The Effects of Saline Stress on the Growth of Two Shrub Species in the Qaidam Basin of Northwestern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and it needs only minor changes. You can find my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer1#’s comments: 1) Line 17, Delete "of" Response: Thank you for your comments. We deleted “of” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 17). 2) Line 18，Keywords should not be content in the title Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised the keywords in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 18, Line 18-19). 3) Line 36，The authors could also consider this references to sustain this sentence: Maucieri, C., Caruso, C., Bona, S., Borin, M., Barbera, A. C., & Cavallaro, V. (2018). Influence of salinity and osmotic stress on germination process in an old sicilian landrace and a modern cultivar of Triticum Durum Desf. Cereal Research Communications, 46(2), 253-262. Caruso, C., Maucieri, C., Berruti, A., Borin, M., & Barbera, A. C. (2018). Responses of Different Panicum miliaceum L. Genotypes to Saline and Water Stress in a Marginal Mediterranean Environment. Agronomy, 8(1), 8. Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the references in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 38). 4) Line 59，evaporation or evapotranspiration? Response: Thank you for your comments. It was “evapotranspiration” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 2, Line 60). 5) Line 59，2,850 mm? Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The potential evapotranspiration was 2,849.7 mm. The potential evapotranspiration refers to the amount of water that evaporates/transpires into the air from a fully supplied underlying surface (i.e., a fully wetted surface or an open water body). So the values of evapotranspiration is high (Page 1, Line 60). 6) Line 69, Delete "and" Response: Thank you for your comments. We deleted “and” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 2, Line 73). 7) Line 80，How did you measure the concentration in the solutions? Response: Thank for your comments. Dissolve Nacl solvent in water to prepare solution in proportion. We added the details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 3, Line 84-86). 8) Line 148, Which test did you use to separate the mean when the ANOVA was significant? Fisher LSD? Tukey HSD? others? Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The LSD method was used to compare the SPAD, Pn, Tr, and WUE when necessary. We added the details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 155-157). 9) Line 149，I think that this sentence should be moved before the previous sentence "Firstly, a two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the differences in SPAD, Pn, Tr, and WUE, with.........." Response: Thank for your comments. We moved the sentence in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 152-153). 10) Line 160，Are reported average values of monitored period? Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The values were the average values of monitored period. We added the details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 5, Line 169). 11) Line 185, "The values of SPAD" could be change with "SPAD values" Response: Thank for your comments. We changed the "The values of SPAD" to "SPAD values" in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 6, Line 195). 12) Line 188，"Uppercase and lowercase letters were the difference SPAD of E. angustifolia and L. barbarum in treatments, respectively." should be change with "Uppercase and lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for E. angustifolia and L. barbarum, respectively, at p<0.0.... with ...... test." In addition, in the caption should be reported the explanation of acronyms (CK, S1, ....) Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The "Uppercase and lowercase letters were the difference SPAD of E. angustifolia and L. barbarum in treatments, respectively." were changed to "Uppercase and lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for E. angustifolia and L. barbarum, respectively, at p<0.0.... with ...... test." in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 6, Line 199-200). In addition, we added the meaning of “CK, S1, ....” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 6, Line 197-198). 13) Line 197 and 198，Delete the space between 13: and 00; Delete the space between 11: and 00 Response: Thank for your comments. We deleted the space in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 6, Line 209; 210). 14) Line 270，In the caption should be explained what is "a" figure and what is "b" figure". For figure a should be reported that different letters indicate significant differences ...." Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The a and b in bold are represented E. angustifolia and L. barbarum respectively. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments for E. angustifolia and L. barbarum, respectively, at p < 0.05 with T test. We added the details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 9, Line 284-286). 15) Line 296, Conclusion section should be heavely revised because now is a repetition of results. Instead, the authors, moving from their results should try to give general indications. Foir example how they findings can influence the agriculture of study area. Response: Thank for your comments. We revised the conclusion and added more general indications in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 10, Line 314-322). 16) Line 431，Please use lowercase as in other references Response: Thank for your comments. We revised the references in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 32-34).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review: Manuscript ID: sustainability-435614
Title: The effects of saline stress on the growth of two shrub species in the
Qaidam Basin of northwestern China
This article explore the salt tolerance of two shrubs in the Qaidam Basin of northwestern China area. It was determined the parameters Soil and Plant Analyzer 7 Development (SPAD), net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), intercellular carbon dioxide (Ci, μmol 8mol-1), stomatal conductance (Gs, umol m-2s-1), and water use efficiency (WUE) under different salt concentrations 9(0, 100, 200, 300, and 400 mmol·L-1).
The main problem is that there is no evidence of the situation on the soil (soil type, soil moisture, soil salinity status etc. You could find my remarks and comments below.
My major concerns are:
1) You should provide information about soil salinity status in the Qaidam Basin in the section materials and methods
2) L.72. Give the soil type
3) l. 81: It is better to give also the corresponding EC values for each treatment
4) l.89: You do not present any value of soil moisture from TDR300. It is known that the dielectric sensor TDR 300 does not operate well under high soil salinity status (overestimate soil moisture values) (Kargas et. al., 2013). You should to provide the variation of the soil moisture for one day
5) l. 179, 183, 249: One should give the publishing time
Author Response
1) This article explore the salt tolerance of two shrubs in the Qaidam Basin of northwestern China area. It was determined the parameters Soil and Plant Analyzer 7 Development (SPAD), net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Tr), intercellular carbon dioxide (Ci, μmol 8mol-1), stomatal conductance (Gs, umol m-2s-1), and water use efficiency (WUE) under different salt concentrations 9(0, 100, 200, 300, and 400 mmol·L-1). The main problem is that there is no evidence of the situation on the soil (soil type, soil moisture, soil salinity status etc. You could find my remarks and comments below.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes.
2) You should provide information about soil salinity status in the Qaidam Basin in the section materials and methods
Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the details of soil salinity status in the Qaidam Basin in the section materials and methods in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 2, Line 64-66).
3) Line 72. Give the soil type
Response: Thanks for your comments. We added the soil type in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 2, Line 66).
4) Line 81: It is better to give also the corresponding EC values for each treatment
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the EC values in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 3, Line 96-97).
5) Line 89: You do not present any value of soil moisture from TDR300. It is known that the dielectric sensor TDR 300 does not operate well under high soil salinity status (overestimate soil moisture values) (Kargas et. al., 2013). You should to provide the variation of the soil moisture for one day
Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We were very sorry for the incomplete statement. For mutual verification, we use the TDR300 measured the soil moisture as well as we use the ECH2O soil moisture sensor measuring the soil moisture. In addition, we found that soil water content did not change significantly in one day, thus we did not provide the variation of the soil moisture for one day (Page 3, Line 94).
6) Line 179, 183, 249: One should give the publishing time
Response: Thank you for your comments. Because the reference format of journals is sequential labeling, thus we did not added the publishing time in the latest version of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest to accept this manuscript.
Please provide one value from soil moisture in the section "results and discussion"
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The effects of saline stress on the growth of two shrub species in the Qaidam Basin of northwestern China” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-435614). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Our current manuscript followed the journal formatting guidelines of Sustainability. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes (Manuscript _Marked version.docx and (Highlight _Marked version.docx). The Manuscript _Clean Version was the same version of the Manuscript _Marked version) with cleaned from all the marks.
Responses to the Reviewer1#’s comments:
1) I suggest to accept this manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript and Highlight with marked changes.
2) Please provide one value from soil moisture in the section "results and discussion"
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the soil moisture in the section "results and discussion" of the latest version of the manuscript (Page 5, Line 165).
