Effect of Electrical Conductivity Levels and Hydrogen Peroxide Priming on Nutrient Solution Uptake by Chives in a Hydroponic System
, Bárbara Davis Brito dos Santos 2, José Dantas Neto 2, Alberto Soares de Melo 3, Rigoberto Moreira de Matos 2, Semako Ibrahim Bonou 2, Tonny José Araújo da Silva 1, Edna Maria Bonfim-Silva 1, Ana Paula Candido Gabriel Berilli 4 and Thiago Franco Duarte 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors tested the effect of hydrogen peroxide to attenuate the adverse effects of salt stress on Allium schoenoprasum. Salt stress is a reality worldwide. The manuscript provides a sound hypothesis leading to logical scopes and objectives. Specifically, the introduction is informative and sufficiently explains the scope of the research. A few clarifications are needed in the materials and methods which I mention later. There were not many significant effects of H2O2 on chives’ parameters under different salinity levels; mostly bulb diameter at the lowest salinity level was significantly affected. The hypothesis is sound and the testing methods were appropriate, thus, the lack of significant effects should not be viewed negatively.
Specific comments are following.
L130. Which nutrients were altered to achieve the ECs?
L133. Reduce the mitigation or mitigate?
L164. Why is the abbreviation CB instead of LB or BL?
L168. Is the temperature correct; 8 oC?
L234-235. These abbreviations were explained earlier.
L258. The y axis in figure 2 must have a minimum value of 0, otherwise the reader might misinterpret the results.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
L130. Which nutrients were changed to achieve the CEs?
R= Adjust the text to make it more explicit, as suggested.
L133. Reduce mitigation or mitigate?
R= Suggestion accepted, (in order the mitigation)
L164. Why the abbreviation CB instead of LB or BL?
R= suggestion accepted, abbreviation BL
L168. The temperature is correct; 8ºC?
R= yes according to methodology
L234-235. These abbreviations were explained earlier.
R= Text correction. Suggestion accepted
L258. The y-axis in figure 2 must have a minimum value of 0, otherwise the reader may misinterpret the results.
R= Text correction. Suggestion accepted
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The study highlights the negative effects of high electrical conductivity of nutrient solutions on chives in a hydroponic environment, specifically noting reductions in bulb diameter, applied volume, water use efficiency, and nutrient solution consumption. This observation contributes to understanding salt stress's impact on chive cultivation and underscores the need for further research in this area.
Title: Water uptake of chives under different electrical conductivity levels and hydrogen peroxide priming in a hydroponic system
Effect of Electrical Conductivity Levels and Hydrogen Peroxide Priming on Nutrient Solution Uptake by Chives in a Hydroponic System
ABSTRACT:
The abstract must have a rationale, an objective, materials and methods, results, and conclusions. The first sentence must be a rationale. Thus, the authors should mention the treatments and experimental design to explain the main findings. Please mention the main findings for the effect of electrical conductivity levels and hydrogen peroxide priming on nutrient uptake, growth characteristics, etc. Please mention the main conclusion for this study in one statement.
The abstract does not provide sufficient context for understanding the significance of the study. It does not mention the existing literature or research gaps this study aims to address. Including a brief background or rationale for the study would help readers better understand the importance of the research and its potential contributions to the field.
The abstract does not provide any clear conclusions or implications of the findings. It would be helpful to summarize the key results and discuss their implications for hydroponic chive production under salt-stress conditions.
INTRODUCTION:
The introduction section is relatively short and very good; however, there are some spaces for authors to enhance its quality further, which are as follows:
"The key aspect of this study is to provide specific details on an updated strategy for enhancing and optimizing the nutritional value of chives, focusing on mineral concentration, phytochemical content, and secondary metabolites. Furthermore, it is important to explore the latest research on improving the nutritional performance of chives under conditions of high electrical conductivity (EC) in hydroponic systems. Specifically, this study aims to investigate the role of hydrogen peroxide in mitigating the negative effects of high EC on chive growth and development. The introduction section will be thoroughly re-written to include detailed information on the impact of EC on the growth, development, and yield of chives in hydroponic systems. The previous information provided in the manuscript was too general and did not specifically address the effects of EC on chives."
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Lines 125-127:1.It is a bit difficult to understand your experimental setup. The formulation of the nutrient solution consisted of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S); Boron (B), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn). The percentages of each nutrient were as follows: N-10, P-9, K-28, Mg-3.3, S-4.3, B-0.06, Cu-0.01, Mo-0.07, Mn-0.05, and Zn-0.0.
I have different questions regarding the nutrient solution preparation:
1. What do the authors mean by the Percentage of nutrients were N:10, P:9 etc?
2. The authors should change the nutrient solution from Percentage to be in ppm or mg/L
3. Please mention the concentration of nutrients for each EC treatment.
Please insert a new subtitle: Hydroponics system set up.
1: Please mention the details of the NFT system, such as planting density, irrigation system, and the growth medium used for cultivating the Chives.
2. The schematic diagram of the experimental setup of the experimental layout is not clear.
3. The life cycle duration of each plant's is not mentioned
Please include the following details:
The experiment started on day month year and ended on day month year. For example, The experiment started on 22 June 2019 and ended on 22 September 2019.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results and discussion section must be presented under specific subtitles.
The discussion section must be presented under certain subtitles, as the authors did for the results. This means as the authors presented their results under certain subtitles in Results, are they also suggesting developing subtitles under the Discussion section? The authors mostly only compare their results with the literature's results. However, they do not discuss the mechanisms by which the results are obtained.
Some points need to be improved in the discussion:
This study mentions the application of hydrogen peroxide and its effects on bulb diameter. It does not provide specific quantitative results or statistical analysis to support these findings. The lack of specific data makes it difficult to assess the significance and reliability of the reported results.
This study has limited discussion of mechanisms: However, this study briefly mentions the possible reasons for the ineffectiveness of hydrogen peroxide in attenuating salt stress in chives, but it does not provide in-depth analysis or discussion of the underlying mechanisms involved. Further exploration of the physiological and biochemical processes would strengthen the understanding of the findings. In addition, this discussion does not provide sufficient context by referring to relevant previous studies or literature on the topic. Additionally, no references are cited to support the claims or provide additional resources for readers to explore.
Overall, the discussion would benefit from including more specific details, providing quantitative results with statistical analysis, discussing the underlying mechanisms, and referencing relevant studies to enhance the overall clarity and validity of the finding.
5 Conclusion
The conclusion should have the main findings only.
- The level of English throughout the manuscript does not meet the journal's standard. Therefore, you may wish to ask a native speaker to check your Manuscript for grammar, style, and syntax.
Author Response
Title: Effect of Electrical Conductivity Levels and Hydrogen Peroxide Priming on Nutrient Solution Uptake by Chives in a Hydroponic System
R= Text correction. Suggestion accepted
ABSTRACT:
R= Suggestion accepted/amendment added justification
INTRODUCTION:
R= Text correction. Suggestion accepted
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- What do the authors mean by the Percentage of nutrients were N:10, P:9 etc?
R= text has been rewritten for easier compression.
- The authors should change the nutrient solution from Percentage to be in ppm or mg/L
R= suggestion accepted. Correction in the text.
- Please mention the concentration of nutrients for each EC treatment.
R= suggestion accepted. Correction in the text.
Please insert a new subtitle: Hydroponics system set up.
R= suggestion accepted. Correction in the text.
1: Please mention the details of the NFT system, such as planting density, irrigation system, and the growth medium used for cultivating the Chives.
R= suggestion accepted. Correction in the text.
- The schematic diagram of the experimental setup of the experimental layout is not clear.
R= suggestion accepted. Correction in the text.
- The life cycle duration of each plant's is not mentioned
Please include the following details:
The experiment started on day month year and ended on day month year. For example, The experiment started on 22 June 2019 and ended on 22 September 2019.
R= suggestion accepted. Correction in the text.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
R=Most of the suggestions were accepted and incorporated throughout the text.
Providing quantitative results with statistical analysis, discussing the underlying mechanisms, and referencing relevant studies to enhance the overall clarity and validity of the finding.
R= It is to say that these analyses were not performed, so we do not present these results.
5 Conclusion
The conclusion should contain only the main findings
R= The conclusion contemplates what was requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear authors,
I have had the opportunity to review a manuscript entitled 'Water uptake of chives under different electrical conductivity levels and hydrogen peroxide priming in a hydroponic system', the aim of which is to evaluate the possible benefits of priming with H2O2 on chives seeds, counteracting a salt stress.
Although the question itself is clear, I nevertheless find the entire manuscript very confusing, starting with the experimental plan and ending with the discussion. The latter in particular is extremely long, full of citations and references to very very similar works, inserted and compared almost only to try to justify the authors' results. Furthermore, I feel that the characterisation of plant growth is very minimal (just the main growth parameters), especially when, for example, stomatal closure is frequently mentioned in the discussion; why was this not done? In addition, did seeds treated with H2O2 show a decrease in germination %? And given and considered all the work cited very similar but with different plants, why not opt for more comparable conditions? It would have helped in my opinion to add a characterisation of the quality of the chives following the treatments because perhaps that is more valuable than a simple increase or decrease in bulb diameter?
English should be improved to make the text much more fluent and without too many repetitions.
Author Response
R= Most of the suggestions were accepted and incorporated throughout the manuscript
Furthermore, I feel that the characterization of plant growth is very minimal (just the main growth parameters), especially when, for example, stomatal closure is frequently mentioned in the discussion; why was this not done?
R= For the crop studied that has as commercialized part the leaf, the growth parameters evaluated in this research provide information that allow the characterization in order to contemplate the proposed objective in the research. Stomatal closure is often mentioned because it CAN be a mechanism that contributes to indicate the adjustment of the plant, however, in physiological terms it is a similar mechanism in all plants since it is a physiological aspect. Therefore, it was not quantified in this research because it is not a single parameter that determines the adjustment, but a set of factors among which the most relevant were quantified in this study.
In addition, did seeds treated with H2O2 show a decrease in germination %?
R= No the seeds treated with H2O2 did not reduce their germination percentage. Explained in the text.
And given and considered all the work cited very similar but with different plants, why not opt for more comparable conditions? It would have helped in my opinion to add a characterization of the quality of the chives following the treatments because perhaps that is more valuable than a simple increase or decrease in bulb diameter?
R= Studies with this crop under the same conditions are scarce in the literature; therefore, we sought support in studies under similar conditions, even if with different crops, since in physiological and biochemical terms the responses may be similar.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The author revised the paper
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
The suggestions have been accepted.
Attached is a letter of revision from English
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Thanks for your comments. However, some figures are still in low quality, especially the Fig 1 in which i very difficult to read the words even with zooming in it. Please fix
some sentences should be improved
Author Response
The suggestions have been accepted.
Adjusted figures.
Attached is an English revision letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
The aim of this paper was to evaluate the water uptake of chives under different electrical conductivity levels and seed priming with hydrogen peroxide in a hydroponic system. The introduction is poor. There are several flaws in the experimental section, such as how each conductivity level was reached. The results should be explained deeply. The discussion has no a common thread. The conclusions are the rewritten results.
Also, the authors have published a similar study entitled Induction of salt stress tolerance in chives by priming with H2O2 in hydroponic cultivation in 2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392021000300317, with similar results and conclusions.
I firmly believe that the findings of the present study do not bring a significantly contribution to the current understanding of this topic. Therefore, my proposal is to reject the article for publication in Agriculture.
Reviewer 2 Report
In order to culture chive hydroponically in regions that withstand water shortage, the study investigated the effect of electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution on the growth and some agronomical and physiological characters of chive and whether the seed priming of hydrogen peroxide can relieve the negative effect of the high electrical conductivity. However, the negative effect of high electrical conductivity on the plant growth has been well established. Furthermore, the authors failed to find an appropriate concentration of hydrogen peroxide to deal with the negative effect, although the some changes of bulb diameter were observed. Thus, the study provides little new knowledge or technology to readers.
Other concerns:
Some abbreviations in Tables should be explained in detail, since the Table should be read independently in the paper.
In the study, the authors provide nutrient solutions with high electrical conductivity but well-balanced nutrition. However, the low-quality water in the water shortage region may include imbalanced elements. Therefore, the conclusion may not have sufficient application value.
The conclusion should include important results such as the optimal electrical conductivity to obtain the highest yield.
Reviewer 3 Report
In general, the manuscript (Ms) describes water uptake of chives under different electrical conductivity levels and priming with hydrogen peroxide in a hydroponic system, and discovers increase in the electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution reduced the solution volume applied, water uptake, total fresh mass, and use efficiency by plants. The acclimation of chive seeds (0.60 mM) contributes to reducing the effect of the electrical conductivity levels of the nutrient solution on bulb diameter. It’s a very interesting topic which deserves further investigation.
However, the section of abstract is a little messy, please rewrite it. The sections of abstract, discussion and conclusion need to be improved.
Therefore, I recommend minor revise for a publication.
Some suggestions for improvement are listed as follows:
Abstract
1. Line 29, “bulb length” is wrong. As Figure 1b shown, as the electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution increased, the stress-mitigating effect of hydrogen peroxide and bulb diameter decreased.
2. Line 31 “he” is inappropriate.
3. Line 28-34, this part needs to be improved, furthermore, this part is very similar to the section of conclusion, please rewrite it.
Materials and methods
1. Line 96, The abbreviation “NTF” appears for the first time, please explain it.
2. In Table 1, The abbreviations “WCP, TFM, ENS” appears for the first time, please explain it.
3. Please revise “[6] stated that” in Line 52 to “Santos et al [6] stated that”, and “as [14] described” in Line 141 to “as previously described [14]”, and so on, please revise these in the whole manuscript.
Discussion
1. There is only one sentence in one paragraph, please rearrange this section.
2. Line 313-324, “[28] noted that”, “[29] stated that” and “[30] stressed that”, these are a little blunt, please improve it.
Conclusion
There is only one sentence in one paragraph, please rearrange this section in one paragraph. Meanwhile, these sentences are a little blunt, please enrich it with more results or prospects.
References
Please revise the capital letter in [1] and [25], Latin format in [20], [25], [30] and [34], subscript in [10].
