Growth, Solute Accumulation, and Ion Distribution in Sweet Sorghum under Salt and Drought Stresses in a Brazilian Potiguar Semiarid Area
, José Francismar de Medeiros 1,*, Rodrigo Rafael da Silva 1, Francimar Maik da Silva Morais 1, Leonardo Vieira de Sousa 1, Maria Vanessa Pires de Souza 2, Elidayane da Nóbrega Santos 1, Fagner Nogueira Ferreira 1, Juliana Maria Costa da Silva 1, Maria Isabela Batista Clemente 1, Jéssica Christie de Castro Granjeiro 1, Matheus Nathan de Araújo Sales 1, Darcio Cesar Constante 1, Reginaldo Gomes Nobre 1 and Francisco Vanies da Silva Sá 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study was about the responses of sweet sorghum to different salinity and water treatments, and compared the growth and other variables including proline, total amino acids, and total soluble sugars content. The manuscript is in good shape now. However, there was several issues needed to be addressed.
1) I am wondering why soil water content and ECe were not measured or not presented. Also I notice there was no description of soil texture. Without such information, it is hard to know whether different treatments had exerted stresses on sorghum. If there was no any change in soil water content and EC between treatments, there was no difference in stresses between treatments, and the conclusion regarding any responses of sorghum to water and salinity ‘stresses’ is questionable.
2) All tables regarding ANOVA analysis presented F values. I think it is more informative to present p value, rather than F value.
3) The conclusion that sorghum was more tolerant to salt than water stress was drawn depended mostly on the specific treatment levels set up in the study. Such conclusion would not be held if experimental set up had changed.
4) The discussion section had too many subsection, indicating the points discussed in the manuscript were mostly isolated. Any mechanisms are reflexed in a systematic way, and should be discussed that way.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you for the time dedicated to evaluating our manuscript and all the suggestions and comments that certainly helped us a lot and improved our text. Below, we clarify the changes made according to the comments made.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
please open attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you for the time dedicated to evaluating our manuscript and all the suggestions and comments that certainly helped us a lot and improved our text. Below, we clarify the changes made according to the comments made.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We thank you for the time dedicated to evaluating our manuscript and all the suggestions and comments that certainly helped us a lot and improved our text. Below, we clarify the changes made according to the comments made.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors made all corrections and replied on all comments well. Therefore, I recommended publishing the manuscrpit in Agriculture MDPI.
Reviewer 3 Report
After the 1st round revision, the manuscript looks fine and can be accepted in its current form.
