The Impact of Greenhouse and Field Growth Conditions on Chenopodium quinoa Willd Accessions’ Response to Salt Stress: A Comparative Approach
, Nour El Houda Boughattas 6, Vincenzo De Feo 7,* and Mejdi Snoussi 8,9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The paper ‘Greenhouse and Field Growth Conditions Impact on Chenopodium quinoa Accessions Response to Salt Stress: A Comparative Approach’ researched that three quinoa resources were subjected to salt stress under greenhouse cultivation and field experiment, and the difference in salt tolerance of quinoa was evaluated by measuring phenotype and physiological indexes. This paper has certain significance for the utilization of salt-tolerant quinoa resources. But there are still some problems with the paper.
Point 1: The quality of the pictures in the paper is not high.
Response 1: the quality of the pictures was improved.
Point 2: Abstract The summary of the salt tolerance of the three quinoa resources in the abstract was not accurate enough.
Response 2: accuracy requested was added in the abstract.
Point 3: The conclusion pointed out that DE-1 had the strongest salt tolerance, but the description of each index of DE-1 was not clear enough in the results.
Response 3: description of each index of DE-1 is well presented in results.
-Morphological parameters: DE-1 exhibeted the lowest percentatge in areal part length and leaf area (Figure 2).
-Physiological parametres: DE-1 exhibeted a less pronounced inhibition, with maximum reductions of 38 % for dry matter and 22 % for water content. Similarly, under field conditions, DE-1 accession consistently displays higher dry matter and water content values compared to other accessions (Figure 3)
-Photosynthetic parameters: DE-1 accession exhibited the highest values and the lowest percentage inhibitions in two conditions (Table 4).
-Biochimical parametres: DE-1 accession accumulated the highest osmolytes concentrations in both conditions (Figure 4 A and B).
-Enzymatic parametres: The DE-1 accession displayed the lowest levels of MDA and H2O2, along with the lowest stimulation percentages, indicating its greater ability to mitigate the impact of salinity-induced oxidative stress.
Point 4: Materials and methods The overall description of this part is not clear enough.
Responses 4:
-Line 103-108: Not clear about the treatment of plant materials.
- Accuracy requested was added in the materials and methods section.
How long after seeding is stressed?
- NaCl treatment was applicated at branching stage (45 days from seedling). This information was added to the 2.2 section.
- What are the environmental conditions in which the plants grow?
- Climatic conditions of the experiment were added in table 3.
-Line 106: Why choose 50 mM NaCl as the control, instead of 0 mM NaCl?
- The quinoa plants were watered with borehole water containing approximately 50 mM NaCl, which is considered as control.
- Line 115-118: should be at the end of 'Materials and methods' part.
- This section (statistical analysis) was transferred to the end of 'Materials and methods' part.
The setences in Line 131-132 and line 133-134 need to be rewritten.
- This remark was taken into consideration.
Point 5: Results Line 177-180: DE-1 exhibited higher sensitivity?
The results showed that DE-1 displayed higher salt tolerance, rather than more susceptible.
Responses 5:
Yes it was rectfied.
Line 192: should be 3.2
Ok it was done.
Line 216: should be 3.3
Ok it was done.
Line 247: should be 3.4
Ok it was done.
Line 309: should be 3.5
Ok it was done.
Figure 2: some y axix legends are missing.
Yes it was rectfied.
Line 239-240: traitment >> treatment.
It was rectfied.
Line 273-299: The content is too confusing to understand.
This paragraph briefly outlines the percentage of stimulation observed in MDA and H2O2 content due to salt stress across studied quinoa accessions. These findings are subsequently analyzed and explained upon in the "discussion" section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear
Editor I have included some comments that should be accepted by the authors.
the methodology of the work should be improved by explaining it in a better way.
the results should include a climatic and microclimatic component, allowing these aspects with the morphological and physiological results of the study. Finally, the conclusion of the work should be improved by including recommendations for future studies.
otherwise it is a good work that once these details are included could be published in the journal.
greetings
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: the methodology of the work should be improved by explaining it in a better way.
Response 1: An improvement of the methodology explaination has been made.
Point 2: the results should include a climatic and microclimatic component, allowing these aspects with the morphological and physiological results of the study.
Response 2: Climatic conditions of the experiment were added in table 3.
Point 3: Finally, the conclusion of the work should be improved by including recommendations for future studies.
Response 3: Conclusion has been improved by including recommendations for future studies.
Comments indicated in peer_review_31317202_v2 :
Point 1: recommendations for future work
-It was inserted in the abstract.
Point 2: key words
-It were improved.
Point 3: Please include photographic details and diagrams of the open field and greenhouse setups, as well as plant growth
-A figure 1 has been made and insered in “material and methodes”section.
Point 4: It is necessary to include details of the climatic behavior in the open field and the microclimatic behavior in the greenhouse during the experimental period.
-A table 3 presented the experimental climatic conditions has been insered in “material and methodes”section.
Point 5: how the results of this study can be used in future research work
- Conclusion has been improved by including recommendations for future studies.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with an interesting subject to Agronomy. However, there are some aspects in the ms that require improvement and clarification, namely in material and methods and in results sections. Moreover, the English should be revised in order to make the manuscript more readable and fluent.
Specific points:
1. Authors should provide more information about the experiment, including experimental design, environmental conditions (PPFD, air temperature, relative humidity), how NaCl concentrations were applied and the respective timing, plots dimension, seeding density, fertilization, irrigation, etc.
2. What type of analysis of variance was performed? In addition, authors should use a more robust mean comparison test than Duncan test.
3. Lines 124-125: stomatal conductance instead of stomatic; evapotranspiration? Really?
4. More information should be provided in 2.4.2 section. As in 2.4.4 section...
5. Table 4: the values of photosynthesis and transpiration rates and stomatal conductance are unrealistic. Serious problems with calculations? Authors should compare their data with published values...
6. The discussion section should go deeper, namely related with leaf gas exchange variables.
English should be revised in order to make the manuscript more readable and fluent.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The manuscript deals with an interesting subject to Agronomy. However, there are some aspects in the ms that require improvement and clarification, namely in material and methods and in results sections. Moreover, the English should be revised in order to make the manuscript more readable and fluent.
Point 1: Authors should provide more information about the experiment, including experimental design, environmental conditions (PPFD, air temperature, relative humidity), how NaCl concentrations were applied and the respective timing, plots dimension, seeding density, fertilization, irrigation, etc.
Response 1: All these comments have been incorporated into the "Materials and Methods" section. Regarding fertilization, no fertilization was conducted.
Point 2: What type of analysis of variance was performed? In addition, authors should use a more robust mean comparison test than Duncan test.
Response 2: variance analysis conducted is ANOVA one way. The comparison of means was carried out using the Duncan test, a post hoc analysis method used to identify significant differences between multiple groups in an experiment. This test helps determine which specific groups have significantly different means from each other after an initial analysis of variance (ANOVA) has shown significant differences among groups. The Duncan test provides a clear way to rank and separate these groups based on their means, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the data and the relationships between various groups.
Point 3: Lines 124-125: stomatal conductance instead of stomatic; evapotranspiration? Really?
Response 3: It was a mistake made concerning “stomatic” it was rectified and changed by “stomatal”. Regarding photosynthetic parameters, we assessed a different attribute: the photosynthetic activity, stomatal conductance, and evapotranspiration of fully-grown leaves.
Point 4: More information should be provided in 2.4.2 section. As in 2.4.4 section...
Response 4: In this section “plant physiological attributes” we used CI.340 photosynthesis device to measure the different photosynthetic parameters and a precision scale to determine dry and fresh matter.
Point 5: Table 4: the values of photosynthesis and transpiration rates and stomatal conductance are unrealistic. Serious problems with calculations? Authors should compare their data with published values...
Response 5: Different photosynthetic parameters were measured with CI.340 photosynthesis device. We are confident in the accuracy of our calculations, and any potential errors would likely affect all measurements uniformly. Additionally, it is important to note that variations in values can be found in published literature, where estimates may be higher or less to our own (Zlatve and Yordanov 2004, Chaves et al. 2009, Koichi et al 2005, Bascuñán-Godoy et al 2018, Mengesha et al 2019…).
Point 6: The discussion section should go deeper, namely related with leaf gas exchange variables.
Response 6: This section was improved.
Point 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response 7: English has been revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor the authors included the suggestions therefore the document can be accepted.
