Melatonin Mediates the Regulation of Morphological and Anatomical Traits in Carex leucochlora under Continuous Salt Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript does not have the format required by “Agronomy”.

The abstract is well written. I would like the authors to add percentages of the changes observed in relation to the treatments.

Overall, the manuscript is very well written.

Main point:

L196 - 2.6 (7) Statistical analysis

I consider it appropriate to perform a three-factor ANOVA to know the interactions between treatments.

Minor points:

L204 -210 – These described results must be supported by a statistics test.

L211 – 215 These described results must be supported by a statistics test.

Figure 1 The error bars represent the standard deviation. – add to all columns.

Author Response

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have carried out an interesting study that adds to the knowledge of the use of melatonin in the cultivation of Carex leucochlora

Manuscript well written.

Introduction written correctly.

M&M not objectionable. 

Results described correctly only standard deviation should be given in Table 1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Melatonin mediates the regulation of morphological and anatomical traits in Carex leucochlora under continuous salt stress" by Ren et al., is very interesting. The data presented in the manuscript has great significance in understanding the effects of salt stress on Carex and how Melatonin foliar application helps to mitigate the salt stress. 

In general, the manuscript is well written. But, few places there is confusion about which day data is provided. That needs to be clarified. Also, extensive percentage calculations for representing data and comparison confuse the readers. It is better to provide the real numbers as much as possible for better following the data.

Specific comments

Line 43-44: The numbers cited look very old as the reference is from 2008. Kindly refer to the latest world salinity-affected data numbers and references.

Line 209: What do the authors mean by this statement? This statement is confusing and derailing. Need to rewrite.

Line 226: The data 4.92 fold and 14.10 fold for S alone are for which days? need to mention. 

Line 229: Again for S+MT treatment, need to mention the comparison for which days?

Line 238-239: However, compared with ......significantly by 2.89% (Fig. 3c). In fig 3c for 3d there is no significant difference for leaf blade thickness. IS the data shown for three days or the 6th day? Clarify and include that in the text for better clarity. 

Line 252 & 257: Please check the Figure number. It should be 3c-g

Line 265: Weight under water stress decreased ....? No water stress in this study.

Line 264-266: Compared with the roots in CK............respectively. Root dry weight results are not provided in Table 1. Please add S and S+M root dry weight. Also, the statement is confusing for the readers. I could understand the dry weight of salt stress plants decreased, but the data are for which days? Explain 

Line 271, 274, 278: root surface change to root surface area

Line 146: Mentioned that five different melatonin concentrations were tried and 150 were found to be optimal and further studied. The discussion also, in Line 321 it is mentioned that 150 μmol L-1 is most effective. It is good to know for the readers what will happen if 200 or 250 μmol L-1 is used. It is good to discuss in a couple of lines.

Author Response

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx