Translocation and Utilization Mechanisms of Leaf Intracellular Water in Karst Plants Orychophragmus violaceus (L.) O. E. Schulz and Brassica napus L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors may need to re-evaluate the entire data.  The authors misunderstood the mean separation.  Please refer to my comments below.

Figure 1.  Data from each species need to be presented separately.  They were analyzed separately according to the species but presented together.  The mean separations shown in the figure do not make any sense.

 

Data interpretation needs to be redone.  Authors stated that the Em was the highest at 5h, but mean separation clearly showed that the Em was the highest at 2 (ab) and 5 (a) hrs.    The Em values at 4 and 5 hrs were the lowest in B. napus as opposed to what was described (at 4 hrs).

Also, the authors concluded that B. napus had higher values than O. violaceus.  Two sets of data can’t be compared because they were not analyzed together for comparison.

Table 2.  The authors made similar mistakes in their data interpretation here.  The data with the same letter(s) indicated they were at the same level.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice paper on the "Translocation and utilization mechanisms of leaf intracellular water in karst plants Orychophragmus violaceus and Brassica napus. Although the paper is quite well prepared I suggest major revisions before publication.

Introduction: the authors should better specify why these two different species where compared. The literature is quite current but I'd suggest to update some of the references to more novel ones.

M&M: what varieties where utilized? There is a plethora of cultivated varieties and some of them differ quite deeply in term of leaf area and physiology. The genotype of different varieties can produce changes in physiology, particularly the photosynthesis machinery. The experimental design is not quite well defined. I understood the 5 replicates were employed. Was this a completely randomized design? The type of ANOVA (one-way) should be reported in the statistical analysis section.

Results: are quite well written but the graphs are pretty small and hard to read.

Discussion: I'd suggest, if possible, to focus the discussion on the specific variety utilized in the study. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

When data are presented in the same figure, the data analyses should be done using all data analyzed. In figures 1-3, there are multiple figures (O. violaceus, B. napus, and combined), which results in redundancy.   

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors addressed all my comments and the paper is now ready for publication.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Happy to see the much-improved manuscript.