Progress of Euhalophyte Adaptation to Arid Areas to Remediate Salinized Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
The title is good, concise, and self-explanatory
The abstract is well constructed but it focuses on the salinity problem in Northwest China which does not match the title which is more general. In my opinion, the abstract should have general statements, rather than specified to China.
References are relevant to the subject matter.
The sentences are too long hence making comprehension of the text a little bit difficult. The language should be clear and comprehensive. Needs revision.
Most of the literature presented reports the desalination potential of Sueda salsa. It would be better to compare available literature on other related halophytes for their potential of desalinization.
The conclusion section contains some recommendations which may be separated to enhance the clarity of section as well as to attract the reader’s attention.
Most of the recommendations presented in the conclusion section are already discussed in above paragraphs of the paper.
Specific comments
Line 119: According to US salinity classification the ECe 4 dSm-1 is considered as threshold level. Below this level soils are not considered as saline.
Line 131 (the last paragraph of section 2) pertains to salinity problem in China. Since the review article, according to title, focusses on global perspectives therefore, statements about particular geographical area will narrow the subject.
Line 132-148: These lines are irregularly placed therefore, they may be re-organized. In my opinion they should be placed at the beginning of paragraph.
Lines 150-152: lines “halophytes……………………..” are repeated from the paragraph of section 1. Consider revision.
Line 157 & 160: (mM and mmol) use uniform unit terminology.
Line 162---: “Generally, salt content in the euhalophytes…………..”, at the end of this sentence “ Their salt content may reach up to 30%-40%.....” lacks clarity that is the plant examples that accumulate such percent of salts are not mentioned hence the statement is not complete.
Line 499-501: statement not clear please re-write.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear editor/reviewer:
We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to you and to the two reviewers for the insightful and constructive criticisms that have helped us to improve the current manuscript. We have revised the manuscript by carefully addressing the suggestions. We believe the clarity of the manuscript is improved because of the changes. Please find below our detailed response to all comments; the comments are in italics. Included in the revised submission is Word file with changes visible with Track Changes (red color). A version with changes accepted is also included. Besides, at the last of the paper, fund support is listed.
Sincerely,
Yanyan Wang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
Based on the message received, which accepted my availability to review the manuscript “agriculture-2135678”
I am sending you the revised article and some observations.
As a Review article, it addressed an interesting topic from a scientific and practical point of view. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.
Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.
The article has an interesting approach, and the results are presented correctly, in relation to the purpose of the study.
The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field.
The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.
Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.
I appreciate that the article can be accepted for publication after minor corrections.
The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.
1. “m-1” instead of “m-1”
“L-1” instead of “L-1”
“hm-2” instead of “hm-2”
Several suggestions were made in the article. Please check and correct, if necessary
2. Italic Font style for species name
e.g. "S. salsa" instead of "S. salsa"
Several suggestions were made in the article. Please check and correct, if necessary
3. References
According to Instructions for Authors, and Microsoft Word template, Agriculture journal
“Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.”
“Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available.”
"Nat. commun. 2021, 12, 6663. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26907-3" instead of current form
It is recommended to check the entire References chapter, and correct where necessary.
Author Response
Dear editor/reviewer:
We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to you and to the two reviewers for the insightful and constructive criticisms that have helped us to improve the current manuscript. We have revised the manuscript by carefully addressing the suggestions. We believe the clarity of the manuscript is improved because of the changes. Please find below our detailed response to all comments; the comments are in italics. Included in the revised submission is Word file with changes visible with Track Changes (red color). A version with changes accepted is also included. Besides, at the last of the paper, fund support is listed.
Sincerely,
Yanyan Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
