The Effects of Serendipita indica and Guanidine-Modified Nanomaterial on Growth and Development of Cabbage Seedlings and Black Spot Infestation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present research article is dealing with the role of Serendipita indica and guanidine NPs on the development of cabbage plants and black spot infestation. As such, it would be of potential interest for the readership of Agriculture, after substantial changes are made.
I have some comments and suggestions for authors to address:
- Please check typos and correct it throughout the MS
- Please mention ± SE values in all tables.
- Please mention relative air humidity and light intensity in the material and method section during the experiment.
- Line 139: Chlorophyll Fluorescence (Ft) – before observation, leaves were dark-adapted or not, if yes, time? What was the photon flux density at Ft data observation?
- Ft data observation time?
- Line 177-185: Improve sentence errors.
- Please check reference 38 (Line 485-486) publication year.
Author Response
Thank you for your consideration. Here are the responses to your comments:
Please check typos and correct it throughout the MS
- Checked
Please mention ± SE values in all tables.
- ± SE values in all tables added.
Please mention relative air humidity and light intensity in the material and method section during the experiment.
- 75% in mean, 13-14 hrs; Information added to M+M section
Line 139: Chlorophyll Fluorescence (Ft) – before observation, leaves were dark-adapted or not, if yes, time? What was the photon flux density at Ft data observation?
- Leaves were not dark adapted, 3000 umol intensity; info added
Ft data observation time?
- 10 am – 12 noon, added
Line 177-185: Improve sentence errors.
- Improved
Please check reference 38 (Line 485-486) publication year.
- 2022 is the year mentioned in journal (pre-publishing)
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript ‘’The effect of Serendipita indica and guanidine nanoparticles on growth and development of cabbage seedlings and black spot infestation’’, authors supported the use of S. indica as a growth promoting organism under greenhouse conditions when applied in root zone. However, seed treatment reported better performance for biochemical parameters. Guanidine nanoparticles based on graphene oxide were also reported to be beneficial but did not surpassed performance of endophytic fungus S. indica application.
The title of manuscript suits the journal. In general, manuscript is well written with a self-explanatory abstract. The introduction provides a clear statement of the problem, the relevant literature on the subject, and the proposed approach or solution. Materials and methods are complete enough to allow experiments to be reproduced except at places as described below. Results are well presented and discussion section supports the results.
However, I have few comments that need to be addressed.
Which variety was used during current study?
Please provide detail about characteristics of guanidine nanoparticle.
Authors are advised to study following latest manuscripts to improve their research article and replace the old references:
- Sardar, R., Ahmed, S., & Yasin, N. A. (2021). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles mitigate cadmium toxicity in Coriandrum sativum through modulating antioxidant system, stress markers and reducing cadmium uptake. Environmental Pollution, 118373.
Author Response
Thank you for your consideration. Here are the responses to your comments:
Which variety was used during current study?
- Betti-F1, already mentioned in MS
Please provide detail about characteristics of guanidine nanoparticle.
- Added details in M+M section
Authors are advised to study following latest manuscripts to improve their research article and replace the old references:
- Sardar, R., Ahmed, S., & Yasin, N. A. (2021). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles mitigate cadmium toxicity in Coriandrum sativum through modulating antioxidant system, stress markers and reducing cadmium uptake. Environmental Pollution, 118373.
- Added
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor
In the current study the authors investigated the effect of Serendipita indica and guanidine nanoparticles on growth and selected parameters of cabbage and incidence of the black spot disease. Substrate and seed inoculation were performed. The scientific value of this study is high. I have few comments that need to be addressed before further processing the article.
Abstract: Please add a starting statement to the abstract describing why this study was conducted. Important literature gap.
Introduction
L,55- What kind of nanoparticles, please mention with few examples.
L,62- please first give a brief introduction of guanidine nanoparticles.
L, 65-68- I think these statements should be good after L, 61.
L, 68-70, repeating the same thing as mentioned at the start of second section, please avoid.
The section of introduction needs a rearrangement and improvement. Please also cite and discuss the up-to-date literature to make the hypothesis of this study. this will also emphasize the importance of the study.
Mat, method
L-80-82 indicate the light duration of the green house.
Which statistical model was use for planning the study? RCBD, CBD.
How the authors were sure about the successful synthesis of nanoparticles. Please include few particle characterization analyses.
Author Response
Thank you for your consideration. Here are the responses to your comments:
Abstract: Please add a starting statement to the abstract describing why this study was conducted. Important literature gap.
- Added
Introduction
L,55- What kind of nanoparticles, please mention with few examples.
- Added in several examples
L,62- please first give a brief introduction of guanidine nanoparticles.
- Details about nanomaterial added
L, 65-68- I think these statements should be good after L, 61.
- corrected
L, 68-70, repeating the same thing as mentioned at the start of second section, please avoid.
- Deleted
The section of introduction needs a rearrangement and improvement. Please also cite and discuss the up-
to-date literature to make the hypothesis of this study. this will also emphasize the importance of the study.
- Added new refs to MS
Mat, method
L-80-82 indicate the light duration of the green house.
- 13-14 hrs, added
Which statistical model was use for planning the study? RCBD, CBD.
- Multifactorial exp. design, added
How the authors were sure about the successful synthesis of nanoparticles. Please include few particles characterization analyses.
- Added all the information in Section Material and Methods with TEM figure also
Reviewer 4 Report
Abstract: page 1, line 13: The words “Biochemical parameters” might be better replaced with the word “pigments”.
Abstract: page 1, line 17-19: Last part of the sentence “Guanidine nanoparticles were seen effective in improving the plant growth and reducing the disease incidence but did not perform better S. indica.” is not clear. Please rephrase the sentence.
Introduction: page 2: Perhaps in the introduction the authors should insert paragraph about disease management with the pathogenic fungus Alternaria brassicicola that causes black spot disease.
Materials and Methods: page 2, line 89-96: One treatment (Ssp+Alt) of 15 treatments is missing. Please describe this treatment and insert abbreviation for this treatment.
Materials and Methods: page 2, line 94-96: Please insert abbreviation for control treatments C-PBS and C-H2O.
Materials and Methods: page 3, line 98: Please check the strain number “11,827” and correct if necessary.
Materials and Methods: page 3, line 123-125: Express NP1 and NP2 concentrations in mg/mL.
Materials and Methods: page 3, line 129-130: Write the final concentration of NP1 and NP2 in mg/mL.
Results: page 4, line 179-182: The results of the sentence “Though the nanoparticle application improved the plant growth as shown (Np1 108 mm, Np2 112 mm) as compared to control, the performance in combination with S. indica showed no significant difference i.e., Sp+Np1 109 mm, Sp+Np2 115 mm as compared to Sp.” do not correspond completely with the results from Table 1. Please check the results and the letters of statistical significance in Table 1. and correct the sentence accordingly.
Results: page 5, line 189-191: The results of the sentence “In substrate treatment the mean number of leaves per plant was higher in plants treated with S. indica as shown in Table 1 as compared to that of the control (6.85) and was recorded as 8.28 leaves per plant in Sp+Np1, 8.14 leaves per plant in Sp, Sp+Np1 and Np1.” do not correspond completely with the results from Table 1. Please check the results and the letters of statistical significance in Table 1 and correct the sentence accordingly. The treatment Sp+Np1 was written twice in the same sentence.
Results: page 6, line 215: According to Materials and Methods Nitrogen content is biochemical parameter. Please correct this and other title numbers throughout the manuscript!
Results: page 6, line 220: In the sentence “In all seed treatment were recorded lower nitrogen content” is missing part of the sentence “as compared to control”.
Results: page 6, line 220-223: The results of the sentences „Under disease condition Ssp+Alt reported higher nitrogen content (2.68%), if compared to the Alt treatment (0.85). Moreover, nitrogen content was also improved in S. indica inoculated plants under disease conditions i.e., Alt+Sp = 1.7%.” do not correspond completely with the results from Table 2. Please check the results and the letters of statistical significance in Table 2 and correct the sentences accordingly.
Results: page 6, line 224: In Table 2. There are different statistical letters for same Ft values “0.78 abc” and “0.78 bc”. Please check the Ft values and the letters of statistical significance in Table 2 and correct if necessary.
Results: page 7, line 257: In Table 3. There are different statistical letters for same Chlorophyll b values “0.22 ab” and “0.22 b”. Please check the Chlorophyll b values and the letters of statistical significance in Table 3 and correct if necessary.
Results: page 7, line 251 and 257: Why carotenoids are expressed in mg/L, and Chlorophyll a and b in mg/g? Please check and correct if necessary.
Results: page 8, line 260 and 264: Correlations would be better presented in a separate subtitle after the subtitle Disease Incidence. It would be good to present the correlations in the table to make it easier for readers to follow the obtained correlation results.
Results: page 5-8: Please insert the sentence “Mean values denoted by same letters does not show statistically significant difference.” below each Table.
Results: page 8-9: Same results of Disease incidence are presented in Table 4 and in Figure 2. The letters of statistical significance in Figure 2 are not well written for the Alt+Sp and Alt+Np1 treatments. Please delate Figure 2.
Discussion: page 9, line 287: Please check the word “pace” and write it correctly.
Discussion: page 10, line 343-345: The sentence “Carotenoids content was enhanced by the application of S. indica and nanoparticles was higher in seed application of S. indica even under disease conditions.” do not correspond entirely to Table 3. Please rephrase the sentence.
Discussion: page 10, line 346-349: It is difficult to follow a discussion of correlations without a corresponding table.
Discussion: page 10, line 362: Please check the part of the sentence “by 27 % to 32 %” and correct if necessary.
Author Response
Thank you for your consideration. Here are the responses to your comments:
Abstract: page 1, line 13: The words “Biochemical parameters” might be better replaced with the word “pigments”.
- Changed
Abstract: page 1, line 17-19: Last part of the sentence “Guanidine nanoparticles were seen effective in improving the plant growth and reducing the disease incidence but did not perform better S. indica.” is not clear. Please rephrase the sentence.
- Improved
Introduction: page 2: Perhaps in the introduction the authors should insert paragraph about disease management with the pathogenic fungus Alternaria brassicicola that causes black spot disease.
- Added paragraph regarding Alternaria brassicicola.
Materials and Methods: page 2, line 89-96: One treatment (Ssp+Alt) of 15 treatments is missing. Please describe this treatment and insert abbreviation for this treatment.
- Corrected, added
Materials and Methods: page 2, line 94-96: Please insert abbreviation for control treatments C-PBS and C-H2O.
- Added
Materials and Methods: page 3, line 98: Please check the strain number “11,827” and correct if necessary.
- Corrected - 11827
Materials and Methods: page 3, line 123-125: Express NP1 and NP2 concentrations in mg/mL.
- More details about NP added in M+M part.
Materials and Methods: page 3, line 129-130: Write the final concentration of NP1 and NP2 in mg/mL.
- Details added
Results: page 4, line 179-182: The results of the sentence “Though the nanoparticle application improved the plant growth as shown (Np1 108 mm, Np2 112 mm) as compared to control, the performance in combination with S. indica showed no significant difference i.e., Sp+Np1 109 mm, Sp+Np2 115 mm as compared to Sp.” do not correspond completely with the results from Table 1. Please check the results and the letters of statistical significance in Table 1. and correct the sentence accordingly.
- Sentence checked to table results, where needed corrected
Results: page 5, line 189-191: The results of the sentence “In substrate treatment the mean number of leaves per plant was higher in plants treated with S. indica as shown in Table 1 as compared to that of the control (6.85) and was recorded as 8.28 leaves per plant in Sp+Np1, 8.14 leaves per plant in Sp, Sp+Np1 and Np1.” do not correspond completely with the results from Table 1. Please check the results and the letters of statistical significance in Table 1 and correct the sentence accordingly. The treatment Sp+Np1 was written twice in the same sentence.
- Sentence checked to table results, where needed corrected
Results: page 6, line 215: According to Materials and Methods Nitrogen content is biochemical parameter. Please correct this and other title numbers throughout the manuscript.
- Corrected
Results: page6, line 220:In the sentence “In all seed treatment were recorded lower nitrogen content” is missing part of the sentence “ as compared to. Control”
- Added missing part.
Results: page 6, line 220-223: The results of the sentences „Under disease condition Ssp+Alt reported higher nitrogen content (2.68%), if compared to the Alt treatment (0.85). Moreover, nitrogen content was also improved in S. indica inoculated plants under disease conditions i.e., Alt+Sp = 1.7%.” do not correspond completely with the results from Table 2. Please check the results and the letters of statistical significance in Table 2 and correct the sentences accordingly.
- Sentence checked to table results, where needed corrected
Results: page 6, line 224: In Table 2. There are different statistical letters for same Ft values “0.78 abc” and “0.78 bc”. Please check the Ft values and the letters of statistical significance in Table 2 and correct if necessary.
- This is due to difference in decimals, where on 3rd digit data were different
Results: page 7, line 257: In Table 3. There are different statistical letters for same Chlorophyll b values “0.22 ab” and “0.22 b”. Please check the Chlorophyll b values and the letters of statistical significance in Table 3 and correct if necessary.
- This is due to difference in decimals
Results: page 7, line 251 and 257: Why carotenoids are expressed in mg/L, and Chlorophyll a and b in mg/g? Please check and correct if necessary.
- Corrected to mg/g
Results: page 8, line 260 and 264: Correlations would be better presented in a separate subtitle after the subtitle Disease Incidence. It would be good to present the correlations in the table to make it easier for readers to follow the obtained correlation results.
- Correlation presented under separate subtitle.
- Since correlation is almost same in all given parameters so table was not added
Results: page5-8: Please insert the sentence “Mean values denoted by same letters does not show statistically significant difference” below each Table.
- Added
Results: page 8-9: Same results of Disease incidence are presented in Table 4 and in Figure 2. The letters of statistical significance in Figure 2 are not well written for the Alt+Sp and Alt+Np1 treatments. Please delate Figure 2.
- Deleted the Figure-2
Discussion: page 9, line 287: Please check the word “pace” and write it correctly.
- Pace – Speed…….
Discussion: page 10, line 343-345: The sentence “Carotenoids content was enhanced by the application of S. indica and nanoparticles was higher in seed application of S. indica even under disease conditions.” do not correspond entirely to Table 3. Please rephrase the sentence.
- Sentence checked to table results, where needed corrected
Discussion: page 10, line 346-349: It is difficult to follow a discussion of correlations without a corresponding table.
- There were practically same corelation levels, thus table not added
Discussion : page. 10 line 362: Please check the part of the sentence “by 27% to 32%” and correct if necessary.
Changed
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing the comments.
Author Response
We have updated the file.
