Effects of Salinity on the Macro- and Micronutrient Contents of a Halophytic Plant Species (Portulaca oleracea L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The matter of the manuscript ‘Effects of salinity on the macro- and micronutrient contents of a halophytic plant species (Portulaca oleracea L.)’ is noteworthy and fits into the scope of the Land journal. The results presented are appropriate and thought-provoking, which, in general, deserves publication. The experimental procedure and analysis are mostly correct. However, the current version of the manuscript requires revisions and additions. I would like to point out at the issues I am concerned about.

1. The research is conducted thoroughly and provides the data on nutrient uptake in leaves and soil affected by salinity stress. I see this as a logical and essential coupling of the studied media. However, I am not sure that it is possible to conduct a sound investigation basing on 8 test pots (l. 113-125). Any statistical processing of the obtained figures is obviously impossible because of the insufficient number of specimens (however, the authors completed ANOVA procedure). Please comment this.
2. Let’s review the conclusion (l. 369-373): ‘The results revealed that although there was significant variation in the measured parameters among all the treatments, P. oleracea is generally a highly salt-tolerant crop plant capable of producing a satisfactory amount of dry matter content, which is a desirable characteristic for any salt-tolerant plant species. In conclusion, our results indicated that P. oleracea is able to grow in high-salinity soil.’ – that is the general knowledge that cannot be presented as a research finding. Please let us see some deeper insights from your experiment.

 

I honestly hope you will find my suggestions supportive and wish you good luck with the paper.

Kind regards,

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Review Report Form (Rev 1)

The matter of the manuscript ‘Effects of salinity on the macro- and micronutrient contents of a halophytic plant species (Portulaca oleracea L.)’ is noteworthy and fits into the scope of the Land journal. The results presented are appropriate and thought-provoking, which, in general, deserves publication. The experimental procedure and analysis are mostly correct. However, the current version of the manuscript requires revisions and additions. I would like to point out at the issues I am concerned about.

1. The research is conducted thoroughly and provides the data on nutrient uptake in leaves and soil affected by salinity stress. I see this as a logical and essential coupling of the studied media. However, I am not sure that it is possible to conduct a sound investigation basing on 8 test pots (l. 113-125). Any statistical processing of the obtained figures is obviously impossible because of the insufficient number of specimens (however, the authors completed ANOVA procedure). Please comment this.

Thank you so much for reading the full research paper and leaving your positive feedback.

Of course, I agree with you, in the based on lines 113-114, we can say that the study consisted of 4 treatments, each of which consisted of 4 repetitions, while it was seen that there were 16.

1. Let’s review the conclusion (l. 369-373): ‘The results revealed that although there was significant variation in the measured parameters among all the treatments, P. oleracea is generally a highly salt-tolerant crop plant capable of producing a satisfactory amount of dry matter content, which is a desirable characteristic for any salt-tolerant plant species. In conclusion, our results indicated that P. oleracea is able to grow in high-salinity soil.’ – that is the general knowledge that cannot be presented as a research finding. Please let us see some deeper insights from your experiment.

As a result, the salinity effects on the macro- and micronutrient in leaves and soil contents, yields and quality of the plant species. The obtained results (from the beginning and end of both experiments) showed that the pH of the drainage water slightly increased in all the treatments and that the difference in the electrical conductivity between the first experiment and the second experiment was significant. The results showed that the pH of the drainage water slightly increased in all the treatments, and the difference between the electrical conductivity in the first experiment and in the second experiment was not significant. The root length of the plants in the first experimental study showed low variation among the treatments. Salinity had a significant effect on the root length of the plants in treatments of the second experiment. The high-salinity treatments significantly affected on the macro- and micronutrients in the soil. The low concentrations of the macronutrients showed no variation between the soil treatments. The values of the total fresh weight and dry weight of the plant species were significantly different among treatments in the first experiment. Significant high variation in fresh weight was observed among the treatments in the second experimental study. The highest fresh weight was recorded in the high-salinity soil in treatment T3, and the lowest was found in the control treatment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 40: Please correct English.

The objectives of this research are missing in the introduction. It is mentioned that a lot of work has been done on this plant before; therefore, what is the significance of this work?

What is the scientific difference between experiments 1 and 2? How they affect the findings. IN the discussion, only experiment 2 is discussed. Please explain.

The introduction section needs re-arrangement. We should start from the global salinity situation and then discuss local issues. Currently, it is written otherwise.

We got results of the micro and macronutrient in the drainage water, but no information about the presence of these nutrients in the water used for irrigation (only EC is given). It will be good to know how much increase or decrease have happened in the drainage water after the experiment.

In Tables 4 and 5, how the yields were calculated for Kg/ha from g/plant. Because simple extrapolation can be seriously misleading, please explain. Would it not be good just to present these yields in g/plant?

The results presented in table 5 are confusing. If the fresh and dry yields (g/plant) are increasing with salt concentration, then yields (kg/ha) do not follow a similar trend? Needs explanation.  

Table 5 need to be explained better. For example, it is written that the maximum yield was obtained in T3 as 10012 kg/ha. It is fresh weight yield. Please revisit.

In the discussion, we have discussed germination rate, growth, and other parameters as affected by salt stress. However, no results are presented on these parameters from this study.

In the discussion section, the results of experiment 2 are briefly discussed. However, not much is discussed about experiment 2. This section needs further strengthening.

In the conclusions, it is mentioned that the results show that this plant is Halophyte. Was this the only objective of this study? Please elaborate.

The situation in the field is entirely different from the greenhouse experiment. Please explain how these results will be applicable under field conditions, especially when there are no drainage systems present.

Author Response

Response in  the file .doc

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The original article "Effects of salinity on the macro- and micronutrient contents of a halophytic plant species (Portulaca oleracea L.)" might deserve publication after some revisions and suggestions as reported below:

1. Lines 71-74: this concept might seem like a repetition of what has already been said
2. Line 76: remove… “(Wang et al. 2013)”.
3. Lines 99-100: in my opinion authors can avoid rewriting… ”(from January-March 2016)”… it's already written above.
4. Line 113: I would avoid writing "0 mM NaCl" but only control without added salts also because using tap water it is not quite correct to say that the NaCl concentration is 0 mM
5. Why were the analyses performed every five days in the first experiment and every seven days in the second? Does this depend on the germination time? Or is there another reason?
6. In paragraph 2.1.3: explain better the methods used also in summary. For example: dry digestion method; ICP-AES; titration with silver nitrate according to Piper; Kjeldahl method. How were the samples extracted before analysis?
7. Lines 141-145: I would move this to the beginning of paragraph 2.1.3
8. Legend Table 1-2-3-4-5: explain what the letters "a, b, ab, c, d" mean
9. Lines 176-178, paragraph 3.1.2: there could be an error that contradicts the sentence of the previous paragraph (line 149-155). Line 176 the authors write drainage water, is it correct or does it refer to soil analyses?
10. Figure 1-2-3-4: Explain better to which experiment the individual graphs (a-b-c-d) refer, both in the image and in the legend. I do not see the statistical errors relating to the measurements in the graphs. Was only one sample measured or does the data in the graphs refer to average values? Therefore if necessary add errors to all graphs and improve the graphs.
11. References: check that references are written correctly. For example: in reference 35 names and surnames were reversed. Also, I would suggest adding the doi to all references.

Finally, I would suggest to double check that all the formatting of the article conforms to the formatting of the journal.

 

Author Response

Response in the file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is changed but still needs a little more work. For example, lines 40-43 should come at the end describing the objectives of this study. 

Explanations given in response to comments should also reflect in the paper.

The procedure of calculating yield in kg/ha is very weak. Often this extrapolation ends up in huge difference. Therefore I would suggest keeping yields in g/plant.

Some sentences need revision as they look incomplete.

Formating is needed as some font differences are observed.

Author Response

Response in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the paper original "Effects of salinity on macro and micronutrient content of a plant species alofitica (Portulaca oleracea L.)" have fully responded to some comments and suggestions highlighted in the first review. However, some things are still not very clear to me:

I had suggested to insert in the caption of Figures 1-2-3-4 what a-b-c-d means because it was not clear from the images. Also, I asked if it was necessary to insert the statistical error to the data but the authors did not answer, so I would like to know if they are average data or single measures.

Another suggestion: Lines 152-156 "After the end of the experimental studies, four plants from each treatment were collected, washed with distilled water for a few minutes and wiped with paper; then, the fresh weight (FW) of these plants was measured. The fresh samples were dried in a forced draft oven at 65 ° C for 72 h before measuring their dry weight (DW), after which the plant materials were collected for chemical analyzes. " it must be eliminated because it is moved to Lines 127-131.

Finally one last suggestion: The reference “35” is wrong "William, R.; Mindak, S.; Dolan, P. 4.4. Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometric Determination of Elements in Food Using Microwave Assisted Digestion. Elemental Analysis Manual for Food and Related Products. 2010, pp . 3-14. "The surname of the first author is Mindak, so please correct. Regarding the insertion of doi is at your discretion.

Author Response

Response in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf