Screening for Salt Tolerance in Four Local Varieties of Phaseolus lunatus from Spain
, Monica Boscaiu 5,* and Oscar Vicente 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very well-written and useful paper overall. Comments are directed at relatively minor improvements that would improve paper presentation, and not on the general quality.
Global- consider “climate change” as opposed to “global warming”. I’m not sure that there is a consensus on the terminology, but I do think the former tells the story more than the latter. But that’s not a firm recommendation.
Lines 107-109, 113-116: some more detail on methods would be helpful. More details on sampling methods would be helpful, as well as details on preparation of extractions.
Tables: include the p-value for the overall ANOVA, maybe in a row under the 150 Mm treatment. If it’s 0.05 or greater, then you shouldn’t add the separation variables, e.g., if they are all ‘a’s, then you don’t need to show them.
Table 1: can you include stats for FW reduction?
Figure 3: Include a key in the figure with the colors for the treatments, rather than just in the text. Components 1 and 2 should be better defined in the figure. Are the %’s on the x and y axes R-values?
Discussion:
Line 244: what screening methods are you referring to? None are really highlighted in the paper, unless you’re referring to the general methodology of the paper overall.
256- Good insight, the research shows plants adapting to NaCl, but at a cost to plant growth.
262- lose the comma after “both”.
269 – 284: what are the implications of this research on potassium fertilization?
Author Response
This is a very well-written and useful paper overall. Comments are directed at relatively minor improvements that would improve paper presentation, and not on the general quality.
Global- consider “climate change” as opposed to “global warming”. I’m not sure that there is a consensus on the terminology, but I do think the former tells the story more than the latter. But that’s not a firm recommendation.
Answer: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we use ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ in the text of the revised version.
Lines 107-109, 113-116: some more detail on methods would be helpful. More details on sampling methods would be helpful, as well as details on preparation of extractions.
Answer: More details have been included in the revised version, in the sections of Methods indicated by the reviewer.
Tables: include the p-value for the overall ANOVA, maybe in a row under the 150 Mm treatment. If it’s 0.05 or greater, then you shouldn’t add the separation variables, e.g., if they are all ‘a’s, then you don’t need to show them.
Answer: We have modified tables 1 and 3 as requested, including ‘P-values’ of the performed one-way ANOVAs.
Table 1: can you include stats for FW reduction?
Answer: It has been done.
Figure 3: Include a key in the figure with the colors for the treatments, rather than just in the text. Components 1 and 2 should be better defined in the figure. Are the %’s on the x and y axes R-values?
Answer: Modified as requested. The percentages of the total variability explained by the two first components are included (in parenthesis) in the X and Y-axes, respectively, and this is mentioned in the legend.
Discussion:
Line 244: what screening methods are you referring to? None are really highlighted in the paper, unless you’re referring to the general methodology of the paper overall.
Answer: See the last sentence of Discussion, added in the revised version.
256- Good insight, the research shows plants adapting to NaCl, but at a cost to plant growth.
262- lose the comma after “both”.
Answer: Corrected.
269 – 284: what are the implications of this research on potassium fertilization?
Answer: A new sentence has been added to the discussion, including a new reference.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is clear and well written however there are some minor editorial comments and questions for more clarifications on methodology and results.
Specific comments on: Lines 110, 130, 152, a comment on table 1, a comment on figure 1, and line 243.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript is clear and well written however there are some minor editorial comments and questions for more clarifications on methodology and results.
Specific comments on: Lines 110, 130, 152, a comment on table 1, a comment on figure 1, and line 243.
Answer: More details have been included in the description of some methods (also following reviewer 1’s recommendations). All suggested changes or corrections marked in the edited copy of the manuscript referring to minor format mistakes have been included in the revised version. Concerning specific points:
- Comment on Table 1: Why the water content % of root and stem and leaves are important to measure? while you are already measuring Fresh and Dry weight of all of the plant sections. Does it add more information to discuss the findings of salt stress on Lima bean?
Answer: It is true that, knowing FW and DW of each sample, WC can be directly calculated. However, we prefer to show WC% instead of DW, as this parameter provides a direct view of the degree of stress-induced dehydration of the samples. Therefore, it is easier to assess whether the reduction of FW is actually due to inhibition of growth or just to a loss of water, which we consider important for the discussion of the effects of salt stress on lima beans.
- Authors contributions: The specific statements ‘conceptualization’, ‘software’, ‘validation’, etc. are are indicated by the journal. We understand that 'software' refers, indeed, to statistics and data analysis.
- Funding: You may indicate the grant number of internal funding
Answer: There is no specific grant. General funds from the Polytechnic University of Valencia to O.V. were used for this work.
