A Comparative Analysis on Morphological and Physiological Characteristics between Castor Varieties (Ricinus communis L.) under Salt Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript topic is very interesting. It contains new information/novelty, as the investigation was conducted comprehensively. Good references are used. I hope the manuscript can be published after all reviewer's comments are considered and applied. Please see the attached for a detailed review of mine.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
please find my comments in attachment.
Sincerely,
the reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Detailed notes on the manuscript are as follows:
1) Ricinus communis - the entire work should be written in italics
2) I suggest moving the text lines 82-85 to chapter 2.1
3) Chapter 2.5 - Duncan's test was used, which indicates the parametric version of ANOVA - provide the information necessary to apply the parametric test (normal distribution test, homogeneity of variance - what tests were used, what was their result), how was the minimum sample size determined?
4) Chapter 2.6 - in my opinion this subsection is redundant (at the Authors' decision)
5) Fig. 1 - Fig. C-a are illegible (I suggest placing them vertically "one behind the other" and enlarging), Fig. C-d - vertical axis, product sign, superscript. Information about p <0.05 is already in the methodology.
6) Fig. 2 - magnify c and d, center, sign of the product as above
7) Fig. 3-5 - as above
8) Conclusions - Give the main results (values), clearly indicate their applicability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors' attempts to improve the manuscript in response to the reviewers' feedback. There are only a few that require revision (as attached) and little revision in English I think. Congratulation
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the article has been surely improved and I appreciated your efforts. But there are two points, in the materials and methods, that still remain unsatisfying:
- I could not find the lines where you added the sentence stating that you chose to test plantlets because you aimed to verify if Ricinus communis may tolerate salinity and develop normally despite the salinity, even in very juvenile stages
- you added a precisation about the number of biological replicates for photosynthesis and physiology parameters, but you still did not write how many individuals were tested. What is the number of plants used for every replicate? and the total number of plants analysed for every experiment? it is necessary to state it clearly, otherwise it is not possible to understand if your results are significant or not. Based on what you wrote in the materials and methods, the readers might also assume you used only one plant for each replicate
Please provide the necessary explanations for these two points.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
the reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
