Effects of Seed Priming and Foliar Treatment with Ascorbate, Cysteine, and Triacontanol on Canola (Brassica napus L.) under Field Conditions
, Béla Biró-Janka 1, Erzsébet Domokos 1, Imre-István Nyárádi 1, László Fodorpataki 1, Andrei Stoie 2 and Matei Marcel Duda 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work in its current version is not suitable for publication because:
- lack of conclusions,
- the discussion is a summary of the results
- it is not clear how to calculate Sielianinov's hydrothermal index, because the cited publication is in Polish.
- I propose to organize the introduction, for example, line 67 - introduce the information provided in paragraph 88-94; "Species belonging to the...." - new paragraph about cysteine.
- in my opinion, measurements of 5 plants from a plot is insufficient
-table 1 is not necessary, it is enough to refer to the publication [38] in the text
- I suggest adding the maximum precipitation in each month of the vegetation season, in the supplement
-line 187 -explain why sowing was done later in 2020 and why there is no data for the last sowing date
-line 253 -explain the abbreviation PHH, because you have to go back and look. I think that each abbreviation in the results section should be explained again, when it is first used
-lacks data about max and min. temperature for 2017 - supplement
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we most sincerely thank to Reviewer 1 for constructive and helpful suggestions that led to the improvement of our manuscript. Please find our itemized answers as below. If however further corrections are necessary, we will do it in short time.
The work in its current version is not suitable for publication because:
Point 1: lack of conclusions
Response 1: We have made changes in the Conclusion chapter according to the Reviewer’s suggestion introducing the main findings of the research.
Point 2: the discussion is a summary of the results
Response 2: The Discussion section was rewritten.
Point 3: it is not clear how to calculate Sielianinov's hydrothermal index, because the cited publication is in Polish.
Response 3: - We have added an English citation and the appropriate equation.
Point 4: I propose to organize the introduction, for example, line 67 - introduce the information provided in paragraph 88-94; "Species belonging to the...." - new paragraph about cysteine.
Response 4: Thank you. We have reorganized the Introduction.
Point 5: in my opinion, measurements of 5 plants from a plot is insufficient
Response 5: We have clarified the number of plants taken into consideration for measurements:
“For measurements of the plant's height, number of leaves, and number of branches 20 plants were collected for each treatments/repetitions (320 plants) were collected in autumn and also in spring.”
“For biometric measurements at harvest time a yield parameters 5 plants/treatments/repetitions (80 plants) were collected.”
Point 6: table 1 is not necessary, it is enough to refer to the publication [38] in the text
Response 6: The respective publication is in Romanian language, thus we consider that table 1 should remain. If reviewers still consider to be eliminated, we will make the requested changes.
Point 7: I suggest adding the maximum precipitation in each month of the vegetation season, in the supplement
Response 7: We have added the Supplementary Table S2 with maximum precipitation in each month of the vegetation season (Table S2).
Point 8: line 187 -explain why sowing was done later in 2020 and why there is no data for the last sowing date
Response 8: Thank you for your observation. We have explained at the beginning of the manuscript the abbreviations for the growing seasons:
“Growing seasons: 2017-2018 - I. growing season (sowing in 2017 autumn and harvest in 2018 summer); 2018-2019 - II. growing season (sowing in 2018 autumn and harvest in 2019 summer); 2019-2020 - III. growing season (sowing in 2019 autumn and harvest in 2020 summer).”
In accordance with the explained abbreviations, we have corrected the date for sowing from the 3rd growing season:
“Sowing was done with a manual machine on the following dates: 20 August 2017, 24 August 2018, and 30 August 2019.”
The adequate seedbed preparation was hindered by drought and sowing was made immediately when environmental conditions allowed it. We have taken into consideration also the sowing period of the canola in our region, which is the period from August 20 till September 10.
Point 9: line 253 -explain the abbreviation PHH, because you have to go back and look. I think that each abbreviation in the results section should be explained again, when it is first used
Response 9: We have added the abbreviation list at the beginning of the manuscript and we have explained abbreviations again when first used them in the Results section.
Point 10: lacks data about max and min. temperature for 2017 – supplement
Response 10: Min. and max. temperature for 2017 March-April was not presented in supplement because the growing season 2017-2018 does not include this period.
Point 11: Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved
The material and methods section has been expanded to give a clearer overview for: 2.1. Location and Conditions, 2.2. Biologic Material, 2.3. Experimental Design, 2.4. Measurement of plant growth parameters and yield 2.5.3. Statistical Analysis
Point 12: Are the results clearly presented? Must be improved
We have made changes in the Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections, and in the Abstract.
Kind regards,
Molnár Katalin
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I think that manuscript entitled: Effects of Seed Priming and Foliar Treatment with Ascorbate, Cysteine, and Triacontanol on Canola (Brassica napus L.) Under Field Conditions addresses an important issue that deserves to be published. I agree with the authors that the effects of canola seed priming and plant foliar treatment under open field conditions are not well recognized in the literature and need more attention.
The chapter Material and Methods is clearly described and provides all needed information. The experiment was well-designed and statistical analysis was conducted correctly.
However, in my opinion the chapter results need some improvements. First of all, adding a List of abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript will be beneficial for the readers, as it would make the text easier to follow. Many abbreviations are used in the text, especially in the results section, and without such list it is difficult to follow the message of the manuscript.
Also Figures 2 and 3 are difficult to follow because PCA graph is too small and some captions in the chart are not clear as they overlap each other. There is a lack of explanation of abbreviations in figure captions and every figure should be self-explanatory. In my opinion, the PCA graph for the combined results of the two cultivars would be also beneficial for the manuscript. Additionally, the PCA figures should be combined into one panel. This would make the similarities and differences between treatments and cultivars’ responses easier to identify.
In my opinion, the conclusion is too elusive “Altogether the present work shows that seed priming with these natural bioactive substances can have beneficial effects on the development of seedlings, while their foliar application can enhance seed yield of the studied canola hybrids”. Based on the data provided in the manuscript, I cannot agree with such a statement, as I did not see a significant beneficial effect of 10 ppm triacontanol treatment on two investigated cultivars of Brassica napus. In most investigated features the levels obtained after 10 ppm triacontanol treatment was similar to the level of the control (lack of significant differences). However, what is important to notify, in all investigated years, and in both cultivars, the lowest Estimated Seed Yield (Table 9) was observed after 10 ppm Tria treatment, also Seed Yield/Plant and Oil content (%) was the lowest in most cases after 10 ppm triacontanol treatment. Therefore, in my opinion this work did not support a conclusion about the positive effect of 10 ppm triacontanol treatment on field conditions of two investigated cultivars of Canola, but rather a negative effect on important features for agriculture. These effects of 10 ppm triacontanol treatment should be also incorporated into the discussion chapter. Both positive and negative effects are equally significant in scientific research.
I`m convinced that the presented manuscript titled: Effects of Seed Priming and Foliar Treatment with Ascorbate, Cysteine, and Triacontanol on Canola (Brassica napus L.) Under Field Conditions is correctly planned, conducted, and obtained results are interesting. However, the text needs some clarification and improvement, especially conclusions, therefore it could be accepted for publication in Horticulturae after major revision. Please find below also some small suggestions.
Line 67-69
Please look at the spelling as the correct spelling is sulfur or sulphur instead of sulhur.
Line 234-243
Please add information on how you assessed normal distribution and homogeneity of variances.
Line 294
It should be AsA instead of Asa
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we most sincerely thank to Reviewer 2 for appreciations, constructive and helpful suggestions that led to the improvement of our manuscript. Please find our itemized answers as below. If however further corrections are necessary, we will do it in short time.
Dear Authors,
I think that manuscript entitled: Effects of Seed Priming and Foliar Treatment with Ascorbate, Cysteine, and Triacontanol on Canola (Brassica napus L.) Under Field Conditions addresses an important issue that deserves to be published. I agree with the authors that the effects of canola seed priming and plant foliar treatment under open field conditions are not well recognized in the literature and need more attention.
The chapter Material and Methods is clearly described and provides all needed information. The experiment was well-designed and statistical analysis was conducted correctly.
Point 1: However, in my opinion the chapter results need some improvements. First of all, adding a List of abbreviations at the beginning of the manuscript will be beneficial for the readers, as it would make the text easier to follow. Many abbreviations are used in the text, especially in the results section, and without such list it is difficult to follow the message of the manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have improved the Results section by adding the abbreviation list to the beginning of the manuscript and by explaining abbreviations again when first used them in the Results section.
Point 2: Also Figures 2 and 3 are difficult to follow because PCA graph is too small and some captions in the chart are not clear as they overlap each other. There is a lack of explanation of abbreviations in figure captions and every figure should be self-explanatory. In my opinion, the PCA graph for the combined results of the two cultivars would be also beneficial for the manuscript. Additionally, the PCA figures should be combined into one panel. This would make the similarities and differences between treatments and cultivars’ responses easier to identify.
Response 2: Thank you for the suggestions. We have improved the PCA graphs so the captions in the charts not to overlap each other. Additionally, the PCA figures were combined into one panel (Figure 2A and B). Also, we have explained the graphs in the figure’s caption:
“Figure 2. Principal Components Analyses (PCA) was performed to correlate the hydrothermal index (Hydtherm) and average rainfall (Prec), as environmental variable, with the assessed parameters and growing seasons (AsA-, Cys-, Tria-, Cont – I. growing season; AsA_2, Cys_2, Tria_2, Cont_2 – II. grooving season; (AsA_3, Cys_3, Tria_3, Cont_3 – III. grooving season) at H1 (A.) and H2 canola cultivars (B.). In case of H1, hydrothermal index and average rainfall positively correlated with PHH, SYP, ESY, WS, PFW, RND, and RFW. Negative correlations could be observed between weather conditions and the following parameters: OC, PHA, NL, TSW, and NS. In case of H2 the negatively correlated parameters with the average rainfall and the hydrothermal index were RND, RFW, RL, and NBS, while the positively correlated ones were SYP, ESY, WS, PHH, and PFW.”
Point 3: In my opinion, the conclusion is too elusive “Altogether the present work shows that seed priming with these natural bioactive substances can have beneficial effects on the development of seedlings, while their foliar application can enhance seed yield of the studied canola hybrids”. Based on the data provided in the manuscript, I cannot agree with such a statement, as I did not see a significant beneficial effect of 10 ppm triacontanol treatment on two investigated cultivars of Brassica napus. In most investigated features the levels obtained after 10 ppm triacontanol treatment was similar to the level of the control (lack of significant differences). However, what is important to notify, in all investigated years, and in both cultivars, the lowest Estimated Seed Yield (Table 9) was observed after 10 ppm Tria treatment, also Seed Yield/Plant and Oil content (%) was the lowest in most cases after 10 ppm triacontanol treatment. Therefore, in my opinion this work did not support a conclusion about the positive effect of 10 ppm triacontanol treatment on field conditions of two investigated cultivars of Canola, but rather a negative effect on important features for agriculture. These effects of 10 ppm triacontanol treatment should be also incorporated into the discussion chapter. Both positive and negative effects are equally significant in scientific research.
Response 3: Thank you for the observation. We have incorporated the negative effects of Tria in the Results section.
“In some cases 10 ppm triacontanol had similar effects to the control, or even rather a negative effect on important parameters for agriculture such as Estimated Seed Yield, Seed Yield/Plant and Oil Content”.
Additionally we have underlined in the Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections that some of the
used bioactive substances had negative impacts on several important parameters in farming.
Point 4: I`m convinced that the presented manuscript titled: Effects of Seed Priming and Foliar Treatment with Ascorbate, Cysteine, and Triacontanol on Canola (Brassica napus L.) Under Field Conditions is correctly planned, conducted, and obtained results are interesting. However, the text needs some clarification and improvement, especially conclusions, therefore it could be accepted for publication in Horticulturae after major revision. Please find below also some small suggestions.
Response 4: Thank you for the appreciations. We have made changes in the conclusion according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 5: Line 67-69 Please look at the spelling as the correct spelling is sulfur or sulphur instead of sulhur.
Response 5: Thank you. We have corrected.
Point 6: Line 234-243 Please add information on how you assessed normal distribution and homogeneity of variances.
Response 6: Thank you for the observation. Information was added:
“The assumptions were tested using Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances and the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality.”
Point 7: Line 294 It should be AsA instead of Asa
Response 7: Thank you. Asa was replaced with AsA throughout the text.
Point 8: Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved
The material and methods section has been expanded to give a clearer overview for: 2.1. Location and Conditions, 2.2. Biologic Material, 2.3. Experimental Design, 2.4. Measurement of plant growth parameters and yield 2.5.3. Statistical Analysis
Point 9: Are the results clearly presented? Must be improved
We have made changes in the Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections, and in the Abstract.
Kind regards,
Molnár Katalin
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the author's corrections, the work is well understood.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you and we highly appreciate the reviewers and editors work in our paper, which we now feel that is much improved, and hence hope meets with your/their approval and is acceptable for publication in the journal.
Best regards,
Molnár Katalin
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
In my opinion, this manuscript has been substantially modified and in its present form is suitable for publication in Horticulturae.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you and we highly appreciate the reviewers and editors work in our paper, which we now feel that is much improved, and hence hope meets with your/their approval and is acceptable for publication in the journal.
Best regards,
Molnár Katalin
