Cucumber Bioassay and HPLC Analysis to Detect Diuron Residues in Remineralized Soils Following Canavalia ensiformis Cultivation as a Phytoremediator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting study on potential for remediation of herbicide in soil. The authors report on treatments with diuron application, use of remineralizers and seeing with C. ensiformis. A number of issues, particularly in the methods require great detail/ clarity in order that the message of the research is clearer
On the other hand
No need for population – environment encompasses this
How was OM determined?
The descriptives of changes in the soil properties across the treatments would be better suited to the results.
DAE – in full when first used
Why day 42?
More detail on the injury level (IL) scale. Just two points or more?
Caption for Fig 5 denotes ‘Rock Powder’ – there is no mention of rock powder within the methods section
Also, results here are after 21 days. Why 21 days?
Effect of soil type is attributed in cases to differences in CEC yet this parameter is not detailed in the methods. Results are referred to in Table but there is no signposting of the method or how it was determined.
Also, clay content is proposed as a contributing mechanism . Was this determined in the treatments?
NI?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
In the main there are no issues with quality
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are deeply grateful for your time and willingness to collaborate on our manuscript. Your revisions have brought significant improvements to the manuscript.
Regarding the considerations:
1- “How was OM determined”?
Response: OM was determined by analyzing the soil with and without rock powder.
Thus, the soils from the experiment (Oxisol and Inceptisol) were placed in the jars with
the respective concentrations of rock powder and left for 30 days for the rock powder to
interact with the soil, after which the material was taken to the laboratory and the
chemical and physical analysis of the soil was carried out.
2- The descriptives of changes in the soil properties across the treatments would be better suited to the results.
Response: I agree with you dear reviewer, the reason we left the table in supplementary
material was because of the word limitation and number of tables. That's why we thought it would be more appropriate to leave it as supplementary material.
3- Why day 42?
Response: The IL assessments were carried out every 7 DAE of the phytoremediator,
but as there was too much data for one graph, the 42 DAE period was specified as the
period when the plants showed the most pronounced symptoms of sulfentrazone
damage, because soon afterwards they began to recover due to being a tolerant plant.
4- More detail on the injury level (IL) scale. Just two points or more?
Response: There were more points where the minimum score was 0 for no symptoms
and 100 for plant death.
5- Caption for Fig 5 denotes ‘Rock Powder’ – there is no mention of rock powder
within the methods section. Also, results here are after 21 days. Why 21 days?
Response: Sorry for the mistake, dear reviewer, I've already made the changes for rock dust. As for the 21 DAE, bioassay evaluations are usually carried out up to 21 or 28 DAE every 7 days, i.e. at 7, 14, 21 DAE of the bioindicator plant, which is why the last evaluation at 21 DAE was determined as the result for the manuscript.
6- Effect of soil type is attributed in cases to differences in CEC yet this parameter is not detailed in the methods. Results are referred to in Table but there is no signposting of the method or how it was determined. Also, clay content is proposed as a contributing mechanism . Was this determined in the treatments?
Response: All soil properties were determined by means of both physical and chemical soil analysis.
I put myself for any clarification.
The authors attest that the paper fits the aims and scope of Horticulturae
Sincerely yours,
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider the following items important enough to draw your attention to them:
Line 14: Because few readers will be familiar with the terms "Oxisol and Inceptisol" it is advised to use this wording here: "...an Inceptisol (sandy loam) and an Oxisol (clay) soil .....".
Line 15: More information is needed on the remineralizer -- something like this: "....a remineralizer product..." or "....a commercially-available remineralizer product....".
Line 31: Replace "In" with "On".
Line 40: Singular form: ".....controls...." instead of "....control....".
Line 70: Replace "in" with "from" to read "...from the colloids...".
Line 114: Too late to identify the remineralizer product here --should move to first mention of "remineralizer" under M&M.
Lines 304 and 417: Elsewhere in text "the" is not used in front of "Oxisol" and "Inceptisol" -- personally, I lean towards use of "the" in front, but I eventually got used to it not being used in greater part of text. Is your decision!
Overall: Good research that is well-presented!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Good quality, with minor amendment pointed out in comments to authors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are deeply grateful for your time and willingness to collaborate on our article. Your revisions have brought significant improvements to the manuscript. I've carried out all the suggestions you've proposed, where it's marked in the manuscript. Regarding the consideration: “More information is needed on the remineralizer -- something like this: "....a remineralizer product..." or "....a commercially-available remineralizer product.”
Response: The information about the rock powder is in the material and methods section, and the number of words in the abstract would exceed what is recommended, so we don't think it's necessary to include it in the abstract, but I'm very pleased with your recommendation.
I put myself for any clarification.
The authors attest that the paper fits the aims and scope of Horticulturae.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study in the submitted article aimed to evaluate the influence of the remineralizer and phytoremediation plants on two types of soil contaminated by the herbicide diuron. The authors used two types of confirmation (bioassay with cucumber, and HPLC) to confirm the presence of diuron residues in the soil after cultivation of Canavalia ensiformis plants.
The authors got very interesting results, first, the selected plant species is tolerant to diuron and effective in remediation. Also, it was determined that better results were obtained with plants grown on the soil type Oxisol compared to Inceptisol. In particular, the results highlighted the influence of soil characteristics on the success of diuron residual removal from the soil.
It’s an excellently written introduction. The introduction explains very well why this experiment was necessary to be carried out. The hypotheses are well established and clearly stated, linked to other research and emphasize what has not been investigated so far. It’s an excellent selection of tolerant plant species with a capacity for phytoremediation of other herbicides.
The material and methods are described in great detail. Everything is clear and sufficient information is provided about the setting of the experiment. Some sentences are necessary to rearrange and to clarify. The results are clearly displayed. The results have been correctly analyzed. The discussion is excellently written. The authors link to each segment of their experiment and supplement their findings with arguments. The conclusions are well stated.
The cited references are relevant to the experiment. Out of 48 cited references, 27 were published within the last 5 years (56%), 42 (87.5%) within the last 10 years (average within 5.8 years). Seven of 48 are auto citations (4, 10, 18, 19, 23, 28, 46), and they are relevant to the subject.
Specific comments:
Line 88: Please clarify this sentence. Maybe: “The characterization of the soil, modified and not modified with the remineralizer, can be found”
Lines 118-121: Please consider rephrasing the sentence. It is necessary to clarify. It is necessary to emphasize somewhere that the soil samples stand for 30 days in the pots, and that after 30 days the samples are taken for analysis and sowing is carried out.
Line 128: Please delete the word “and” in the next phrase “by the manufacturer and were applied” to make the sentence more understandable
Line 131: Is information about the wind important if the experiment is performed in a greenhouse?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are deeply grateful for your time and willingness to collaborate on our article. Your revisions have brought significant improvements to the manuscript. I carried out all the suggestions you made in the manuscript. Therefore, Regarding the considerations: “Is information about the wind important if the experiment is performed in a greenhouse?”
Response: The application of the herbicide to the pots was carried out by simulating an application in the field. Before the pots were taken into the greenhouse, the herbicide was applied with a backpack applicator, which is why we included information on environmental conditions such as wind, relative umidity and temperature, because these are important factors at the time of application.
I put myself for any clarification.
The authors attest that the paper fits the aims and scope of Horticulturae
