The Reinforcement of Early Growth, Extract, and Oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer Organic Cover and Bacteria Inoculation under Water Deficit
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Report of manuscript entitled The reinforcement of early growth, extract, and oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation under water deficit: Submitted to soil system
Line 22-23 water deficit at four levels (100, 25, 50, and 25% of field capacity). Check levels 25% is repeated
Line 26 The highest of shoot extracts (4.02) and oil (1.95). Add units with the digits mentioned
Line 87 The use of 60 to 90 kgha-1 of hydrogel in rainy. Correct typo in units
Line 128 Authors say The study was conducted in factorial experiments based on complete a randomized block design (CRBD) with three replications in greenhouse
Line 140-143 Authors say The field capacity was maintained on the basis of soil water contents by measuring fresh and dry soil weights. The water treatments were applied to the weighting base and water was added to achieve the target soil moisture
Line 176-177 Authors say After preparing the half ball, two seeds were placed between two half balls, and finally the balls were transferred to 5 L volume pots. I have major concern on the mythology of maintaining different levels of field capacity in fields with CRBD needs details of methodology. There is contradiction whether it is pot or field experiment/CRBD vs CRD design
Conclusion what will be cost benefit ratio of experiment.
Can be improved
Author Response
REVIEWER#1
Report of manuscript entitled The reinforcement of early growth, extract, and oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation under water deficit: Submitted to soil syste
Line 22-23 water deficit at four levels (100, 25, 50, and 25% of field capacity). Check levels 25% is repeated
Re: was corrected
……. and water deficit in four levels (100, 50, and 25% of field capacity).
Line 26 The highest of shoot extracts (4.02) and oil (1.95). Add units with the digits mentioned
Re: was corrected
The highest of shoot extracts (4.02%) and oil (1.95%) was obtained with the use of vermicompost and 2g of A200 as OSC filer under water deficit.
Line 87 The use of 60 to 90 kgha-1 of hydrogel in rainy. Correct typo in units
Re: was corrected
The use of 60 to 90 Kilograms Per Hectare of hydrogel in rainy conditions increased potato yield (3, 35)
Line 128 Authors say The study was conducted in factorial experiments based on complete a randomized block design (CRBD) with three replications in greenhouse
Re: was corrected
The study performedin factorials experiments based on a randomizedcomplete block design (RCBD) with three replications at the greenhouse
Line 140-143 Authors say The field capacity was maintained on the basis of soil water contents by measuring fresh and dry soil weights. The water treatments were applied to the weighting base and water was added to achieve the target soil moisture
Re: This sentence was modified as follows
The pots were weighed daily to apply the filed capacity and the water treatments were applied based on the weight of the pots to to achieve the target soil moisture.
Line 176-177 Authors say After preparing the half ball, two seeds were placed between two half balls, and finally the balls were transferred to 5 L volume pots. I have major concern on the mythology of maintaining different levels of field capacity in fields with CRBD needs details of methodology. There is contradiction whether it is pot or field experiment/CRBD vs CRD design
Re: In the description of the first experiment in lines 131 to 133, we stated that this experiment was conducted as completely randomized blocks (CRBD) in the greenhouse and in pots, even in lines 173 to 175 we described the conditions of the greenhouse. Note that we could have performed this experiment in the greenhouse as a randomized control design(CRD), but because weighing the pots to obtain the required water required a lot of effort and applying management between treatments was time-consuming, we decided to conduct the experiment in a Let's run a completely random block design to reduce the test error.
So if you need more explanation, tell me and I will add it
Conclusion what will be cost benefit ratio of experiment.
Re: The use of early coatings with super absorbent and bacteria inoculation has increased the percentage of emergence, stem length, leaf surface, stem extract, and stem oil, the results of which are shown in tables 2, 3, and 4.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report
Title: The reinforcement of early growth, extract, and oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation under water deficit
In this paper, the authors investigated the role of polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation in improving the drought tolerance in Silybum marianum through reinforcement of early growth extract and oil contents. However, the manuscript needs major modifications to be published. Following are the crucial points that should be considered by authors to increase the value of the manuscript and may be readability.
1. The abstract of the article in its current form is without any solid and scientific novelty, moreover, a lot of parenthesis are incorporated in the abstract. It should be improved and polished and only novel aspects should be highlighted and incorporated into the abstract.
2. Highlighted the main results in percentage not in maximum and minimum value like extract, oil etc
3. Add the solid conclusion at the end of the abstract section
4. In the introduction, authors must connect state-of-the-art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review with clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Discuss the previous studies that you are referring to. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? The paper may not be considered further without a clear research gap and study novelty.
5. The introduction section is abrupt, and background information is scattered. It lacks systematic layering and connectivity between the sentences as well as paragraphs.
6. Hypothesis of the study is missing; add the study gap (what is new in this study?). authors should provide a clear research question and explain clearly what is new about your work and provide a clear hypothesis.
7. In materials and methods, How authors find the field capacity of soil; any specific protocol and references?
8. Please expand the statistical section, write in detail SE (Standard error), detail of turkey’s test and ANOVA process and level of significance
9. Results and discussion section of the article is weak, authors mainly focused on their results but they did not discuss them according to international standards. Moreover the writing style of results and discussion section is also ambiguous, with long and weak sentences and in a repetitive way. I am not convinced with the way of discussion of the authors, in its current form it cannot be accepted in Soil system. I will recommend a thorough revision of this section.
10. Quality of figures should be improved. They must be uniform in format, letter font and size should be the same as the remaining manuscript body.
11. Conclusion section is missing. The conclusions should answer the hypothesis of your study and should focus on the implication of your findings. Please, avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in this section
12. Language, wording and paraphrasing should be carefully reviewed and improved. A native English-speaking scientist or professional English editing service must edit your manuscript.
13. The reference of the article needs to be cross-checked, revised and formatted.
The authors should implement these major comments to the manuscript to get it accepted.
Language, wording and paraphrasing should be carefully reviewed and improved. A native English-speaking scientist or professional English editing service must edit your manuscript.
Author Response
REVIEWER#2
Review Report
Title: The reinforcement of early growth, extract, and oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation under water deficit
In this paper, the authors investigated the role of polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation in improving the drought tolerance in Silybum marianum through reinforcement of early growth extract and oil contents. However, the manuscript needs major modifications to be published. Following are the crucial points that should be considered by authors to increase the value of the manuscript and may be readability.
- The abstract of the article in its current form is without any solid and scientific novelty, moreover, a lot of parenthesis are incorporated in the abstract. It should be improved and polished and only novel aspects should be highlighted and incorporated into the abstract.
Re: We used the parentheses to express the abbreviations of the attributes to avoid the length of the summary
- Highlighted the main results in percentage not in maximum and minimum value like extract, oil etc
Re: The expression of the results in the summary was modified as follows
Our results showed that milk thistle seeds are sensitive to water shortage in the emergence stage. Covering milk thistle (S. marianum L.) seeds with organic seed cover increased water retention around the seeds and improved emergence percentage. The use of organic seed cover with hydrogel increased relative water content (RWC), leaf area, and shoot length increasing the extracts and oils in the fresh shoots. Bacterial inoculation also improved the initial growth and reduced the effect of water stress on the plant and increased the number of leaves, extract and oil. Inoculating seed with combined P. fluorescens and P. putida increased the extract and oil under water deficit by increasing relative water content, shoot height, and specific leaf area. A comparison of the results revealed seed inoculation is a simple method without a new culture medium, improves extract and oil under water deficit conditions.
- Add the solid conclusion at the end of the abstract section
Re: At the request of the referee, the conclusion of the final abstrect was rewritten as below
The combination of bacteria had a positive increasing effect on the initial growth and inoculation of seeds with P. fluorescens and P. putida increased the relative water content (RWC), the height of the shoot and the specific surface of the leaf, and the increase of extract and oil under water deficit conditions. A comparison of the results revealed seed inoculation is a simple method without a new culture medium, improves extract and oil under water deficit conditions.
- In the introduction, authors must connect state-of-the-art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review with clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Discuss the previous studies that you are referring to. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? The paper may not be considered further without a clear research gap and study novelty.
Re: Our problem is the lack of milk thistle green percentage in dry ecosystems, which we discussed in the first paragraph.
The use of organic materials as seed coating, the use of moisture absorbent materials together with organic materials as seed coating, although it is possible to use only super absorbent materials as mentioned in the introduction text, but not together with organic materials and inoculation. Maritigal seed is a new case that there are almost no reports about it which we have stated in order in the introduction, So if more corrections are needed, let me know and I will do it
- The introduction section is abrupt, and background information is scattered. It lacks systematic layering and connectivity between the sentences as well as paragraphs.
Re: In this research, we have used organic materials, organic materials with super absorbent, and seed inoculation, which are three different parts, and we have included them in the text in order, and I have corrected their order.
If there is any other confusion in the content, tell me and I will correct it
- Hypothesis of the study is missing; add the study gap (what is new in this study?). authors should provide a clear research question and explain clearly what is new about your work and provide a clear hypothesis.
Re: Our first hypothesis is to add oleic substances around milk thistle seeds to increase water absorption and water retention for a longer period of time, which we stated and added to the introduction text.
Our second hypothesis is the use of super-absorbent materials together with Eli materials, which we stated according to the referee's opinion and added to the introduction text.
Our third hypothesis is the use of primary growth-enhancing bacteria, which we stated clearly and added to the introduction text according to the referee's request. So if more corrections are needed, let me know and I will do it
- In materials and methods, How authors find the field capacity of soil; any specific protocol and references?
Re: The field capacity of the soil was determined by pressure plate apparatus (Chakraborty et al., 2015), by the water engineering department of the Faculty of Agriculture, Shiraz University
Chakraborty D, Bandyopathyay KK, Pradhan S (2015) Soil-Plant-Water relations under conservation tillage practices for sustainable agriculture. Compendium, TB-ICN:142/2015, Division of Agricultural Physics, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India. pp.1-102
- Please expand the statistical section, write in detail SE (Standard error), detail of turkey’s test and ANOVA process and level of significance
Re: We have compared the average with Duncan's test because in our previous articles for Agronomy and other international journals, Duncan's test was more accurate and they emphasized its use. We have mentioned the standard error in all the tables and the significance level in section 2.3. We have stated the significance level both in section 2.3 (Statistical analysis)
2.3. Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using the statistical softwater SAS, version 9.3 after the normality test by Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test, and graphs were plotted using Excel softwater. The means were compared to the Duncan test at a 5% level.
We have stated the significance level in the caption of the tables and figures.
For example:
Fig. 2. Effect of drought stress on seedling length vigor index (SLVI).
Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (p > 0.05) .
D1=field capacity, D2= 75 percent of field capacity and D3= 50 percent of field capacity.
Table 2. Effect of different organic seed cover (SOC) fillers on emergence rate, prolin contents, catlaseactivitiy, ascorbate peroxidase, shoot oil and shoot extract under different soil moisture regimes
|
Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (p > 0.05) .D1=field capacity, D2= 75 percent of field capacity and D3= 50 percent of field capacity, C1=vermicomposting and C2=peat moss,Data are the average of three replicate. |
If more corrections are needed, tell me clearly and I will do them
- Results and discussion section of the article is weak, authors mainly focused on their results but they did not discuss them according to international standards. Moreover the writing style of results and discussion section is also ambiguous, with long and weak sentences and in a repetitive way. I am not convinced with the way of discussion of the authors, in its current form it cannot be accepted in Soil system. I will recommend a thorough revision of this section.
Re: We thank the reviewer for his comments. The Results and Discussion section has been revised and corrected in the points that we felt could have been more critical. If the reviewer feels that further revisions are necessary, we ask for more precision in indicating the specific points to be corrected. Indeed, the Results and Discussion section of our manuscript is comparable to the Results and Discussion section already published in SOIL SYSTEMS or in other journals.
- Quality of figures should be improved. They must be uniform in format, letter font and size should be the same as the remaining manuscript body.
Re: The quality of the figures in terms of font, and the size of the rewritten letters of the subtitles have been corrected. Further details will be defined with the editorial office.
- Conclusion section is missing. The conclusions should answer the hypothesis of your study and should focus on the implication of your findings. Please, avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in this section
Re: The conclusion part was prepared based on the referee's opinion and was added separately so that the answers to the hypotheses are included in it.
Conclusion:
Our results showed that Milk thistle seed is sensitive to a lack of water during the germination and emergence stage. Water deficit in this stage delays the time of emergence and decreases the number of leaves and extract and oil. Covering the Milk thistle seed with vermicompost(C2) and peat moss(C3) could increase the emergence rate, early growth, and extract and oil. Adding hydrogel to OSC fillers such as vermicompost(C2) and peat moss(C3) increases water maintenance around the seed during early growth. Increases the emergence percentage even more and It is a suitable method for providing sufficient moisture in the early stages of the growth of Milk thistle in dry areas. The bacterial inoculation improved early growth and reduced the effect of water stress on the plant and increased the number of leaves and extract and oil of Milk thistle in dry areas. It is recommended to use both methods to accelerate the initial growth and rapid development of Milk thistle seedlings to produce more yield extract and oil under dry conditions. But if possible bacteria are much easier to use, although they will cost more. These methods can be used for the seedling establishment of other plants that has tiny seed in dry regions.
- Language, wording and paraphrasing should be carefully reviewed and improved. A native English-speaking scientist or professional English editing service must edit your manuscript.
Re: The manuscript has been linguistically revised. Further corrections will be addressed with the editorial office.
- The reference of the article needs to be cross-checked, revised and formatted.
RE: The references have been corrected. Further details will be defined with the editorial office.
The authors should implement these major comments to the manuscript to get it accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer Comments
The present manuscript entitled ‘The reinforcement of early growth, extract, and oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation under water deficit’ written well. Good concept.
However, authors are advised to read the manuscript carefully and correct the language accordingly.
If Possible, Introduction should be shortened and compressed.
In Materials and method, the conditions of green house conditions are mentioned clearly.
Discussion part should be modified if possible.
Conclusion part is missing. Please add it.
Minor editing of English is required
Author Response
REVIEWER#3
Reviewer Comments
The present manuscript entitled ‘The reinforcement of early growth, extract, and oil of Silybum marianum L. by Polymer-organic cover and bacteria inoculation under water deficit’ written well. Good concept.
However, authors are advised to read the manuscript carefully and correct the language accordingly.
Re: We thank the Reviewer for his care and attention in reviewing the manuscript. A further linguistic revision has been made, the final English revision will be performed by the editorial office of SOIL SYTEMS
If Possible, Introduction should be shortened and compressed.
Re: We reduced parts of it, but parts were added based on the opinion of referee number 2
In Materials and method, the conditions of green house conditions are mentioned clearly.
Re: Plants were grown in greenhouses with a day/night (16 h/8 h) temperature of 25/18.
Discussion part should be modified if possible.
Conclusion part is missing. Please add it.
Re: The conclusion part was prepared based on the referee's opinion and was added separately so that the answers to the hypotheses are included in it
Conclusion:
Our results showed that Milk thistle seed is sensitive to a lack of water during the germination and emergence stage. Water deficit in this stage delays the time of emergence and decreases the number of leaves and extract and oil. Covering the Milk thistle seed with vermicompost(C2) and peat moss(C3) could increase the emergence rate, early growth, and extract and oil. Adding hydrogel to OSC fillers such as vermicompost(C2) and peat moss(C3) increases water maintenance around the seed during early growth. Increases the emergence percentage even more and It is a suitable method for providing sufficient moisture in the early stages of the growth of Milk thistle in dry areas. The bacterial inoculation improved early growth and reduced the effect of water stress on the plant and increased the number of leaves and extract and oil of Milk thistle in dry areas. It is recommended to use both methods to accelerate the initial growth and rapid development of Milk thistle seedlings to produce more yield extract and oil under dry conditions. But if possible bacteria are much easier to use, although they will cost more. These methods can be used for the seedling establishment of other plants that has tiny seed in dry regions.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper submitted for review raises an interesting research topic. Unfortunately, the submitted work is incomplete as it does not contain table 5. Therefore, it is difficult to comment on the discussion of the results presented in chapter 3 and 4.
Moreover, the work contains many editorial errors that require correction. Only examples of errors are listed below:
In table 1, there are no superscripts next to the units.
In chapter 2.2.9 there is no formula on the basis of which the CAT was calculated.
In chapter 2.2.11 it is “60 Celsius” and it should be “60oC” and it is “80 Celsius” and it should be “80oC”.
In Table 2, the Emergency rate C2 and D1 of 0.09+-10.01 is puzzling.
In chapter 3.1.2 it says cm2 and it should be cm2.
Figure 4 and 5 require correction of the description of the OY axis. They should be with "." and are ",".
Figure 4 OY axis values should be given with the same accuracy. And the description of the OX axis requires reducing the font size.
Author Response
REVIEWER#4
The paper submitted for review raises an interesting research topic. Unfortunately, the submitted work is incomplete as it does not contain table 5. Therefore, it is difficult to comment on the discussion of the results presented in chapter 3 and 4.
Moreover, the work contains many editorial errors that require correction. Only examples of errors are listed below:
In table 1, there are no superscripts next to the units.
Re: The Reviewer's remark is relevant Table 1 has been corrected.
In chapter 2.2.9 there is no formula on the basis of which the CAT was calculated.
Re: On the recommendation of the referees, to prevent the length of the article, we refrained from taking the formulas of these two enzymes and rewrote the sentence as below.
The APX and activity was estimated as described by Nakano and Asada (59) Beauchamp and Fridovich,(12).
In chapter 2.2.11 it is “60 Celsius” and it should be “60oC” and it is “80 Celsius” and it should be “80oC”.
Re:Was corrected
During this stage, the heater was set at 60 oC, and in the next step, the heater was fixed at 80 oC.
In Table 2, the Emergency rate C2 and D1 of 0.09+-10.01 is puzzling.
Re: This a typo and was corrected
In chapter 3.1.2 it says cm2 and it should be cm2.
Re:Was corrected
Figure 4 and 5 require correction of the description of the OY axis. They should be with "." and are ",".
Re:The following corrections were made in the caption of Figures 4 and 5
Fig. 4. Effect of organic seed cover (SOC) fillers on seedling weight vigor index
Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (p > 0.05) ), (SWVI)= seedling weight vigor index, C1=vermicomposting and C2= peat moss.
Fig. 5. Effect of superabsorbent (S) on seedling weight vigor index
Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (p > 0.05), (SWVI)= seedling weight vigor index, S1 = cover without superabsorbent, S2, S3 and S4 included (2, 4 and 6 g of superabsorbentF1 per kg of organic materials), S5, S6 and S7 included (2, 4 and 6 g of superabsorbentA200 per kg organic materials).
Figure 4 OY axis values should be given with the same accuracy. And the description of the OX axis requires reducing the font size.
Re: The title font of the vertical and horizontal axis was modified. These modifications were also applied to other figures
Reviewer 5 Report
Take into account comments in the text
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER#5
SEE PDF
Re: based on the request of the referee, the word “superlative” was replaced with “important” in line 35
Re: based on the request of the referee comment about reference number one" From the title the reference some irrelevant in line 36"
A new and related reference was added instead of reference number one
Re: based on the request of the referee comment "not all references necessary to stress the point in line 44" the reference number of 5 deleted
Re: based on the request of the referee comment the words” purer” and “dry” in line 47 were removed
Re: based on the request of the referee's comment about the word superabsorbent in line 62, Note that it is written as one word"superabsorbent" not super-absorbent.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
It seems to be ok in present form
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions, the manuscript has improved greatly after following your evaluations.
Reviewer 4 Report
Editorial errors:
- Table 1, not corrected superscripts on units.
- Figures 4 and 5 have not been corrected.
- Most of the measurement data in the tables require correction, because the number of decimal places of the presented measured value is not the same as for its uncertainty.
- Table 3, data error for S4-D3.
- Table 5, column headings not clearly marked.
Author Response
- Table 1, not corrected superscripts on units.
AUTHORS: The table has been corrected as requested
- Figures 4 and 5 have not been corrected.
AUTHORS: We are sorry for the mistake. The numbers in the Y-axes have been corrected.
- Most of the measurement data in the tables require correction, because the number of decimal places of the presented measured value is not the same as for its uncertainty.
AUTHORS: All tables have been revised and corrected. Corrections are highlighted in yellow.
- Table 3, data error for S4-D3.
AUTHORS: The table has been corrected as requested
- Table 5, column headings not clearly marked.
AUTHORS: The table has been corrected as requested
