![]() Several sentences and expressions along the manuscript are confusing and not grammatically correct. English should be revised in the manuscript. Please, explain what was the light condition (light type and intensity). In Materials and Methods, section 4.4 (seed germination), Authors say that seeds were incubated “under light condition or constant darkness”. If this information has been previously published elsewhere, please add references. Most of these data are very relevant and would provide important information to contextualize the results. What are the climatic and/or environmental characteristics of the sampled place? That is, what are the temperature, light and water regime along the year?, What is the Suaeda (and other plant species) population and distribution? Suaeda life cycle along the year?, When this plant does germinate dimorphic seeds (what months along the year)? What is the brown seeds/black seeds number rate in the sampled population? It also lacks the soil physico-chemical characterization (organic matter, nutrients, salinity, pH, texture?) in the sampled place. In Material and Methods, section 4.1 (Plant materials), a lot of information is missing. Please change the Word “progeny” in those sentences, in order to avoid confusion. Authors worked with seeds, and with seedlings and plants germinated from those seeds, they did not work with the F1 (or progeny proper) of those seeds. In several parts of the manuscript, Authors refer to “progeny plants” from dimorphic seeds. ![]() In Discussion, I do not understand what authors mean by “germination space”. ![]() You can say that it can be used as a marker or indicator of salt tolerance, but not it is not a “regulator” in salt tolerance. MDA is a product of lipid peroxidation and oxidative damage by ROS. In Discussion, authors say that “MDA might act as a negative regulator in salt tolerance”. Discussion about proline results must be included. This must be corrected in several sentences in the manuscript. The updated family name is Amaranthaceae, not Chenopodiaceae. Regarding the writing of the manuscript, several points need to be corrected: Results of this experiment would elucidate the metabolic pathways involved in the differential responses of dimorphic seed germination to salt stress. Such experiments would have provided more information for the question proposed by the Authors, which is the mean focus of the research.Īnother option is to perform a comparative metabolomic or transcriptomic profiling, comparing dimorphic seeds (germinating in absence or presence of salt). It would have been interesting to compare these physiological-biochemical values between control (absence of salinity) and salinity-exposed germinating dimorphic seeds (and even in seedlings). In my opinion, further experiments must be performed. In order to accomplish the first question proposed by the Authors in the Introduction (what is the relationship between physiological indexes and salt tolerance in dimorphic seeds?), they quantified ROS, lipid peroxidation (MDA), osmolytes and antioxidant enzyme activities in both dimorphic resting seeds. However, in my opinion, this work needs to be improved in several aspects for publication. In the present manuscript, the scientific objective is interesting, and methods and results are well done. 20), although no physiological-biochemical parameters were measured. The goal is to gain a better understanding of the adaptation strategies of dimorphic seeds to salinity and other environmental factors.Ī similar work was previously performed on Suaeda salsa with salinity (Ref. Additionally, the effect of light, temperature and salinity on seed germination, and the effects of salinity in seedling and plant growth. Authors performed comparative studies on seed morphology, ROS levels, MDA production, antioxidant activities and osmolyte levels. describes a research about differential physiological performances of dimorphic seeds of the halophyte Suaeda liaotungensis. Specific comments were added to PDF file (Manuscript)Īuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf However, information is missing in the Material and Methods Section, which may be useful to improve the discussion. The manuscript presents interesting results related to the dimorphism of seeds of Suaeda liaotungensis, something that has been observed in other halophytes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |