Prospective Practice for Compound Stress Tolerance in Thyme Plants Using Nanoparticles and Biochar for Photosynthesis and Biochemical Ingredient Stability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript descripted the application of nanoparticles (nano-silicon and nano-zeolite) ameliorates can significantly alleviate water and salt stress of medicinal plants. The results sound very exciting as it could be a good solution to overcome the negative effects from saline soil to the plants. Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. I think this article is suitable for publication in this journal.

Here are some comments to help improve the manuscript.

 

1. Introduction

There were a few previous studies that investigated the influence of nano-fertilizers on the physiological responses of non-medicinal plants to drought and salt tolerance. The innovation of this study may focus on the  particularity of medicinal plants （ changes of the hydrocarbons, and oxygenated compounds, it is better to add related references and contents in the Introduction section.

 

2. Part 2.2 of the article (Irrigation System)

This section lacks of the description of specific irrigation quota and irrigation period. 7-day intervals Can it meet the normal water demand of plants? If so, how to alleviate drought stress.

 

3. If the authors want to explain that nano fertilizer can improve plant drought resistance, the water retention index of rhizosphere soil needs to be supplemented.

 

4 This study conducted a field experiment for two years. It is necessary to analyze the interannual variation in data analysis.

Author Response

Dear Prof. Dr. reviewer

Thanks a lot for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Prospective Practice for Compound Stress Tolerance in Thyme Plants using Nano-particles and Biochar for Photosynthesis and Biochemical Ingredients Stability" expresses high level of scientific work and complexly carefully carried out research. The wideness and broadness of used methods is markable and the results are presented in clear and persuative way to support and fulfill the aims and scopes of the work. The found discrepancies which need to be repaired were merely formal and after removing and improving them, I recommend the manuscript to acceptation without major revision:
1.    I found the line numbering lacking in the manuscript and albeit it is only minor insufficiency, I hinders the clear orientation in the text - I please for repair.
2.    Table 1.: I am not familiar with the presented unit "Cmole(c) Kg-1 soil" - please, could it be explained or repaired?
3.    Section 2.3: the whole paragraph is (improperly to the rest of the "M&M" section) in bold and the indentation is also a bit untidy - please, repair.  
4.    Section 2.10: the text "abscisic acid (ABA)" is in a larger font and not in the line with the rest of text - please, repair.
5.    I found Table 6 and especially Table 9 very hard to read, because the interspacing between the columns in miniature or none and makes it hard to distinquish the numbers in each table cell - please, remake the Tables to clearer form.

Author Response

Dear Prof. Dr. reviewer

I would like to thank you for your encourage notes , we have made all your notes required in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc