Next Article in Journal
Consumer Perception of Online Attributes in Circular Economy Activities
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability of the Optimum Pavement Model of Reclaimed Asphalt from a Used Pavement Structure
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/su12051913
Review Report
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Saline and Alkaline Tolerance of Wetland Plants—What are the Most Representative Evaluation Indicators?

Sustainability 2020, 12(5), 1913; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051913
by Rui Cheng 1,2, Hui Zhu 1,*, Xianwei Cheng 1,2, Brian Shutes 3 and Baixing Yan 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(5), 1913; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051913
Submission received: 15 February 2020 / Revised: 28 February 2020 / Accepted: 29 February 2020 / Published: 3 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Engineering and Science)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent manuscript prepared well in all aspects (methodology, result and discussion, conclusion). It is also relevant for the adaptation to salt water intrusion.

 Just one suggestion is that if author can add some of the pictures from their experimental plots. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It was my pleasure to review the manuscript entitled "Saline and alkaline tolerance of wetland plants: what are the most representative evaluation indicators? Thank you for a very interesting and valuable piece of work!

Some minor corrections in English could be done. I also think that the Figs are quite difficult to understand, though this is because each brings a lot of information packed in one illustration. After another look and another couple of minutes studying everything became clear. Still I think they could be improved. My suggestion is to use colour instead of the letters "a", "b", "c" that mark differences between treatment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Initially I would like to congratulate you on your work. Its volume is large.

Further information on procedures protocols in the text itself should be mentioned at the same time (paragraphs 2.2.1. and 2.2.2.).

On the other hand, data management is problematic. The presentation of the results of the measurements on the figures should be changed and all the figures should be supplemented with the indication of the experiment to which the results are related (Exp. A, B or C). It also needs to be clarified when something is not mentioned on the figures, what that means.

In paragraph 3.2. «Seedings growth», it is stated that due to the limit of words, you choose to report the results of an experiment only. This cannot be accepted. You will need to rearrange the entire text to find the required space to refer to all the experiments, even if you must complete a few sentences.

More bibliographic references are needed to the “4. Discussion”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop