Effects of Shading Nets on Reactive Oxygen Species Accumulation, Photosynthetic Changes, and Associated Physiochemical Attributes in Promoting Cold-Induced Damage in Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: Horticulturae- 1795422

 

The study entitle; The Effects of Shade on Crops: From Greenhouse to Agrivoltaic," which has a focus on protected culture, is an interesting scientific study. Concise and relevant introductions Using correct approaches, the writers have produced a distinctive effect of shading. The results and discussion were interesting. It's a well-written and structured piece of writing. Overall, the manuscript is a good fit for the special issue "The Effects of Shade on Crops: From Greenhouse to Agrivoltaic," which has a focus on protected culture. As we know that shading is one of the most appropriate methods for growth, development of horticultural crops more specifically tea plant. So, in my opinion this manuscript is good for publication in this issue.

I recommended the following point to cleared before publication.

During the review process, a few random mistakes in text were found. According to my viewpoint, the author should correct and revise the manuscript.

 

1.      Title

 

“Effects of Shading Nets on Reactive Oxygen Species Accumulation, Photosynthetic Changes, and Associated Physiochemical attributes in promoting Cold-induced Damage in Camellia sinensis L.”

 

Ø  The title needs editing in Camellia sinensis L.

 

Ø  Author must edit name with (Camellia sinensis) or/and Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, or/and [Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] according to below examples recently published in MDPI journals.

 

For Example:

Ø  Li, W.; Xiang, F.; Su, Y.; Luo, Z.; Luo, W.; Zhou, L.; Liu, H.; Xiao, L. Gibberellin Increases the Bud Yield and Theanine Accumulation in Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze. Molecules 2021, 26, 3290. doi: 10.3390/molecules26113290

 

Ø  Zhang, H.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Fan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Gao, X.; Shi, J.; Chen, F. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Biomass, and Yield of Wheat under Different Shading Conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1989. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11101989

 

 

Ø  Li, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Ou, L.; Ji, D.; Liu, T.; Lan, R.; Li, X.; Jin, L. Response to the Cold Stress Signaling of the Tea Plant (Camellia sinensis) Elicited by Chitosan Oligosaccharide. Agronomy 2020, 10, 915. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10060915

 

Ø  Li, W.; Tan, L.; Zou, Y.; Tan, X.; Huang, J.; Chen, W.; Tang, Q. The Effects of Ultraviolet A/B Treatments on Anthocyanin Accumulation and Gene Expression in Dark-Purple Tea Cultivar ‘Ziyan’ (Camellia sinensis). Molecules 2020, 25, 354. doi: 10.3390/molecules25020354

 

 

 

2.      Abstract

 

In abstract (lines 24- 25) photosynthetic capacity and augmented the chlorophyll (Chl) a, Chl b, chlorophyll (Chll) and carotenoid (Car) content. Must go with flow of sentence and

 

Ø  add bracts around of Chl b same as (Chl) a, Chlorophyll (Chll) and carotenoid (Car) content.

Ø  Antioxidant activities word is missing in (line 26-27) before biochemical composition.

 

Ø  Line 32-33: we inferred that that the impact of shading nets on during mild and extreme cold conditions leads to the regulation of photochemical machinery. Delete the “on” word before during mild and extreme cold conditions leads to the regulation of photochemical machinery.

 

 

3.      Introduction

Overall introduction is relevant and to the point.

 

Ø  But minor mistakes observed in typing. (Line 64) Change pest`s word with pest and (Line 74) correct tea’s with tea.

Ø  Line 69 replace Fig with fig….

Ø  Line 80 add the following reference;

Exogenous 24-epibrassinolide alleviates the detrimental effects of suboptimal root zone temperature in cucumber seedlings

 

4.      Materials and Methods

 

Ø  Line 108: Five-year-old tea plant cultivar [C. sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] of “Zhong Cha 102” was used. (tea plant cultivar) together is not recommended. Is this tea plant, tea tree, tea cultivar? It Seems to be cultivar. So, author should correct this sentence. 

 

Ø  Line 123-124 and 125: It’s confusing the way the author mentioned (i) SD 0% (un-shading, as control), and tea plants grown under (plants covered with black polyethylene net curtains) SD 30% shade, SD 60% Shade and SD 75% of shades. Author should correct the overall sentence such as: Shade change to small alphabet and treatments (i) SD1 (0% shading), SD2 (30% shading), SD3 (60% shading), and SD4 (75% shading).

 

Ø  Title and footnote of Table 1 should be corrected and change from line 128 to line 127 before table.

 

Ø  Change the position of specification as per the manufacturer: all of these sentences exactly under the table.

Ø  Line 183 and 189: The degree Celsius on C^。is missing.

 

 

5.      Results

 

Ø  Line 393: The legend of figure number 9. Author should delete “under” word before condition.

 

6.      Discussion

 

Ø  Line 430: Please add the below recommended citation and reference along with  [37, 38].

 

Ø  Exogenous 24-Epibrassinolide Alleviates the Detrimental Effects of Suboptimal Root Zone Temperature in Cucumber Seedlings.

 

Ø  Line 478: please add the below recommended citation and reference after under low/or and cold conditions [].

 

In point of fact, including the citations that have been provided above will assist authors and readers in providing better and more accurate information on particular characteristics such as the amount of chlorophyll present, the photosynthetic capacity or efficiency under low temperatures or other abiotic conditions. _______________________________________________________________________

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to commence by thanking the editor and the three reviewers for their valuable time and constructive comments. Their expert knowledge of the field has helped us to strengthen the manuscript significantly. According to the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers, we have revised the manuscript. We endeavored to address all the comments and our responses are now given below point by point in PDF file. 
Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Effects of Shading Nets on Reactive Oxygen Species Accumulation, Photosynthetic Changes, and Associated Physiochemical attributes in promoting Cold-induced Damage in Camellia sinensis L.

 

The manuscript is aimed to investigate different levels of shading on protection of tea plants from mild and extreme low temperatures. The investigation is very interesting, giving the new insight into physiological, photosynthetic, antioxidant and physiochemical response after exposure to low temperatures. The manuscript provided valuable information for tea growers on what shading would be the most beneficial in protecting their plants from winter extreme conditions. However the authors should emphasize their conclusions, not just state vague and well known facts that could be applied to any type of plant and treatments that include such measurements. On the other hand, the Abstract is too long and needs to be shortened. Some of information in Abstract should be used to specify and emphasize the main results in the Conclusion.

The Results section needs to be thoroughly revised and rewritten. Some of described results do not follow graphics and are hard to follow since the authors used wrong and false descriptions. Moreover, in descriptions, authors used strange ways to describe percentage of difference between treatments and control. Some of statements are not true and eventually leads to wrong conclusion. This is especially noticeable in terms of discussion for photosynthetic pigments.

Please, in the enclosed PDF find comments and questions that authors must describe in more detail and to correct before the manuscript could be accepted for publication.

Sincerely

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to commence by thanking the editor and the three reviewers for their valuable time and constructive comments. Their expert knowledge of the field has helped us to strengthen the manuscript significantly. According to the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers, we have revised the manuscript. We endeavored to address all the comments and our responses are now given below point by point in PDF file. 
Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Introduction section is well written with sufficient background information about the investigated problem. In my opinion paragraph from L78-89 should be combined with the first part of the introduction, since both parts discuss the physiology under temperature stress, and there are some textual overlaps too.

 

L24-25 please delete abbreviations for chlorophyll a and b, and carotenoid. Same is in L27 for unsaturated fatty acids.

 

L42 correct Camellia sinensis to Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze

 

L45 insert symbol for 30oC.

 

L92-92 "However, the majority of research published on artificial 92 stressors. Which is incapable of distinguishing the natural phenomenon of plant adaptation under fluctuating environments." please reformulate

 

L108 please correct the tea plant cultivar [C. sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze] of “Zhong Cha 102” to tea plant C. sinensis cv. 'Zhong Cha 102'. Please use this in further mentioning throughout the text.

 

L181 "50 gm" - mg or g?

 

L183 insert symbol for 25。C, same is for L188 and L189

 

L197 there is no explanation for the activities of antioxidant enzymes and conducted protocol in the paper mentioned by the authors (Yang, H.; Ge, C.; Ying, W.; Yang, J.; Li, J.; He, J.J.P.N.F.S. Effect of shading on leaf SPAD values and the 615 characteristics of photosynthesis and morphology of rice canopy. 2014, 20, 580-587.). Please add correct references and explain the extraction and evaluation of antioxidant enzyme activities.

 

L232, 254-255, 260-261, 268-270, 323-325, 349-352 this doesn't belong to results section. Please delete these sentences, or combine them with discussion.

 

L397 delete )

 

General remark - please delete unnecessary brackets for abbreviations as well as unnecessary abbreviations throughout the discussion.

 

L419-420 please correct Arabidopsis thaliana and Stevia rebaudiana to Arabidopsis thaliana and Stevia rebaudiana

 

L433 please correct Camellia sinensis (L.) to C. sinensis 

 

L439-445 this is not relevant to the conducted study

 

L474-478 "General increments of antioxidant activities during mild and extreme cold condition signifying that shade nets were effective in enhancing antioxidant enzyme activities, reducing oxidative stress, and maintaining membrane fluidity in cell compartments under low/or and cold conditions". this is an unsupported claim, authors can not discuss membrane integrity and oxidative stress without data about ROS or MDA.

 

Please improve the Conclusion section. In my opinion, based on the results of the conducted study, it is too much to conclude that "...this study provides new evidence for further research at the transcriptome and proteomic levels which will expand our understanding of the gene to protein regulatory mechanisms of tea plants under different shading conditions and cold stress".

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to commence by thanking the editor and the three reviewers for their valuable time and constructive comments. Their expert knowledge of the field has helped us to strengthen the manuscript significantly. According to the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers, we have revised the manuscript. We endeavored to address all the comments and our responses are now given below point by point in PDF file. 
Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking into account most of my suggestions. However, there is still couple of things that needs to be corrected.

In the results you stated in several places something was significantly enhanced (or reduced) while statistical analysis showed that there was no difference (e.g. SPAD for both mild and extreme cold, SD30 showed no difference compared to control, SD0). As it is well known, while using letters to mark statistical difference, same letters indicate that there is no significant difference. Based on that, even if you calculated certain percent lower of higher values compared to control, if the letter is the same as in control, there is no significant difference. You need to pay attention on such statement. In that matter, I suggest that you carefully read all results and correct such statements where it does not match the statistical analysis.

Hypothesis is proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. As such, you state hypothesis in the Introduction as one of the aims of the study. Then you set the experiment to test your hypothesis and then, based on results you decide if it is true or not. You cannot state the hypothesis in the conclusion. The conclusion is the place where you stated wheatear you hypothesis is confirmed or not. Please correct this in the conclusion.

Sincerely

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much. Kindly find the comments responses in PDF file below.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf