Correlating Structure and Morphology of Andiroba Leaf (Carapa guianensis Aubl.) by Microscopy and Fractal Theory Analyses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents detailed map of the morphology, wettability, and fractal behaviour of an Amazon Andiroba leaf. The authors go in deep detailing of the morphology but wettability of any surface is influenced even by the chemical component of its surface. The paper has some imperfections that need to be adjusted.

Page line 97: Please explain how PA  and IA are obtained. As the authors present AFM measurements, couldn’t this be related?

The authors claim that overtime there was no modification. But if there is no evidence before, how can they claim this strong hypothesis? If there is proof, then the authors must reference it
Line240: The non-modification of the internal structure of the plant leaves  reveals to us that although under adverse conditions, the photosynthesis process was not affected over time

Page 8 line 259 The authors introduce a roughness factor before detailing AFM measurements… I would rather place the AFM before the contact angle measurements.

Page  8 line  267:  I am confused by the expression: We can consider a hypothesis that the plant needs much water to maintain its productivity (photosynthesis) and therefore absorb much water, including by leaves, which explains their hydrophilic behavior.

Author Response

Initial comments:

The authors have appreciated all comments and suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. We have answered your valuable questions in this point-by-point document. We also have modified the manuscript accordingly (which are highlighted in red in the manuscript), and detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point:

Reviewer #1:

Q1. The paper presents detailed map of the morphology, wettability, and fractal behavior of an Amazon Andiroba leaf. The authors go in deep detailing of the morphology but wettability of any surface is influenced even by the chemical component of its surface. The paper has some imperfections that need to be adjusted.

A1.  We have greatly appreciated your valuable comments. We have improved our manuscript according to your questions and those of the other reviewers.

Q2. Page line 97: Please explain how PA and IA are obtained. As the authors present AFM measurements, couldn’t this be related? The authors claim that overtime there was no modification. But if there is no evidence before, how can they claim this strong hypothesis? If there is proof, then the authors must reference it. Line240: The non-modification of the internal structure of the plant leaves reveals to us that although under adverse conditions, the photosynthesis process was not affected over time.

A2. The reviewer is correct for bring up this point of view. However, we would like to say that our assertion is consistent because leaf cell structures are responsible for photosynthesis. Obviously, the non-modification of these structures suggests that the plant's photosynthesis process does not change. The photosynthesis process is responsible for keeping the plant functioning entirely, which is designated as one of the main functions of the leaf. Even so, we decided to replace the term "reveals" with "suggests". Moreover, we have modified the text to:

“As the cellular structures of a plant's leaf are responsible by various chemical and physical processes of the leaf, mainly, photosynthesis [65], the non-modification of the internal structure of the Andiroba leaf suggests to us that although under adverse conditions (in the Amazon rainforest), the photosynthesis process was not affected over time because all cellular structures of the leaf are preserved”.

Please consult the new manuscript version.

Reference:

65. Adams, W.W.; Cohu, C.M.; Muller, O.; Demmig-Adams, B. Foliar Phloem Infrastructure in Support of Photosynthesis. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, doi:10.3389/fpls.2013.00194.

Q3. Page 8 line 259 The authors introduce a roughness factor before detailing AFM measurements… I would rather place the AFM before the contact angle measurements.

A3. The reviewer is entirely correct. We have modified our manuscript according to your valuable comments. Note that the numbering of tables and figures has been changed according to your suggestion to place the contact angle section after the AFM section. Thus, there was a change in the text.

Q4. Page  8 line  267:  I am confused by the expression: We can consider a hypothesis that the plant needs much water to maintain its productivity (photosynthesis) and therefore absorb much water, including by leaves, which explains their hydrophilic behavior.

A4. The reviewer is right. The sentence was confused and out of context. Therefore, we decided to erase this sentence and replace it with a clearer and more objective conclusion about the wettability behavior of both leaf sides. Please consult the new manuscript version.

 

Best regards,

Authors

Aracaju, 06/20/2021

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please, check the references: in the manuscript there are some jumps in the numeration, some wrong cross references and, in addition, there are more references cited in the text than the ones listed at the end of the article.
2. Though writing is excellent, some typos can be found.
3. I would suggest to use clearer pictures in the contact angle measurements. Has the tangent been determined with the naked eye? or has been software-assisted? For measuring this parameter, the baseline where the drop contacts the surface must be perfectly clear, but, honestly, I can't distinguish it in the pictures.
4. page 10, line 335: Tab. 2? or 3?
5. page 12, line 374 Fig. 5f? or 6f?

Author Response

Initial comments:

The authors have appreciated all comments and suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. We have answered your valuable questions in this point-by-point document. We also have modified the manuscript accordingly (which are highlighted in red in the manuscript), and detailed corrections are listed below point-by-point:

 

Reviewer #2:

 

Q1. Please, check the references: in the manuscript there are some jumps in the numeration, some wrong cross references and, in addition, there are more references cited in the text than the ones listed at the end of the article.

A1.  We have carefully checked all references and concluded that you are entirely correct. We use Mendeley software to reposition and organize the references in accordance with the Journal's policy. Moreover, some references were duplicated, and therefore 3 references were excluded. Please check the new manuscript version.

 

Q2. Though writing is excellent, some typos can be found.

A2. Again, you are entirely right. We have extensively revised the typo mistakes of our manuscript according to your valuable observation. Please check the new manuscript version.

 

Q3. I would suggest to use clearer pictures in the contact angle measurements. Has the tangent been determined with the naked eye? or has been software-assisted? For measuring this parameter, the baseline where the drop contacts the surface must be perfectly clear, but, honestly, I can't distinguish it in the pictures.

A3.  The reviewer is right. The image was not adequately clear. We improved the figure. That tangent line was drawn manually to help the reader figure out the differences between the measured contact angles. However, the values of the wettability parameters were directly computed by the software coupled to the Ramé Hart goniometer. Please check the new manuscript version.

 

Q4. Page 10, line 335: Tab. 2? or 3?

A4. The reviewer is right. This mistake was fixed in the new manuscript version. Thus, there was a change in the text.  Please check the new manuscript version.

 

Q5. Page 12, line 374 Fig. 5f? or 6f?

A5. The reviewer is right. This mistake was fixed in the new manuscript version. Please check the new manuscript version.

 

Best regards,

Authors

Aracaju, 06/20/2021

Author Response File: Author Response.doc