Effect of Salt Treatment on the Growth, Water Status, and Gas Exchange of Pyrus pyraster L. (Burgsd.) and Tilia cordata Mill. Seedlings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your time and attention in reviewing the manuscript. We appreciate your comments and valuable suggestions which helped improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. We have taken all comments and suggestions into account within revision of the manuscript.

We followed your instruction and focused on the scientific and formal modifications of the manuscript. All changes and amendments based on reviewers' comments are given in the revised manuscript. The changes and amendments are described in red and identified by the line number in responses. In some cases we had to describe basic statistical and measurement procedures. English editing was provided by MDPI editing service at the Specialist level.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

References cited in the text should be formatted in accordance with journal requirements. 

line 48: 'The presented study evaluated the growth and responses of two species of European flora, Tilia cordata Mill. and Pyrus pyraster L. Burgsd. to substrate salinity'. in the current form, this sentence belongs to the discussion section. Please rephrase it to fit the introduction. 

I suggest reorganizing and improving the last paragraph of the introduction section as following: 

The salinity tolerance in plants varies among different species and is strongly influ enced by the environmental conditions and by the growth stage of the plant (Kordrostami and Rabiei, 2019). Woody plants are sensitive to salinity in the early seedling stage, while with increasing age they become more tolerant (Shanon et al., 1994). Therefore, in the presented study, the seedling responses to salinity were investigated. The possible interspecific differences of the studied taxa in responses to salinity are interesting, because T. cordata is often used as an alley tree in urban settlements and is considered to be tolerant to urban environment (Martynova et al., 2020), while P. pyraster like most fruit species (Kozlowski, 1997) can be sensitive to salinity, which can fundamentally affect the possibilities for its utilization in urban areas.

The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of salinity on woody plants in the seedling stage, especially how severe salinity will affect the growth, water regime and physiological performance of the young tree species. Specific goals were to find out how seedlings of T. cordata and P. pyraster cope with salinity (I) how salinity affects their growth (mass accumulation in plant organs), (II) how salinity affects their physiological performance (parameters gs, An, E, RWC, ΨWL - (III) what mechanisms these tree species apply when coping with salt stress.

 

M&M section:

Were the pants irrigated during the experiment or only saturated by NaCl solution? If irrigated, how did you prevent salt leakages? 

 

Results section:

The number of root tips seems quite large for 2-year-old seedlings. How did you determine/calculate that number?

 

Generally, there are many typos and errors in the manuscript, thus I suggest that someone who is not an author takes an extensive survey throughout the text. 

Author Response

Thank you for revision of the manuscript. The responses to the comments are explained step by step with the identification of changes in the manuscript. Within revision, the English editing was provided by MDPI editing service at Specialist level.

References cited in the text should be formatted in accordance with journal requirements. 

Response 1: Accepted, kindly see Lines: 540-675

line 48: 'The presented study evaluated the growth and responses of two species of European flora, Tilia cordata Mill. and Pyrus pyraster L. Burgsd. to substrate salinity'. in the current form, this sentence belongs to the discussion section. Please rephrase it to fit the introduction. 

Response 2: Accepted, kindly see Line: 49 „ We evaluated the growth and responses of two species of European flora, Tilia cordata Mill. and Pyrus pyraster L. Burgsd. to substrate salinity.”  

I suggest reorganizing and improving the last paragraph of the introduction section as following: 

The salinity tolerance in plants varies among different species and is strongly influenced by the environmental conditions and by the growth stage of the plant (Kordrostami and Rabiei, 2019). Woody plants are sensitive to salinity in the early seedling stage, while with increasing age they become more tolerant (Shanon et al., 1994). Therefore, in the presented study, the seedling responses to salinity were investigated. The possible interspecific differences of the studied taxa in responses to salinity are interesting, because T. cordata is often used as an alley tree in urban settlements and is considered to be tolerant to urban environment (Martynova et al., 2020), while P. pyraster like most fruit species (Kozlowski, 1997) can be sensitive to salinity, which can fundamentally affect the possibilities for its utilization in urban areas.

The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of salinity on woody plants in the seedling stage, especially how severe salinity will affect the growth, water regime and physiological performance of the young tree species. Specific goals were to find out how seedlings of T. cordata and P. pyraster cope with salinity (I) how salinity affects their growth (mass accumulation in plant organs), (II) how salinity affects their physiological performance (parameters gs, An, E, RWC, ΨWL - (III) what mechanisms these tree species apply when coping with salt stress.

Response 3: Accepted, kindly see Lines: 64-82

M&M section: Were the plants irrigated during the experiment or only saturated by NaCl solution? If irrigated, how did you prevent salt leakages?

Response 4: Accepted, kindly see Lines:  99, 104

Results section: The number of root tips seems quite large for 2-year-old seedlings. How did you determine/calculate that number?

Response 5:  The number of root tips was analysed by Win Rhizo software. For example: 1-year old sedlings of Scots pine have similar number of root tips (2000-2300).  Kindly see: DOI: 10.1023/A:1021527716616

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research evaluated the tolerance to saline of two street tree species, which is very meaningful to increase the diversification of street tree in urban areas under the conditions of using de-icing salts. And it also explored the mechanisms of the tolerances. It found that Pyrus pyraster is tolerant to  saline stress by increasing root growth to imporve water supply, exclude toxic salit ions and limiting their transfer to the leaves, thus keep balanced growth under the stress. The experiment design and prsentation of this research is good, however, there are some minor errors in punctuation and spelling. Therefore, I suggest that it could be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Thank you for revision of the manuscript. The English language and style were improved within revision at the Specialist level (provided by MDPI editing service).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has the solid basis, i.e. a well designed experiment reporting biometrical, biochemical and physiological measurements on tested plants. Numerous parameters obtained from this study and proper statistical analyses allow for the conclusions formed in the text. However, there are minor shortcomings which should be corrected.

1. The whole text requires an English proofreading, I have found at least several grammatical and stylistic mistakes, e.g. in the lines 105-106 “within THE experiment”, line 148, 240, 331, 439 and probably more.

2. Likewise, some editorial improvement is necessary in lines 340, 358, 373-374.

3. Lines 84-95: species characteristics should be described in the Introduction chapter and not repeated in M&M.

4. Line 131: the word “day of experiment” is lacking.

5. I believe that in is not necessary to provide some very detailed data, e.g. software licence number, line 196.

6. Lines 240 and 331: there is no need to begin the chapters with these first sentences, water relations and gas exchange as methods for detection of salt stress impact on plants were introduced in M&M.

7. I hope it is possible to reduce the font in the tables, because the text is unreadable as it stands.

Author Response

Thank you for revision of the manuscript and for all suggestions, which improved the quality of presentation.

 

1. The whole text requires an English proofreading, I have found at least several grammatical and stylistic mistakes, e.g. in the lines 105-106 “within THE experiment”, line 148, 240, 331, 439 and probably more.
2. Likewise, some editorial improvement is necessary in lines 340, 358, 373-374.

Response 1 and 2 : The English language and style were improved within revision at the Specialist level (provided by MDPI editing service).

1. Lines 84-95: species characteristics should be described in the Introduction chapter and not repeated in M&M.

Response 3: Accepted, kindly see Lines: 50-58

1. Line 131: the word “day of experiment” is lacking.

Response 4: Accepted and supplemented, kindly see  Line: 130

1. I believe that in is not necessary to provide some very detailed data, e.g. software licence number, line 196.

Response 5: We have kept the license number as the standard for identification.

1. Lines 240 and 331: there is no need to begin the chapters with these first sentences, water relations and gas exchange as methods for detection of salt stress impact on plants were introduced in M&M.

Response 6: The first sentences were removed.

1. I hope it is possible to reduce the font in the tables, because the text is unreadable as it stands.

Response 7: Accepted, the parameters were abbreviated and the text in the tables fits with  table size, now.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Congratulation for your work, this manuscript represents the results of a high quality research.

Please re-read all the manuscript, there are some grammatical aand linguistical errors and mis-spellings, but otherwise I accept to publish it in present form.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript, the English language and style were improved within revision at the Specialist level (provided by MDPI editing service).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No further  comments

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I am happy to see that the authors implemented all the necessary adjustments.

The paper is now acceptable for publication.