i was declined when compared with control, this indicated that the intracellular water became increasing importance at this low P treatment level.”

The details can be seen in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the authors have considerably improved the quality of the manuscript (now the manuscript needs minor revision), they have said very little about the statistical analysis and have ignored many of the comments made in the first correction: 

If as they say they have previously applied an ANOVA analysis they will have had to check that ANOVA is based on several assumptions (Please indicate in the statistics section how these points have been taken into account):

1. Independence of observations: Each group's samples must be independent of each other.
2. Normality: The data within each group should be approximately normally distributed.
3. Homogeneity of variances: The variances among the groups should be equal.

If these assumptions are not met, the results of the ANOVA may not be valid. Therefore, before applying ANOVA, the following diagnostic checks should be performed:

• Normality tests: Use tests such as the Shapiro-Wilk or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to assess the normality of the data.
• Levene's test: To check the homogeneity of variances across the groups.

If the data do not meet these assumptions, non-parametric alternatives should be considered. Non-parametric methods do not assume normality or homogeneity of variances, making them more robust under these conditions. Suitable non-parametric alternatives to ANOVA include:

1. Kruskal-Wallis H test: This test is used for comparing more than two independent groups. It is the non-parametric equivalent of the one-way ANOVA and does not assume a normal distribution of the data.
2. Friedman test: This is used for repeated measures or paired samples, similar to a repeated measures ANOVA but for non-parametric data.

Author Response

1. Although the authors have considerably improved the quality of the manuscript (now the manuscript needs minor revision), they have said very little about the statistical analysis and have ignored many of the comments made in the first correction:

a. If as they say they have previously applied an ANOVA analysis they will have had to check that ANOVA is based on several assumptions (Please indicate in the statistics section how these points have been taken into account):

1) Independence of observations.

2) Normality.

3) Homogeneity of variances.

b. If the data do not meet these assumptions, non-parametric alternatives should be considered.

Response: Thank you for your good and useful comments. We are sorry for not providing the detailed description of statistical analysis last time. And now we have revised the “Data statistics and analysis” section to indicate how those points have been taken into account. Before we performed one-way ANOVA on the data, we determined the independence of each sample, assessed the normality of the data using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and assessed the variance homogeneity of the data using Levene's test. Finally, one-way analysis of variance was performed using Duncan's multiple comparisons at the 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05). The above test methods and one-way analysis of variance were carried out on SPSS software. This section has been revised as follows:

“SigmaPlot 14.0 software was used for fitting curves. By using SPSS software, Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the data, and Levene 's test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of the data. Then Duncan 's multiple comparison was used to analyze the results by one-way ANOVA at 5 % significance level ( p ≤ 0.05 ). The data are shown as the means ± SE. Origin 2019 software was used for plotting.”

Taking photosynthetic indicators as an example, the analysis process is shown in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the authors correct the paper, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: After the authors correct the paper, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments and suggestions, which helped to better improve our article. And thank you for your supporting of the publication of this paper.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work entitled "Effects of low phosphorus stress on use of leaf intracellular water and nutrients, photosynthesis and growth of Brassica napus L." It has interesting points, but it needs to be checked in the interpretation of the results to better discuss it.

You also need to complete the material and method, so that the bed knows everything that was done.

I didn't find the anatomy figures.

Other comments are in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the study titled "

Effects of low phosphorus stress on use of leaf intracellular water and nutrients, photosynthesis and growth of Brassica napus L.".

The study has important points and brings a certain novelty to the area.

 

The suggestions are in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Few spelling errors.