Physiological Mechanism of Photosynthetic, Nutrient, and Yield Responses of Peanut Cultivars with Different Tolerances under Low K Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In introduction section, objectives of the study should be given.

2. Heading 2.3 is not approperiate, it should be revised

3. Line 141, for reference citation, year should be deleted

4. Heading 3.4.1 is not approperiate

5. Fig. 11, 12 is not clear and should be given in high resolution.

6.  Reference list need seious attention and it should be as per journal style.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. The following is my response to you

1. In introduction section, objectives of the study should be given.

Response 1: Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. Therefore, in this study, our main objectives were to (1) reveal the photosynthetic and fluorescence characteristics of peanut tolerant varieties under low potassium stress, (2) clarify the mechanism by which leaf antioxidant oxidase activity regulates reactive oxygen species (ROS) to maintain normal physiological activities under low potassium stress, and (3) determine the reaction mechanism of plant nutrient uptake and utilization, substance coordinated distribution and yield under low potassium stress in 99-104.

2. Heading 2.3 is not approperiate, it should be revised

Response 2: Thank you very much for your prompt. I have modified the article title and marked it in red.

3. Line 141, for reference citation, year should be deleted

Response 3: Thank you very much for your prompt. I have modified the article and deleted the year.

4. Heading 3.4.1 is not appropriate

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments. I have revised the title.

5. Fig. 11, 12 is not clear and should be given in high resolution.

Response 5: Thank you so much for your comments. In Figure 11 and Figure 12 I readjured the clarity and made corrections in the article.

6. Reference list need seious attention and it should be as per journal style.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your prompt. I have modified the reference according to the journal style.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewers Comments:

In the present manuscript, the authors have claimed that under the stress of low K, the content of malondialdehyde in peanut leaves increased, and the activities of NH18 superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) in the low K tolerant variety were higher than those in the intolerant low K variety HY20. They also claim that the decrease of osmotic regulation caused by low K was compensated by the increase of soluble protein content due to which chlorophyll content decreased significantly, Fo increased under dark adaptation, and Fm, Fv and Fv/Fm decreased. They also claim that the photosynthetic and fluorescence physiology of low K tolerant NH18 was less affected by low K stress. Authors have also claimed that under low K stress, the dry matter accumulation of the low K tolerant variety NH18 decreased less, so that the final yield was less affected by low K stress than that of the intolerant variety HY20. Also under low K stress, potassium content in roots, stems, leaves and fruit needles decreased significantly, and the decreasing range of stems and leaves gradually increased with the growth period, while pod gradually decreased with the growth period. Under low K stress, the sodium content in root system was also significantly increased, and was higher in stem, leaf, pod and fruit needle, showing that peanut plants actively absorbed more Na+ to replace K+ function.

Question # 1: Dry matter in the year 2021 is clearly higher but the authors should also mention all the possible reasons responsible for induced dry matter weight.

Question # 2: An English editing of the text must be done as some sentence must be rewritten (in instance, lines 28, 42, 50, 61-62, 72). There are also many grammatical and spell mistakes, therefore, the article cannot be accepted in its present form.

Question # 3: Some of the references are very old and should be replaced with latest references; i.e. in line 141 the out dated reference should be replaced with doi.org/10.1007/s00427-019-00643-7 and doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2019.152997 for chlorophyll and carotenoid contents determination. Authors are also advised to compare your results with international articles as well.

Question # 4: How many biological and technical replicates were used should be clearly written in the materials and methods section.

Question # 5: Carotenoid contents determination should be written under a separate heading in materials and methods section.

Question # 6: Results mentioned in line 324-326 explains a clear significant difference in 2020 and 2021 treatments but the figure 4 doesn’t seems to support the above statement, please make correction in the text accordingly.

Question # 7: Results elaborated in Line 308 - 309 and Figure 2 are consistent? Please double check carefully, also some sentences are repeated i.e. line 306 and line 309. Authors should make corrections to make the results more clear for the readers.

Question # 8: Line 315 - 316, it’s “significantly”. Figure legends throughout the manuscript are not properly written. i.e. in Figure 3 authors should also include what is HK, LK, significant differences etc., this will help the readers to understand the figures more easily, and so on for all the figures legends.

Question # 9: Results in Figure 8 seems to be non-significant and are almost same. But paragraph 353 – 363 explains a very different story. And the reason explained is not suitable to support your results. Please make correction accordingly.

Question # 10: Figure 11-12 are not clearly visible. It should be replaced with a clear and high resolution figure (should be somehow visible without zoom out).

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. The following is my response to you.

Question # 1: Dry matter in the year 2021 is clearly higher but the authors should also mention all the possible reasons responsible for induced dry matter weight.

Response 1: The overall dry mass of plants in 2021 is significantly higher than that in 2020. This is because the growing environment temperature in 2021 is higher and the plant nutrient growth is too fast, which eventually leads to the increase of dry matter mass. Reasons have been added in 3.1. Thank you very much for your comments. The total dry mass of plants in 2021 was significantly higher than that in 2020. This is due to the high temperature of the growing environment in 2021 and the excessive growth of plant nutrients, which eventually led to an increase in dry matter mass. I added the explanation in 3.1.

Question # 2: An English editing of the text must be done as some sentence must be rewritten (in instance, lines 28, 42, 50, 61-62, 72). There are also many grammatical and spell mistakes,

Response 2: Thank you very much for your prompt. I have revised all the sentences you mentioned, and I have also asked professional English scholars to revise the other contents of the article.

Question # 3: Some of the references are very old and should be replaced with latest references; i.e. in line 141 the out dated reference should be replaced with doi.org/10.1007/s00427-019-00643-7 and doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2019.152997 for chlorophyll and carotenoid contents determination. Authors are also advised to compare your results with international articles as well.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your prompt. I have replaced the old one according to the reference you provided. The new references are 18-19.

Question # 4: How many biological and technical replicates were used should be clearly written in the materials and methods section.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comments. I have added the number of repetitions to be used in 2.2 Experimental design.

Question # 5: Carotenoid contents determination should be written under a separate heading in materials and methods section.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comments. I have listed carotenoids separately and added them to section 2.3.2 of heading.

Question # 6: Results mentioned in line 324-326 explains a clear significant difference in 2020 and 2021 treatments but the figure 4 doesn’t seems to support the above statement, please

Response 6: Thank you very much for the tip. What I want to emphasize in this part is the difference between HK and LK treatment, not between years. I explained this part in more detail.

Question # 7: Results elaborated in Line 308 - 309 and Figure 2 are consistent? Please double check carefully, also some sentences are repeated i.e. line 306 and line 309. Authors should make corrections to make the results more clear for the readers.

Response 7: Thank you very much for the tip. What I want to emphasize in this part is the difference between HK and LK treatment, not between varieties. I explained this part in more detail. I also integrated the repetitive content.

Question # 8: Line 315 - 316, it’s “significantly”. Figure legends throughout the manuscript are not properly written. i.e. in Figure 3 authors should also include what is HK, LK, significant differences etc., this will help the readers to understand the figures more easily, and so on for all the figures legends.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your prompt. I've corrected for "Significant ". At the bottom of the chart, the meanings of HK and LK are supplemented.

Question # 9: Results in Figure 8 seems to be non-significant and are almost same. But paragraph 353 – 363 explains a very different story. And the reason explained is not suitable to support your results. Please make correction accordingly.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your comments. The statement in paragraphs 353-363 is correct. Figure 8-b An error occurs during software conversion during the drawing process. Figure 8-b has been corrected.

Question # 10: Figure 11-12 are not clearly visible. It should be replaced with a clear and high resolution figure (should be somehow visible without zoom out).

Response 10: Thank you so much for your comments. In Figure 11 and Figure 12 I readjured the clarity and made corrections in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The R1 version is more logical and the new modifications incorporated are clear and supporting the conclusion. Thus, I would like to recommend this MS for publication in Agronomy.