Seeds Priming with Melatonin Improves Root Hydraulic Conductivity of Wheat Varieties under Drought, Salinity, and Combined Stress

Response to Reviewer 1Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

 Must be improved 

 Revisions

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes 

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes 

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved 

Revisions

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved 

Revisions

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: In abstract section lines 14-16: These lines must be revised as they are not given any clear message. 

Lines 25-25: The present study suggested that melatonin-seed priming was a strategy as regards the enhancement of root hydraulic conductivity under PEG, NaCl, and PEG＋NaCl stress, leading to efficiently improve wheat resistant to drought-salinity stress.

The quality of the English language in these lines is very poor and it is misleading the reader. Therefore, authors must revise these lines to give a clear message to readers. 

Response 1:  Thanks for pointing out the terrific and very important question.

We had made corresponding revisions in the manuscript (Line #15-18; Line #29-31).

Comments 2: The abstract section is very poorly written in a very descriptive form, and it can be enriched by adding some numerical values of study findings.

Response 2: We highly appreciate the illuminating and valuable comment and suggestions given by the reviewer, which has helped us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Accordingly, we have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript (Line #22-27).

Comments 3:The keywords are just the repetition of the title and they must be changed and should be different from the title.

Response 3:Thanks.

We had amended the part accordingly (Line #32).

Comments 4:The first sentence of the introduction: (Drought and salinity stress are two major causes for limited cereal crops development, growth, and quality from seed germination to harvest in many regions of world, especially for wheat cultivation (Alam et al., 2022; Isayenkov, 2019; Wang et al., 2018). The quality English language is quite awkward here, therefore, I suggest the authors revise these sentences.

Response4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the important point.  

We have revised the sentence in the part accordingly(Lines #35-38).

Comments 5:The introduction section should be written in state-of-the-art form, and there is a dire need to improve the readability of the text from the abstract to the way conclusion.

Introduction should be divided into different parts: 1) problem statement, 2) effects of drought on plants, 3) effects of salinity on plants, 4) combined effects of drought and salinity on plants, 5) effect of melatonin on plants under drought and salinity and how melatonin can mitigate drought and salinity toxicity, 6) importance of wheat, 7) clear hypothesis, and objectives. 

Response 5:We thank the reviewer for pointing out the important point and giving the good suggestion. 

We had adjusted the structure of ‘Introduction’ in our manuscript (Line #35-137).

Comments 6:The varieties [(Heng4399 (H4399), Yannong1212 (Y1212), and Xinmai19(X19)] were drought and salt tolerant or sensitive? 

Response 6: Thanks.

Heng4399 (H4399) was resistance to drought and salt stress. Yannong1212 (Y1212) was moderately resistance to drought stress and sensitive to salt stress while Xinmai19 (X19) was sensitive to drought and salt stress. Accordingly, we have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript (Line #131-133).

Comments 7: Line 137: The seedlings were hydroponic with Hoagland solution???

Response 7: Thanks.

We have made revisions in the corresponding places of the manuscript (Line #148).

Comments 8: Detailed information should be provided on the detection of the physiological index in the revised version. 

The statistical section should be self-explanatory. How data was analyzed? And how means were separated?

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for giving the good suggestion.

We have gladly accepted the suggestion and revised the according manuscript (Line # 157-162;Line # 206-222).

Comments 9:  Please avoid stating results from Figure 1, relative to CK, most of PEG, NaCl, and PEG＋NaCl stresses obviously. 

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion.

We have gladly accepted the suggestion and rechecked this point carefully throughout the manuscript. Accordingly, we have deleted these and revised corresponding manuscript (Line#240;Line#260 ).

Comments 10: The results section is very long and contains much unnecessary information, therefore, authors must revise this section and try to be precise and concise in this section.

The title of section 4.1 (seed-priming using melatonin improving root hydraulic conductivity) should be revised.

Response 10: Thanks. 

We have deleted the corresponding results and revised the discussion in the manuscript (Line #239-648；Line #656 ).

Comments 11: The discussion section must be carefully revised it is full of study results which are not needed here. 

I have a serious concern on the discussion section, it should be enriched with logical reasoning and supported with study findings rather than general statements. 

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for the important comment. 

We have revised the corresponding discussion in the manuscript (Line #655-768).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: There are also some mistakes in English grammar, syntax, and punctuation that distract the readers. Please carefully review your manuscript before re-submission for the quality of English.

Response 1:  Thanks.  

We had reviewed the proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style of the entire manuscript to give a clear message to readers.   

Response to Reviewer 1Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

 Must be improved 

 Revisions

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes 

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes 

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved 

Revisions

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved 

Revisions

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: In abstract section lines 14-16: These lines must be revised as they are not given any clear message. 

Lines 25-25: The present study suggested that melatonin-seed priming was a strategy as regards the enhancement of root hydraulic conductivity under PEG, NaCl, and PEG＋NaCl stress, leading to efficiently improve wheat resistant to drought-salinity stress.

The quality of the English language in these lines is very poor and it is misleading the reader. Therefore, authors must revise these lines to give a clear message to readers. 

Response 1:  Thanks for pointing out the terrific and very important question.

We had made corresponding revisions in the manuscript (Line #15-18; Line #29-31).

Comments 2: The abstract section is very poorly written in a very descriptive form, and it can be enriched by adding some numerical values of study findings.

Response 2: We highly appreciate the illuminating and valuable comment and suggestions given by the reviewer, which has helped us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Accordingly, we have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript (Line #22-27).

Comments 3:The keywords are just the repetition of the title and they must be changed and should be different from the title.

Response 3:Thanks.

We had amended the part accordingly (Line #32).

Comments 4:The first sentence of the introduction: (Drought and salinity stress are two major causes for limited cereal crops development, growth, and quality from seed germination to harvest in many regions of world, especially for wheat cultivation (Alam et al., 2022; Isayenkov, 2019; Wang et al., 2018). The quality English language is quite awkward here, therefore, I suggest the authors revise these sentences.

Response4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the important point.  

We have revised the sentence in the part accordingly(Lines #35-38).

Comments 5:The introduction section should be written in state-of-the-art form, and there is a dire need to improve the readability of the text from the abstract to the way conclusion.

Introduction should be divided into different parts: 1) problem statement, 2) effects of drought on plants, 3) effects of salinity on plants, 4) combined effects of drought and salinity on plants, 5) effect of melatonin on plants under drought and salinity and how melatonin can mitigate drought and salinity toxicity, 6) importance of wheat, 7) clear hypothesis, and objectives. 

Response 5:We thank the reviewer for pointing out the important point and giving the good suggestion. 

We had adjusted the structure of ‘Introduction’ in our manuscript (Line #35-137).

Comments 6:The varieties [(Heng4399 (H4399), Yannong1212 (Y1212), and Xinmai19(X19)] were drought and salt tolerant or sensitive? 

Response 6: Thanks.

Heng4399 (H4399) was resistance to drought and salt stress. Yannong1212 (Y1212) was moderately resistance to drought stress and sensitive to salt stress while Xinmai19 (X19) was sensitive to drought and salt stress. Accordingly, we have made corresponding revisions in the manuscript (Line #131-133).

Comments 7: Line 137: The seedlings were hydroponic with Hoagland solution???

Response 7: Thanks.

We have made revisions in the corresponding places of the manuscript (Line #148).

Comments 8: Detailed information should be provided on the detection of the physiological index in the revised version. 

The statistical section should be self-explanatory. How data was analyzed? And how means were separated?

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for giving the good suggestion.

We have gladly accepted the suggestion and revised the according manuscript (Line # 157-162;Line # 206-222).

Comments 9:  Please avoid stating results from Figure 1, relative to CK, most of PEG, NaCl, and PEG＋NaCl stresses obviously. 

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion.

We have gladly accepted the suggestion and rechecked this point carefully throughout the manuscript. Accordingly, we have deleted these and revised corresponding manuscript (Line#240;Line#260 ).

Comments 10: The results section is very long and contains much unnecessary information, therefore, authors must revise this section and try to be precise and concise in this section.

The title of section 4.1 (seed-priming using melatonin improving root hydraulic conductivity) should be revised.

Response 10: Thanks. 

We have deleted the corresponding results and revised the discussion in the manuscript (Line #239-648；Line #656 ).

Comments 11: The discussion section must be carefully revised it is full of study results which are not needed here. 

I have a serious concern on the discussion section, it should be enriched with logical reasoning and supported with study findings rather than general statements. 

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for the important comment. 

We have revised the corresponding discussion in the manuscript (Line #655-768).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: There are also some mistakes in English grammar, syntax, and punctuation that distract the readers. Please carefully review your manuscript before re-submission for the quality of English.

Response 1:  Thanks.  

We had reviewed the proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style of the entire manuscript to give a clear message to readers.   

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes 

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes 

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes 

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes 

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes 

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Lines 173 – 175: these statements are confucng. Please, change the order.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We had revised these statements (Line #173-176).

Comments 2: Lin 612: “Under NaCl stress, there was no different among three priming treatments in the content of H4399 by comparison.” ¿??

Response 2: Thanks for pointing out the terrific and very important question. 

Agree. We had revised it in the corresponding manuscript (Line #355).  

Comments 3:Table 1: please, clarify units.

Response 3: Agree. We had, accordingly, modified the units with ‘U mg^-1 prot^-1 DW’ and ‘μmol^-1min^-1 mg^-1 prot^-1 DW’ in the corresponding manuscript (Line #445).

Comments 4: Lines 1094 – 1098: it is rather viceversa, indeed. Higher stress tolerance may be results of specific epigenetics etc.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the important point and giving the good suggestion. We had revised the corresponding places in the manuscript (Line #761).