Genotypic Variability in Wheat Response to Sodicity: Evaluating Growth and Ion Accumulation in the Root and Shoot
, Yash P. Dang 1, Neal W. Menzies 1 and Peter M. Kopittke 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript examined the salt tolerance and physiological differences in salt adaptation mechanisms of four wheat genotypes using nutrient solutions, and concluded that the accumulation level of calcium in the roots reflects their salt tolerance. The overall design of the article is reasonable, the analysis is accurate, and the writing is fluent. However, the article did not conduct field experiments, so it cannot be guaranteed that the conclusions of the manuscript will be applicable to the results of the field environment. Therefore, it is recommended to fully compare the results of this experiment with the field results of others in the discussion, and not use the content that has not been tested with oneself as one's own conclusion.
Title
It is recommended to redefine the title based solely on the experimental content of this manuscript.
Abstract
Please supplement the test method. It is recommended to remove the content and conclusions that were not tested in this manuscript.
Introduction
Line 52: the Latin name of wheat is not consistent with the format of other plants. It is recommended to unify and check the entire text.
Materials and Methods
Line 99: specific time for the start of the supplementary experiment.
Add the specific size of the cup in 2.2.
In the experiment, 10 seeds per cup were used to calculate the emergence? Is 10 seeds sufficient?
It is recommended to supplement the model and origin of the instruments and equipment used in the experiment.
Results
Suggest modifying the subheadings of 3.1 and 3.2. Subtitles are generally not test results, but rather test content.
It is recommended to unify the number of decimal places for the vertical coordinates of the figures in the manuscript, as shown in Figure 2.
Lines 240 and 248 suggest not citing literature or expressing similar conclusions in the results and analysis.
At line 268, change K: Na to K: Na ratio.
Suggest removing 3.6 and placing it in the discussion.
Discussion
Line 353, is K: Na the K: Na ratio?
Is the format of Dang, Christopher, and Dalal [17] cited in the literature correct? Please check.
References
Lack of literature from the past 5 years, it is recommended to supplement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some minor language editing is necessary to improve the clarity of the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI noticed an improvement in the manuscript's Title, Materials and Methods, and Results sections.
I recommend using self-explanatory figures and tables.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI recommend reviewing the manuscript for English quality due to minor errors (ex. Line 150).
Author Response
Response to comments
Thank you for your time and collaboration in enhancing this manuscript. Enclosed below are the detailed responses, along with the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted or tracked in the resubmitted files.
We have reduced the self-citation and replaced them with other/new references. We acknowledge the feedback from the reviewer and have revised all figures and tables. Detailed captions have been included to thoroughly explain the contents of the tables and figures.
The manuscript has undergone meticulous language and grammar revisions by an expert to enhance the quality of English. Minor errors have been rectified, and sentences have been rewritten in detail, aiming to improve clarity while effectively delivering the key message to the reader.
Kind Regards,
Monia Anzooman
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
