Salinity Threshold of Tall Wheatgrass for Cultivation in Coastal Saline and Alkaline Land

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The authors evaluated the tall wheatgrass line Zhongyan 1 in saline-alkane soils in the Yellow River Delta region to determine its salinity threshold. The results showed that it can be planted in saline soils with the maximal salt content in the soil depth of 0‒10 cm below 1%. The manuscript sounds scientific and hold potential for commercial value of biostimulants in fruit science. However some points are suggested to improve the overall quality of the manuscript before final publication.

 

Moderate English editing is required.

 

General comments and suggestions for authors:

Keywords: you can add more keywords.

L43: Delete “a serials of”

L52-53: The latest data should be added regarding saline-alkaline land.

In Materials and methods and Results: each sub-section should be mentioned with numbering system.

L91: delete “we”

Figures: the figures must have high resolution. These should be modified.

Discussion: It should be more elaborated and informative.

Conclusion: It should be precise and highlights only the major findings of the present study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

The authors evaluated the tall wheatgrass line Zhongyan 1 in saline-alkane soils in the Yellow River Delta region to determine its salinity threshold. The results showed that it can be planted in saline soils with the maximal salt content in the soil depth of 0‒10 cm below 1%. The manuscript sounds scientific and hold potential for commercial value of biostimulants in fruit science. However some points are suggested to improve the overall quality of the manuscript before final publication.

 

Moderate English editing is required.

General comments and suggestions for authors:

Keywords: you can add more keywords.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. Two key words “coastal grass belt; saline and alkane land” were added.

L43: Delete “a serials of”

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. “a serials of” has been deleted.

L52-53: The latest data should be added regarding saline-alkaline land.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. Some new data regarding saline-alkaline land have been added.

In Materials and methods and Results: each sub-section should be mentioned with numbering system.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. The sub-sections have been numbered in Material and methods and Results parts.

L91: delete “we”

Response

Thank you for your comment. However, no “we” was found in L91.

Figures: the figures must have high resolution. These should be modified.

Response

Thank you for your comment. The figures have been substituted with high resolution figures.

 

Discussion: It should be more elaborated and informative.

Response

Thank you for your comment. Some sentences have been rewritten.

 

Conclusion: It should be precise and highlights only the major findings of the present study.

Response

Thank you for your comment. Some sentences have been rewritten.

Reviewer 2 Report

Salinity Threshold of Tall Wheatgrass for Cultivation in Coastal Saline and Alkane Land

I read this MS with great interest. In this study, a tall wheatgrass line Zhongyan 1 was grown in saline-alkane soils in the Yellow River Delta region to determine its salinity threshold.  The results showed that it can be planted in saline soils with the maximal salt content in the soil depth of 0‒10 cm below 1%. The plant height and dry matter were negatively related with soil salinity. When the soil salinity in the soil depth of 0‒10 cm was over 1%, the survival rate declined dramatically with the increase of soil salinity. The authors concluded that, the soil salinity of 1% at the depth of 0‒10 cm and the AM values of 1.23 measured with a PNT3000 activity meter can be used as the salinity threshold for cultivation of tall wheatgrass in the coastal saline-alkane land.

The MS is well written and well conducted but there are some comments and suggestions that should be considered to improve the quality of the manuscript.

-         The abstract should contain numerical data at least the very important data.

-         Line 62-63.  I recommend changing this sentence as follows:

 

Hassan, F.; Al-Yasi, H.; Ali, E.F.; Alamer, K.; Hessini, K.; Attia, H.; El-Shazly, S. Mitigation of salt stress effects by moringa leaf extract or salicylic acid through motivating antioxidant machinery in damask rose. Can. J. Plant Sci.  2021, 101, 157–165.  476 https://doi.org/ 10.1139/CJPS-2020-0127.  477 

Hassan, F.; Ali, E.; Gaber, A.; Fetouh, M. I.; Mazrou, R. Chitosan nanoparticles effectively combat salinity stress by enhancing antioxidant activity and alkaloid biosynthesis in Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 162, 291– 300.

 

 

-         Lines 98.  (type A with high salinity of 0.2%‒2.2%). I think 0.2 % is not high salinity. When authors refer to moderate salinity, they also begin with 0.2 %. So, please revise the sentence accurately.

-         Lines 102-104. Which soli type do the authors mean? Are these properties belonging to type A? or what?

-         Line 101-102. (Type B and Type C were used to explore the salinity threshold for forage productivity). Despite both types were used for the same purpose, the authors changed the method of cultivation. Please explain.

-         Line 119-120. For type C, (the seedling trays were cultivated in greenhouse and irrigated with tap water every three days). What about type A and B?

-         Line 161. in type C soil, grouped as tall (70‒120 cm) and dwarf (20‒50 cm). What about the seedlings of 50-60 cm?

-         A lot of references are not up to date. I recommend authors to cite recent reports instead to support the work.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer2

Salinity Threshold of Tall Wheatgrass for Cultivation in Coastal Saline and Alkane Land

I read this MS with great interest. In this study, a tall wheatgrass line Zhongyan 1 was grown in saline-alkane soils in the Yellow River Delta region to determine its salinity threshold.  The results showed that it can be planted in saline soils with the maximal salt content in the soil depth of 0‒10 cm below 1%. The plant height and dry matter were negatively related with soil salinity. When the soil salinity in the soil depth of 0‒10 cm was over 1%, the survival rate declined dramatically with the increase of soil salinity. The authors concluded that, the soil salinity of 1% at the depth of 0‒10 cm and the AM values of 1.23 measured with a PNT3000 activity meter can be used as the salinity threshold for cultivation of tall wheatgrass in the coastal saline-alkane land.

The MS is well written and well conducted but there are some comments and suggestions that should be considered to improve the quality of the manuscript.

-         The abstract should contain numerical data at least the very important data.

Response

Thank you for your comment. Some numerical data has been added in the abstract.

-         Line 62-63.  I recommend changing this sentence as follows:

Hassan, F.; Al-Yasi, H.; Ali, E.F.; Alamer, K.; Hessini, K.; Attia, H.; El-Shazly, S. Mitigation of salt stress effects by moringa leaf extract or salicylic acid through motivating antioxidant machinery in damask rose. Can. J. Plant Sci.  2021, 101, 157–165.  476 https://doi.org/ 10.1139/CJPS-2020-0127.  477 

Hassan, F.; Ali, E.; Gaber, A.; Fetouh, M. I.; Mazrou, R. Chitosan nanoparticles effectively combat salinity stress by enhancing antioxidant activity and alkaloid biosynthesis in Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 162, 291– 300.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. Some related references have been added in the text.

 

-         Lines 98.  (type A with high salinity of 0.2%‒2.2%). I think 0.2 % is not high salinity. When authors refer to moderate salinity, they also begin with 0.2 %. So, please revise the sentence accurately.

Response

Thank you for the comment. This study was carried out in real saline and alkaline soils. The soil salinity is uneven and the proportion of high soil salinity decreased from type A to C. The sentence has been revised.

 

-         Lines 102-104. Which soli type do the authors mean? Are these properties belonging to type A? or what?

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence has been revised as “The mean content of P₂O₅, K₂O, and N in the 0‒30 cm soil layer from all types of soils was 30.3, 331.7, and 55.6 mg kg^-1, respectively”

 

-         Line 101-102. (Type B and Type C were used to explore the salinity threshold for forage productivity). Despite both types were used for the same purpose, the authors changed the method of cultivation. Please explain.

Response

Thank you for the comment. Transplanting of cloned seedlings and plants derived from seeds were performed for type A and C soil experiments; while seeds sowing was carried out for type B soil experiment. Detail information was supplied.

-         Line 119-120. For type C, (the seedling trays were cultivated in greenhouse and irrigated with tap water every three days). What about type A and B?

Response

Thank you for the comment. Irrigation was conducted only for seedling cultured in greenhouse. When the seedlings were transplanted in the field for all types of soil experiments, no irrigation was applied during the growing season. 

-         Line 161. in type C soil, grouped as tall (70‒120 cm) and dwarf (20‒50 cm). What about the seedlings of 50-60 cm?

Response

Thank you for the comment. The plant height of dwarf type should be 20-69 cm, which has been revised in the text.

-         A lot of references are not up to date. I recommend authors to cite recent reports instead to support the work.

Response

Thank you for the comment. Some related references have been added in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments: The authors provide a comprehensive set of data on the Salinity threshold of tall wheatgrass for cultivation in coastal saline and Alkane land. From this point of view, the manuscript is original but it has also major deficiencies which require a major revision. However, there are some general as well as detailed notes and comments I would like to address to the author. The profile of the manuscript could be sharpened by modifying them. The most important point about this manuscript is that the English of this manuscript should be improved; there are many grammatical mistakes as well as faulty sentence structure. So please have an editing service or a native English speaker have a very critical look at the manuscript before resubmission.

 

- Line 20: …was positively related to forage yield, …

- Line 32: …has been widely cultivated in …

- Line 43: A series of researches…

- Lines 63-65: This sentence is confusing and should be rewritten.

- Line 67-68: For instance, when it was cultivated …

- Lines 69-71: This sentence is very long and ambiguous. Please rewrite it.

- Line 80: Riedell [41] observed that the…

- Line 83: "remains" should be changed to "is remained".

- Line 90: The objective of this study was to …

- Line 105: "whole" should be replaced by "growing".

- Line 106: Please replace the "divided" with a proper word.

- Line 111: How is the survival rate evaluated and based on what criteria? Please explain clearly and transparently in the materials and methods of the manuscript. - Line 113: What is your meaning from pure live seed (PLS)? Please explain it in the materials and methods of the manuscript. - Line 120: … with 12-14 h photoperiod. - Line 124: with the abovementioned transplanter? Please explain more. - Line 129: … in both survived and dead plants … - Line 134: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Lines 137-138: This sentence is confusing and should be rewritten using the proper words.

- Lines 143-145: This sentence is confusing. Please rewrite it. What is your meaning from "randomly sampled from all three types of soil experiments?

- Line 146: "experiment" should be changed to "experiments".

- Line 149: "classed" should be changed to "classified".

- Lines 155-156: This sentence is confusing and wordy. Please rewrite it.

- Line 164: Please replace "weighed" with "measured".

- Line 165: "weighed" should be corrected as "weighted".

- Lines 165-166: The sentence is ambiguous. How the dry matter yield 165 was computed based on the ratio of dry to fresh weight and fresh forage yield? Please clarify it in the materials and methods section.

- Line 175: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Line 179: …the soil depths of 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, and 40-50 cm…

- Line 183: … to high salinity that they were encountered.

- Line 184: "survival" should be changed to "survived". - Line 185: "survival" should be changed to "survived". - Line 188: "survival" should be changed to "survived". - Line 192: "survival" should be changed to "survived". - Text of Table 1: "survival" should be changed to "survived". - Line 198: "is" should be replaced by "was". - Lines 199-200: Please rewrite the sentence as: "More survived seedling plants occurred for the grade 2 plants, however, for which severe salt induced symptoms of leaf tip necrosis and yellowing of old leaves was observed obviously." - Line 200: … more tillers were found… - Line 201: Please add a ";" after "slim". - Line 202: … were below of … - Line 205: Please add a ";" before "while". - Line 208: Please add a ";" after "seedlings". - Line 208: Please remove "both" from the sentence. - Line 223: "increase" should be changed to "increasing". - Line 224: Please add a ";" after "lowest". - Line 226: Please add "higher" after "maximum". - Lines 229-230: Although the survival rate of the grade 3 plants was approximately equal to that of the grade 4… - Lines 230-232: The sentence is ambiguous. Please rewrite it. - Line 235: "height" should be changed to "heights" and "was" should be changed to "were". - Line 251: Please add a ";" before "while". - Line 260: … of 0‒10, 10‒20, and 20‒30 cm were… - Lines 264-265: The sentence is unintelligible and the conclusion presented seems to be wrong. Please recheck and rewrite the sentence. - Line 268: In statistics, significance at the 5% probability level is shown with "*". Please also correct the table accordingly (change ** to * in the text of table and its foot note). - Line 271: Please replace "increasing" with "growing". - Line 280: Please remove "now" from the sentence. - Lines 285-286: The sentence is ambiguous. Please rewrite it. - Lines 288-290: The sentence is very long and ambiguous. Please rewrite it. - Line 292: "in" should be replaced by "is". - Line 302: "established" should be changed to "establish". - Line 306: … which was approximately equal to … - Lines 314-315: The sentence is incomplete, wordy, and ambiguous. The tall type of tall wheatgrass plants produced what? Please rewrite it as complete and correct. - Line 319: Please change "moderate tolerance" to "moderately tolerant". - Lines 326-327: The sentence is unintelligible and the conclusion presented seems to be wrong. Please recheck and clarify it in the manuscript. - Line 332: What is ranch? Please clarify it. - Line 334: "liner" should be corrected as "linear". - Line 337: Please add a ";" before "while". - Line 342: Please write a footnote for figure S4.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer3

 

General comments: The authors provide a comprehensive set of data on the Salinity threshold of tall wheatgrass for cultivation in coastal saline and Alkane land. From this point of view, the manuscript is original but it has also major deficiencies which require a major revision. However, there are some general as well as detailed notes and comments I would like to address to the author. The profile of the manuscript could be sharpened by modifying them. The most important point about this manuscript is that the English of this manuscript should be improved; there are many grammatical mistakes as well as faulty sentence structure. So please have an editing service or a native English speaker have a very critical look at the manuscript before resubmission.

- Line 20: …was positively related to forage yield, …

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as “…was positively related to forage yield, …”

 

- Line 32: …has been widely cultivated in …

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as “…has been widely cultivated in …”

- Line 43: A series of researches…

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been rephrased.

- Lines 63-65: This sentence is confusing and should be rewritten.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been rewritten.

 

- Line 67-68: For instance, when it was cultivated …

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as ” For instance, when it was cultivated …”

- Lines 69-71: This sentence is very long and ambiguous. Please rewrite it.

Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been rewritten.

 

- Line 80: Riedell [41] observed that the…

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as “Riedell [41] observed that the…”

 

- Line 83: "remains" should be changed to "is remained".

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as “is remained”.

 

- Line 90: The objective of this study was to …

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as “The objective of this study was to …”.

- Line 105: "whole" should be replaced by "growing".

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. It has been revised as "growing".

- Line 106: Please replace the "divided" with a proper word.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. The "divided" has been replaced by “split”.

- Line 111: How is the survival rate evaluated and based on what criteria? Please explain clearly and transparently in the materials and methods of the manuscript.

Response

Thank you for comment. At least 100 continuous plants were surveyed for number of survived plants with green leaves, the percentage of survived plants was expressed as survival rate.

- Line 113: What is your meaning from pure live seed (PLS)? Please explain it in the materials and methods of the manuscript.

Response

Thank you for comment. Pure live seed (PLS) is a measure used by the seed industry to describe the percentage of a quantity of seed that will germinate. PLS is obtained by multiplying the purity percentage by the percentage of total viable seed, then dividing by 100. It has been revised.

- Line 120: … with 12-14 h photoperiod.

Response

Thank you for comment.  It has been revised as “… with 12-14 h photoperiod.”

- Line 124: with the abovementioned transplanter? Please explain more.

Response

Thank you for comment. It has been revised as “with a transplanter (2ZBX-4)”.

 

- Line 129: … in both survived and dead plants …

- Line 134: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

Response

Thank you for the comment. It has been revised as "survived".

- Lines 137-138: This sentence is confusing and should be rewritten using the proper words.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was rewritten.

 

- Lines 143-145: This sentence is confusing. Please rewrite it. What is your meaning from "randomly sampled from all three types of soil experiments?

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was rewritten.

- Line 146: "experiment" should be changed to "experiments".

Response

Thank you for the comment. It has been revised as "experiments".

- Line 149: "classed" should be changed to "classified".

Response

Thank you for the comment. It has been revised as "classified".

- Lines 155-156: This sentence is confusing and wordy. Please rewrite it.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was rewritten.

- Line 164: Please replace "weighed" with "measured".

Response

Thank you. It has been revised as suggested.

- Line 165: "weighed" should be corrected as "weighted".

Response

Thank you. It has been revised as suggested.

- Lines 165-166: The sentence is ambiguous. How the dry matter yield 165 was computed based on the ratio of dry to fresh weight and fresh forage yield? Please clarify it in the materials and methods section.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was rewritten.

- Line 175: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Line 179: …the soil depths of 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, and 40-50 cm…

- Line 183: … to high salinity that they were encountered.

- Line 184: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Line 185: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Line 188: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Line 192: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Text of Table 1: "survival" should be changed to "survived".

- Line 198: "is" should be replaced by "was".

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. All the above mentioned has been revised as suggested.

- Lines 199-200: Please rewrite the sentence as: "More survived seedling plants occurred for the grade 2 plants, however, for which severe salt induced symptoms of leaf tip necrosis and yellowing of old leaves was observed obviously."

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was rewritten as suggested.

- Line 200: … more tillers were found…

- Line 201: Please add a ";" after "slim".

- Line 202: … were below of …

- Line 205: Please add a ";" before "while".

- Line 208: Please add a ";" after "seedlings".

- Line 208: Please remove "both" from the sentence.

- Line 223: "increase" should be changed to "increasing".

- Line 224: Please add a ";" after "lowest".

Response

Thank you for the comment. These were revised as suggested.

- Line 226: Please add "higher" after "maximum".

Response: Revised as “…the maximum height…”

- Lines 229-230: Although the survival rate of the grade 3 plants was approximately equal to that of the grade 4…

Response

Thank you for the comment. It was revised as suggested.

- Lines 230-232: The sentence is ambiguous. Please rewrite it.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was rewritten.

- Line 235: "height" should be changed to "heights" and "was" should be changed to "were".

- Line 251: Please add a ";" before "while".

- Line 260: … of 0‒10, 10‒20, and 20‒30 cm were…

Response

Thank you for the comment. These were revised as suggested.

- Lines 264-265: The sentence is unintelligible and the conclusion presented seems to be wrong. Please recheck and rewrite the sentence.

 Response

Thank you for the comment. Therefore, the forage productivity of tall wheatgrass was largely affected by the proportion of high saline soil. Comparison of soil salt content and dry matter yield between dwarf and tall types of tall wheatgrass grown under saline stress.

- Line 268: In statistics, significance at the 5% probability level is shown with "*". Please also correct the table accordingly (change ** to * in the text of table and its foot note).

Response

Thank you for the comment. **, denotes the significant difference at P < 01.

 - Line 271: Please replace "increasing" with "growing".

- Line 280: Please remove "now" from the sentence.

Response

Thank you for the comments. These were revised as suggested.

- Lines 285-286: The sentence is ambiguous. Please rewrite it.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence was revised as “Interestingly, some tall wheatgrass accessions can even maintain high survival rate at 750 mM NaCl [35,37].”

- Lines 288-290: The sentence is very long and ambiguous. Please rewrite it.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The sentence has been rewritten.

- Line 292: "in" should be replaced by "is".

- Line 302: "established" should be changed to "establish".

- Line 306: … which was approximately equal to …

Response

Thank you for the comments. These were revised as suggested.

- Lines 314-315: The sentence is incomplete, wordy, and ambiguous. The tall type of tall wheatgrass plants produced what? Please rewrite it as complete and correct.

Response

Thank you for the comments. The sentence was written.

- Line 319: Please change "moderate tolerance" to "moderately tolerant".

Response

Thank you for the comment. It was revised as suggested.

- Lines 326-327: The sentence is unintelligible and the conclusion presented seems to be wrong. Please recheck and clarify it in the manuscript.

Response

Thank you for the comments. The sentence was written.

- Line 332: What is ranch? Please clarify it.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The word is wrong and has been deleted.

- Line 334: "liner" should be corrected as "linear".

- Line 337: Please add a ";" before "while".

Response

Thank you for the comments. These were revised as suggested.

- Line 342: Please write a footnote for figure S4.

Response

Thank you for the comment. The footnote for S4 has been added.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Ms. Elvira Sun

Assistant Editor of Agriculture

 

Regarding the manuscript "Salinity Threshold of Tall Wheatgrass for Cultivation in Coastal Saline and Alkane Land"

All of my comments and detailed notes and are done properly by the author and I haven’t any comment or question in this step. I think that this manuscript can be publish in its current form.