Effects of Supplemental Potassium on the Growth, Photosynthetic Characteristics, and Ion Content of Zoysia matrella under Salt Stress

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of supplemental potassium on the growth, photosyn-thetic characteristics and ion content of Zoysia matrella under salt stress”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. If the modification does not meet your requirements, please give us another chance.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of potassium fertilizer on salt tolerance of Zoysia matrella under salt stress. The design step is to explore the mechanism of increasing potassium fertilizer to improve the salt tolerance of plants based on phenotype observation, photosynthetic data, ion content and ion secretion.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

The method design in the paper has been improved and referenced, as shown in lines 149-155 of the manuscript.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors should improve the significance of this research. It isn't easy to see its importance. How important is your work when you didn’t see many significant differences in the treated and not treated plants?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have already made some adjustments. The significance of the study is further elaborated in the introduction, as shown in lines 94-103 of the manuscript. There was no significant difference in some of the data measured according to the experimental facts, but the overall data showed a downward trend under the salt treatment compared with the control. Under salt treatment, the experimental data showed an increasing trend when potassium fertilizer was added. This provides a reference for further experimental study of salt tolerance.

Comments 2: In methodology, English changes to a commanding style, which is not accepted in scientific publications. Typically, we use passive voice. Who’s methodology is followed to determine chlorophyll?

Response 2: Agree. We have changed according to your suggestions to emphasize this point.

Lines 106-113 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 109-111 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 125 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 135-139 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 170-176 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Chlorophyll was determined by Lichtenthaler et al. (1983), as detailed in line 149 of the manuscript.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English is well understood in most of the manuscript, except in the methodology. In methodology, English changes to a commanding style, which is not accepted in scientific publications. Typically, we use passive voice.

Response 1: Agree. We have changed according to your suggestions to emphasize this point.

Lines 106-113 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 109-111 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 125 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 135-139 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

Lines 170-176 of the manuscript were corrected for the passive voice.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of supplemental potassium on the growth, photosyn-thetic characteristics and ion content of Zoysia matrella under salt stress”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. If the modification does not meet your requirements, please give us another chance.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Regarding the insufficient research background you pointed out, we have made relevant adjustments, as detailed in lines 77-81 of the manuscript.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

As for the results and conclusions you pointed out, we have made processing adjustments to meet the requirements of lines 408-422 of the manuscript

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors studied the effects of potassium supplementation on growth, photosynthetic properties and ion content in Zoysia matrella under salt stress conditions. The positive effect of potassium in alleviating the effects of salinity in plants is already known and this work confirms it. The paper lacks a clearly defined problem. What is the new knowledge? Conclusions need to be more scientific and responsive to the hypotheses posed. Why are there no photographs of the three series of tests? The authors should subject the results to a more rigorous satistical method.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have we have already made some adjustments.1) As for the new knowledge, we have made changes in the introduction, which are detailed in lines 94-103 of the manuscript.2) We have made some adjustments to the conclusion of the article, as detailed in lines 408-422 of the manuscript.3) Because the photos we took during the experiment only provide an observation of the experimental effect. Therefore, we provide the photos we took during the trial in the form of accompanying images. Increase in the appended drawings can be found in the manuscript lines 592-593.4) A more complete method was adopted for data analysis, as shown in lines 170-176 of the manuscript.

Comments 2: Plant names should be standardised. Classifiers should only be given once per name the first time. Authors should consistently use one name either English or Latin. Why is the word Cup with a capital letter in Figure 1 and what is the word for, what do the abbreviations in Figure 2 mean? What is Ca?, Cb?, CX-C? etc. (Lines 135-136) What does pigment content(D) mean to the author? (Figure 2).

Response 2: Agree. We have changed according to your suggestions to emphasize this point.

1) The Cup in Figure 1 refers to the plastic cup with a diameter of 6.5cm for which we processed the material. Now the unit of data in Figure 1 has been changed to unit area, as shown in lines 195-196 of the manuscript.2) We have changed the abbreviation problem in Figure 2, which is consistent with the article, as detailed in lines 151-155 and 229-233.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of supplemental potassium on the growth, photosyn-thetic characteristics and ion content of Zoysia matrella under salt stress”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. If the modification does not meet your requirements, please give us another chance.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of potassium fertilizer on salt tolerance of Zoysia matrella under salt stress. The design step is to explore the mechanism of increasing potassium fertilizer to improve the salt tolerance of plants based on phenotype observation, photosynthetic data, ion content and ion secretion.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

The method design in the paper has been improved and referenced, as shown in lines 149-155 of the manuscript.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

In response to your question about the presentation of the results, we have fine-tuned the drawings in the manuscript in order to present the results more clearly.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

As for the results and conclusions you pointed out, we have made processing adjustments to meet the requirements of lines 408-422 of the manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Dear authors, the work is well-researched and well-written. However, there are some vital points which need to be addressed before recommending for acceptance:

Please represent your data in line graph format. This will help the readers to well understand the changes

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. However, when we presented the results through the line graph, we found that the graph would be

somewhat chaotic, which may be the reason for more experimental processing. Therefore, in order to make the graph more concise, we choose a bar graph to represent it.

Comments 2: Please provide pictures of the plants before and after treatment. Phenotypic assessment is very important for these types of studies.

Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We agree with you. Because the photos we took during the experiment only provide an observation of the experimental effect. Therefore, we provide the photos we took during the trial in the form of accompanying images. Increase in the appended drawings can be found in the manuscript lines 592-593.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

5. Additional clarifications