Review Reports

Line 177 not 29/04/2021 and 29/09/2021?

It should be corrected that whitening application was not realized in the fall season. This date was written by mistake. Therefore, the relevant date has been deleted from the article. On Figure 1, it is already seen that this application was made only in the spring period (shown with a vertical line).

Table 1 and Figure 2 show the same data (?) it is not necessary.

Figure 2 was removed.

In table 4, please complete e.g. at the end of the growing season or seasonal averaged.

The title of Figure 4 was competed with “at the end of the growing season”.

The Abstract is too long - please make it more concise and the length should match the MDPI's proposed requirements.

The Abstract was shortened to make it more concise and the length (200 words) was match the MDPI's proposed requirements.

The second part of the Latin name should not be capitalized. Please fix it.

All the Latin names for plant were checked throughout the manuscript and necessary corrections were realized.

The literature references are valuable, but they are mainly from the past - it would be worthwhile to rework this section and look at the literature references of the last 5 years and incorporate them as well. Please do this.

Some old-dated references were changed to the new one as much as possible. Also 12 references (8 of them is in the last 5 years) were incorporated to the “introduction”, “materials and methods”, and “results and discussion” sections.

The Conclusion chapter is only 11 lines long - this is very little compared to what is described in the article, please explain this better, as many factors can be covered.

The “Conclusion” chapter is extended to explain all parameters investigated in the study.

Although two seasons for the tomato crop were compared this factor did not be incorporated into the statistical model of the ANOVA. This avoids the possibility to perform means comparisons between both seasons and analyze the season x water salinity interaction. The season factor should be incorporate to de model of ANOVA.

Please note that in ANOVA analysis some parameters like soil salinity has two factor (Salinity and time). Since the climatic conditions are different in two season we did not analyzed season x water salinity interaction.

Abstract: "Salinity thresholds” and “slope values" are concepts that are not previously defined.

The manuscript does not describe the concept of "salinity thresholds” and “slope values" until materials and methods. They should be defined at the beginning of the manuscript because the importance of this concept in the investigation.

Please note that the abstract is limited to 200 words. Reviewer 2 says that “The Abstract is too long - please make it more concise and the length should match the MDPI's proposed requirements.” Therefore it was not possible to describe the concept of "salinity thresholds” and “slope values" in the “abstract” section.

L23. Indicate the amount increased.

Again due to word count limitation for “abstract” section, the amount increased could not be given. However, related information is presented in detail under the “results and discussion section”.

L32-35. It is not clear the methodology used for determinate these results.

The obtained results for salinity threshold and slope values clearly indicate that “there exists a disadvantageously low threshold value and an advantageously low slope value in Autumn-2021, however, an advantageously high threshold value and a disadvantageously high slope value in Spring-2022.”

L104-108. The objective is a method. It does not indicate the ultimate purpose of the investigation.

The word of “objective” is omitted from the sentence.

Due to the importance of “threshold” and “slope” in this investigation, Equation 5 should be described completely. The methods to obtain the slope and the ECe threshold must be described.

Please note all the parameters in Equation 5 were under the equation. The threshold and slope values were obtained with the aid of the computer program suggested by Van Van Genuchten. This reference is inluded to the text and the reference section of the manuscript. Also the terms “ salinity threshold” and “slope value” is described in this section.

It is suggested to perform the separation of means with the LDS (Fischer) or HSD (Tukey) due to Duncan test has less accuracy.

Please note that we performed he separation with LSD instead of Duncan’s multiple range test. However, the separation results did not change.  

The yield should be reported in kg·m^-2.

More scientifically, we prefer to use kg ha^-1 unit for yield.

Conclusions should be concise. Avoid presenting results in conclusions. The conclusions must be derived from the discussion.

Please note that The Reviewer 2 says that “Conclusion chapter is only 11 lines long - this is very little compared to what is described in the article, please explain this better, as many factors can be covered.”. Therefore, we extended the conclusion.

- instead of the word "fall" it is better to write "autumn"

The word “fall” was changed as “autumn” throughout the manuscript.

- Lines 138-141 - please explain what exactly salts the solutions were made of. Three salts are listed but I don't know which one was used.

In the first paragraph of the section “2.2. Experimental design and treatment”:

Instead of the sentences for

“Saline waters were prepared by using CaCl₂, MgSO₄ and NaCl salts.”

and “To achieve the desired electrical conductivity values in the irrigation waters (ECw) with a SAR value of less than 5 and a Ca/Mg ratio of 1/1, the required amounts of salts were calculated and ECw values of the treatments were checked in the laboratory”

“To do this, calculated amounts of CaCl₂, MgSO₄ and NaCl salts were mixed to prepare the desired electrical conductivity values in the irrigation waters (EC_w) for each treatment and EC_w values of the treatments were checked in the laboratory”. Was added as a new sentence for better understating.

- My biggest comments relate to the discussion. In my opinion, it describes the results of the research too much. Such a description should be included in the "Results" chapter. Unless the author combines both of these chapters into "Results and Discussion", then the results can be described in this way. In addition, the mechanisms of plant response to salinity are poorly described in the discussion, please provide a more detailed description (e.g. in the case of the tested physiological parameters of plants: leaf area index, chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance), etc.

Considering your suggestion, the “Results” and the “Discussion” sections combined as “Results and Discussions”.

In addition, more information related to the mechanisms of plant response to salinity are added to “results and discussion” section.