Genetic Variation in Responses to Salt Stress in Tunisian Populations of Medicago ciliaris

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented study expands knowleges of salt tolerance and morphological responces of Tunisian populations of Medicago ciliaris. The findings are well represented  and have practical significance.

The paper needs to make some minor correction to the text (for example, in Line 33 - use Soil instead of Sol; Lines 64, 156 - use M. ciliaris instead of Medicago ciliaris; Lines 106, 108 - 100mM spaces are missed).

Author Response

Question 1: Line 33 - use Soil instead of Sol.

Response 1: We replaced the word "Sol" by "Soil".

Question 2: Lines 64, 156 - use M. ciliaris instead of Medicago ciliaris.

Response 2: We replaced "Medicago ciliaris" with "M. ciliaris".

Question 3: Lines 106, 108 - 100mM spaces are missed.

Response 3: We added spaces between "100" and "mM".

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors showed that the variation of the traits in Tunisian natural populations of M. ciliaris is mainly explained by the treatment factor. Most traits showed a significant difference between studied populations of M. ciliaris under control treatment and salt condition. The majority of correlations between measured traits under booth treatments were positive, where the strongest correlations were registered between characters related to development. Overall, the study looks great. However, there is a need for further improvement. Some of my main comments are:

Line 99, please mention the seed source.

Line 93, why these 46 lines were selected? Authors can provide their detailed information in a supplementary table.

Line 116-119, please mention the units for all the traits.

Though the results are nicely presented; however, the main issue is the lack of numerical discussion. For instance, line 175-185, these types of results descriptions should be supported by using numerical data. Please carefully improve the presentation of the results. Also, check the later parts of the results.

Overall, the discussion is too short, shallow, and most of the repetition of the results. Would you please carefully work on the discussion? It lacks mechanistic insights.

In conclusion, what is take-home message? What are future recommendations?

Please proofread the whole text for some minor errors.

Author Response

Question 1: Line 99, please mention the seed source.

Response 1: We clarified the seed source in the revised manuscript. The seeds of the original lines were collected in the field in various regions of Tunisia by Prof. Mounawer Badri's research team and populations from these seeds were produced in the Laboratory of Extremophile Plants in the Centre of Biotechnology of Borj Cedria.

Question 2: Line 93, why these 46 lines were selected? Authors can provide their detailed information in a supplementary table.

Response 2: We added supplementary Table 1 giving more details regarding the list of lines from the four populations of M. ciliaris. In addition, as mentioned the production of the lines of this species were described in Badri et al. (2008, Conservation Genetics 9:1509-1520).

Question 3: Line 116-119, please mention the units for all the traits.

Response 3: We added the units for all measured traits.

Question 4: For instance, line 175-185, these types of results descriptions should be supported by using numerical data.

Response 4: We added the numerical values for the described traits in this paragraph.

Question 5: Please carefully improve the presentation of the results. Also, check the later parts of the results.

Response 5: We improved the interpretation of obtained results especially the last section related to " Clustering and Discriminant Analyses".

Question 6: Would you please carefully work on the discussion? It lacks mechanistic insights.

Response 6: We have improved the content of the Discussion section as suggested.

Question 7: In conclusion, what is take-home message? What are future recommendations?

Response 7: We improved the content of the conclusion part as suggested.

Question 8: Please proofread the whole text for some minor errors.

Response 8: We read again the whole text and we corrected certain minor errors.