Salt Tolerance Assessment of Different Tomato Varieties at the Seedling Stage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is valuable and provides proposals for the selection of salt-tolerant genotypes considering different ways of evaluating the effects of this type of stress.

However, there are some observations that the authors should address.

It is mentioned that variance analysis was carried out, or failing that, the Kruskal Wallis test. However, all the tests are mentioned as non-parametric.

The comparison test of salts against the absence of it (without considering genotypes) should be included for all variables. This helps to verify the magnitude of the decrease in salts on the evaluated traits.

It is recommended to include as complementary material tables with the comparisons of means and the corresponding literals of all the traits evaluated for genotypes, NaCl concentration and the genotype x NaCl concentration interaction (treatments). This is because the presentation of graphs does not show the exact values of the means.

- L48. L50. write scientific names in italics throughout the entire document.

- L56. Idea is not clear: "continuous soil massive in a greenhouse".

- L72, L73, L76, L77, L78, L132, L165. Write as superscript "-" and "+".

- L95. Write the number of the cite after the year.

- L132-134. The objective before declared is not the same.

- L157. Report measurement units of the traits evaluated.

- L178, L207, L210, L205, L206, L207, L201, L212, L213, L216. Check superscripts throughout the document.

- L173. Use scientific notation in measured units (mg L^-1)

- L173. "emf" has not been defined.

- L195. References [48], [49] and [50] do not mention the methodology cited.

- Check the coincidence of all reference numbers.

- L204. Write "measured by the method of Barickman, et al. [49]" instead "measured by the method of [49]". Although this reference does not mention the methodology.

- L232, L239, L257. Indicate significant level when indicate differences between treatments; for example: (p<0.05).

 

Results

- It is not clear the factor used in the means (or ranks) comparisons. There are 3 sources of variation: genotypes, salt level and interaction. You should indicate what is the factor referred at the results and discussion.

- L230-236. It is necessary inform the statistical probe which respald this result.

- Results of the analyses of variance are not mentioned. The mean comparisons required the significance of the respective source of variation.

- It is not mentioned the analyzed traits with Kruskal-Wallis method; neither is mentioned if any variable does not have normal distribution.

- There is not mentioned the rank comparison method in the methodology.

- L263-264. Indicate the significance level (p<0.05, for example). If these differences are not significant, the affirmation is not correct.

- For declares an increase or a decrease, these should be significant (p<0.05). If this condition is not true, is not possible consider as a reduction, due to the differences are attributed to environmental variations. Consider this in the results and discussion.

- Table 1. Include the values for classification in function of shoot and root weight increase and water content of plant tissues.

- Figure 3. “Use mg g^-1” instead “mg/g”

- L311-322. Inform the table or figure in which is included the information.

- It is suggested to eliminate the dendrogram, since the consensus percentages are very low, and both number of genotypes and number of variables are very low for this type of analysis.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are very grateful for your invaluable help in checking and eliminating the shortcomings in our manuscript, we tried to eliminate all the noted shortcomings and made corrections. Detailed report in file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required, the sentence is too long to understand clearly. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are very grateful for your invaluable help in checking and eliminating the shortcomings in our manuscript, we tried to eliminate all the noted shortcomings and made corrections. Detailed report in file.

Also, We made the manuscript corrections and turned to our English-speaking colleague for corrections and changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved based on previous observations. However, there are corrections which you should be consider.

- Apparently, The R Book, reference [49], does not mention the statistical methods reported in the manuscript. 

- According with the reference [49], Jaccard similarity distance is used for binary responses: "Dice and Jaccard similarity indices are used for comparing associations limited to absence/presence data" (https://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/past.pdf). The variables of this work are not of this type. An alternative is Gower distance wich combine different metrics. 

The recomendation to delete cluster analysis remains. The method used for obtain the distance matrix is not adecuate.

Results

- The figures 1, 2, 5, show results of analyses of "increasing" of the respective variables; however, methodology indicates analysis of variables without transformations. This should be described in materials and methods.

- Figure 5. review units of the y axis.

For future works:

If the Kruskal-Wallis test is significant, the rank comparisosns are required. A correct rank comparisons method for the Kruskal-Wallis test is mentioned by Connover (1999), page 290.

Connover, W.J. 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 3a Ed. Jhon Wiley & Sons. USA.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful study of the materials and the indicated errors. We removed controversial and unreadable points. Corresponding changes have been made to the manuscript.

Reviewer: The manuscript has been improved based on previous observations. However, there are corrections which you should be consider.
- Apparently, The R Book, reference [49], does not mention the statistical methods reported in the manuscript.
- According to the reference [49], Jaccard similarity distance is used for binary responses: "Dice and Jaccard similarity indices are used for comparing associations limited to absence/presence data" (https://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past /past.pdf). The variables of this work are not of this type. An alternative is Gower distance wich combine different metrics.
The recommendation to delete cluster analysis remains. The method used to obtain the distance matrix is not adecuate.
Answer: Dear reviewer, according to your recommendations, cluster analysis was removed. Description 263-273 has been added instead. Another reference has been added to Materials and Methods accordingly.

Reviewer: Results - The figures 1, 2, 5, show results of analyzes of "increasing" of the respective variables; however, methodology indicates analysis of variables without transformations. This should be described in materials and methods.
Answer: dear reviewer, to analyze biomass, water content, accumulation of easily soluble salts, sodium ions and chlorine in the plant tissues of various tomato genotypes, differing in salt tolerance, we used the difference between the average value of the indicator in the control variant and the average value of the experimental variant. The corresponding lines 250-260 have been added to the methodology.

Reviewer: - Figure 5 review units of the y axis.
Answer: Dear reviewer, the area of stomatal cells was measured in µm2. The corresponding lines 212-213 have been added to the methodology.

Reviewer: For future works:
If the Kruskal-Wallis test is significant, a rank comparison must be performed. The correct rank comparison method for the Kruskal-Wallis test is mentioned by Conover (1999), page 290. Conover, W.J., 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 3a Ed. John Wiley and Sons. USA.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you, we will definitely carefully study your recommendation to avoid mistakes and take it into account in further research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your careful detailed analysis of our manuscript and your valuable comments and advice. We have tried to find any errors you found and make clarifications and adjustments. We hope that our edits have improved the manuscript. Detailed answer in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- L17. There is a mistake

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Congratulations to the authors. My confusions were resolved this time after the reversion, including the complex analysis, error bar problem of Figures, citation format and so on. While, I still recommend a minor revision about the Figures such as the font and size of legend, it can be unified with main body of the manuscript. It would be better if the figure resolution can be improved.

Cheers!

Juan

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your attentive attitude and useful advice. We made corrections to the figures in the Supplementary Materials and unified them with the main text of the manuscript.