Ecophysiological Analysis of Mangrove Seedlings Kandelia obovata Exposed to Natural Low Temperature at Near 30°N
, Chunfang Zheng 3,4, Yaning Wang 5, Lu Cai 6, Jian Guo 7, Wendong Song 8,* and Lili Ji 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS looks great. I have a few minor concerns as provided below.
Abstract
“mangrove seedlings Kandelia obovata were firstly introduced to Zhoushan in 18 the Eastern China at near 30°N” – introduced from where
“domesticated into Zhoushan” - domesticated in Zhoushan, - also when.
“The growth status and antioxidant system of K. obovata 20 exposed to natural low temperature were discussed through situ measurements” - were studied through situ measurements
The chlorophyll’s contents - The chlorophyll contents
“SOD and CAT activity” – better to elaborate the abbreviations at first instance
“The study provides a foundation for mangroves 27 response to natural low temperature in high latitude” – need to improve the conclusive statement.
Introduction
The introduction is inadequate and largely have a summary of the study instead of background which will help to understand the study. There are many efforts have been made to establish Mangrove in the new habitat, such studies need to discuss.
Results
Better to have the complete name of the location in the graphs
Figure 2 – error bar is missing for GN
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewer’s comments have significantly strengthened our manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.
“mangrove seedlings Kandelia obovata were firstly introduced to Zhoushan in 18 the Eastern China at near 30°N” – introduced from where
A1: We have added address information in the abstract. K. obovata were firstly introduced to Zhoushan in the Eastern China at 29 ° 93' N from Xuwen in the South China at 20°34' N in April 2016.
“domesticated into Zhoushan” - domesticated in Zhoushan, - also when.
A2: We have already supplemented the time in the abstract. It is in April 2016.
“The growth status and antioxidant system of K. obovata exposed to natural low temperature were discussed through situ measurements” - were studied through situ measurements
A3: We have already modified in the abstract.
The chlorophyll’s contents - The chlorophyll contents
A4: We have already modified in the abstract.
“SOD and CAT activity” – better to elaborate the abbreviations at first instance
A5: We have already modified the abbreviations at first instance.
“The study provides a foundation for mangroves response to natural low temperature in high latitude” – need to improve the conclusive statement.
A6: We have already rewritten this sentence—This study provides a foundation for better understanding of the response of mangroves to natural low temperature at high latitudes.
The introduction is inadequate and largely have a summary of the study instead of background which will help to understand the study. There are many efforts have been made to establish Mangrove in the new habitat, such studies need to discuss.
A7: We have added some studies about mangrove transplanting in the new habitants in the introduction.
Better to have the complete name of the location in the graphs
A8: We described the locations in the graph legends.
Figure 2 – error bar is missing for GN
A9: The error value of GN is about 0.01 in Figure 2, which is not significant compared with the overall value.
Reviewer 2 Report
English editing in scientific journal style can help to make this MS better.
Abstract cna be written to describe the results and brief discussion instead of know theory.
To use abbreviation of terms, firstly full word should be described like superoxide dismutase (SOD).
Both CAT and POD function to scavenge hydrogen peroxide, however, as author mentioned aleardy, there is big difference between two enzyme activity. Discussion should be added for better understanding. Usually CAT activity shows circardian rhythms, it may be concerned with their activity in plants.
Leaves with any symptoms can show activity of enzymes scavenging ROS, if possible, it is better to use stressed leaves with no external symptom. Additive discussion is required.
It seems this results provide helpful information in keeping the plants in low temperature regions.
Author Response
We want to thank the referee for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.
Abstract can be written to describe the results and brief discussion instead of know theory.
A1. We have carefully revised the abstract.
To use abbreviation of terms, firstly full word should be described like superoxide dismutase (SOD).
A2: We have revised the abbreviations.
Both CAT and POD function to scavenge hydrogen peroxide, however, as author mentioned aleardy, there is big difference between two enzyme activity. Discussion should be added for better understanding. Usually CAT activity shows circardian rhythms, it may be concerned with their activity in plants.
A3: The sampling time of this experiment is consistent at 12:00-13:00, avoiding the circadian change of CAT, but this is an insightful and profound suggestion, which will facilitate our follow-up experiments.
Leaves with any symptoms can show activity of enzymes scavenging ROS, if possible, it is better to use stressed leaves with no external symptom. Additive discussion is required.
A4: The leaves of GN group from the natural habitant of the mangrove plants, as control group, is the least affected by cold stress, equivalent to no external stress.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting paper on the effects of low temperature on mangrove growth in China.
1. The English must be significantly improved.
2. What is unclear in the Methods section, and this is critical, are the number of plants used as replicates used in the analyses. I presume that a number of plants were used and divided up into groups to use as replicates. This must be clarified before publication.
Author Response
The English must be significantly improved
A1. We have carefully revised the English in the text.
What is unclear in the Methods section, and this is critical, are the number of plants used as replicates used in the analyses. I presume that a number of plants were used and divided up into groups to use as replicates. This must be clarified before publication.
A2: Each group of samples is from 80-100 plants, and each group is repeated 3 times.
