Mitigating Salinity Stress in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) through Biochar and NPK Fertilizers: Impacts on Physio-Biochemical Behavior and Grain Yield

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reviewing the manuscript in my opinion, it needs some changes and additions. In addition, I am puzzled as to why the Authors decided to conduct the research under controlled conditions rather than field conditions? In my opinion, field research would have been much more attractive to the audience of the manuscript.

Regarding the content of the manuscript, I have the following comments and suggestions.

There is an incorrect order of Tables in the manuscript. Most likely, after the entire manuscript was written, it was decided to move the Materials and Methods section to the end of the manuscript hence the incorrect numbering. In addition, there is a lack of consistency in Tables and Figures, in some significant differences are given in lowercase and uppercase and in others not despite the significant changes that occur.

L23 Later in the manuscript, the authors also state NPK as the factor analyzed. This information should also be included here.

L104 The table needs more explanation of what the uppercase and lowercase letters mean? The impact of which factors they represent. What level of significance is meant by each "*"

L107 Also this Table needs an explanation of what "*" means, what level of significance. What do they mean by E, gs, A, iWUE. Tables should be clear regardless of the text, so this needs to be completed.

L136 Figures are not readable in my opinion, I suggest increasing their size. In addition, the red highlights in the figure text are visible. This should be corrected. Analogous comments apply to Figure 3

L171 There is no description of the results for Figure 3F grain yield. It is described only in section 2.5. if a Figure with these results is presented here also a description of the results should be included here.

L244 In Figure 3F with no fertilization and 200 nM there are no results does this mean that this level of salinity caused the lack of yield obtained? If so this should be mentioned

L245 The discussion section is well written, but the authors do not address all the issues in the results section. There are no references to, among other things, the yield obtained (except for one short sentence) or ion concentrations in leaves. In my opinion, this section should be expanded.

L281 Several pieces of information are missing from this section. What was the volume of the pots? In what quantity was barley sown into the pots and what was this per hectare? What types of mineral fertilizers were used and how did the stated amount of NPK translate per hectare of crop. In addition, there is also no information on at what stages of plant growth the analysis of individual traits was carried out

L355 The authors mention yield parameters, however, these results are missing from the manuscript. In addition, in the Results section, yield is given in g/m2 how this was determined. Most likely it was calculated based on pot area and plants obtained per pot however this should be described.

L364 The Conclusions section should be expanded to include the possible application of the research conducted to agricultural practice with recommendations and a possible perspective for further research

L379 The References section contains double numbering. This should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear  reviewer

Thank you very much for accepting review my manuscript.

Your comments and modifications was added on the manuscript (attached file) with green color.

I moved the materials and methods part just after the introduction, so the numbering must be taken into consideration

L23: checked

L104: checked

L107: checked

L136: checked

L171: checked

L244: added

L245: expanded

L281: added

L355: checked

L364: expanded

L379: corrected

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Editor

Thank you very much for your invitation to review this manuscript agronomy-2792274

Mitigating salinity stress in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) through biochar and NPK fertilizers: impacts on physio-biochemical behavior and grain yield

 

·         Please follow the highlighted comments in the pdf version and the following comments:

·         Line 55- It is preferable to use recent references  

 

·         Line 70- It is preferable to use recent references

 

·         Line 81- put the results after materials and methods section

·         Line 84- there is no need to SPAD character. The chl a, b and carotenoid enough

·         Line 84- Revise The Table. Where is Table 1??

·         Line 86- There is no need to repeat these values ​​that mentioned in the tables, and it is preferable to mention the percentages of increase or decrease.

·         Line 90- it is preferable to mention the percentages of increase or decrease, don’t repeat the number only.

·         Line 94 and 97- Delete the numbers and mention the percentages of increase or decrease.

·         Line 102- Order the table numbers (Where is the table 1).

·         Line 136- Where is figure 1??

·         Line 154, 157, 162 and 165- Delete the numbers and mention the percentages of increase or decrease.

·         Line 261- It is preferable to use recent references: 

·         Line 265- S. hortensis Italic

·         Line 273- MDA is not osmoprotectant, it is an indicator to oxidative stress

·         Line 279- The discussion needs improvement and the author should discuss the effect of treatments on phenolic compounds, MDA and mineral elements which were determined in this study

·         Line 281- put this section before the results according to the journal rules

·         Line 365- improve the conclusion and add some important results

·         Revise the references section

 

Best regards

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear  reviewer

Thank you very much for accepting review my manuscript.

Your comments and modifications was added on the manuscript (attached file) with blue color

I moved the materials and methods part just after the introduction, so the numbering must be taken into consideration.

L55: added

L70: added

L81: checked

L84: checked

L84: checked

L86: checked

L90: checked

L94, 97: checked

L102: checked

L136: checked

L154, 157, 162, 165: checked

L261: added

L265: checked

L273: checked

L279: improved

L281: checked

L365: improved

References : revised

Best regards

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an original scientific study in the field of agricultural sciences.

The stat supports results that are aware of the effects of biochar, NPK and their combination on growth, physico-biochemical characteristics, mineral content and the tract of barley grain. The result showed that salinization treatment negatively affects the parameters of gas exchange, photosynthetic pigments, SPAD value, mineral content and yield of barley grain. The use of biochar in combination with NPK fertilizers, considerably increases these parameters and especially improves barley grains yield under severe salinity conditions (200 mM) with a dose of 2% of total pot mass. It is concluded that biochar amendment could be a promising practice to enhance barley growth under severe saline irrigation and NPK fertilization regimes.

Formal characteristics of the article:

The presentation style is good, the tables are informative.

The abstract reflects the content of the article.

An adequate modern list of references has been used. References to literary sources are present in the text.

Along with the positive aspects of the work, there are also negative ones that need to be corrected. There are a number of editorial comments to the article.

1. There are no specific numerical results in the summary.

2. The purpose of the research in the summary and the text does not match.

3. There is no numerical data from the results in the conclusions.

GENERAL CONCLUSION: The article is relevant, has scientific and practical novelty, is recommended for publication and can be published after editing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for accepting review my manuscript.

Your comments and modifications were added on the manuscript (attached file) with purple color.

I moved the materials and methods part just after the introduction, so the numbering must be taken into consideration.

1. checked
2. checked
3. checked

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Why is section 4. Materials and Methods presented at the end of the paper?

2. Soil name is not presented. Why NPK dynamics in the soil during the experiment was not determined?

3. Why is it claimed that biochar is effective in irrigation? The experiment was conducted in pots and only one irrigation with mineralised water. This is not a modelling of irrigation.

4. Which form of phosphorus is represented, total or mobile phosphorus (Table 1)?

5. What changes occurred to Cation exchangeable capacity (CEC) with salt water treatment?

6. Section 5. Conclusions is very poorly written.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for accepting review my manuscript.

I moved the materials and methods part just after the introduction, so the numbering must be taken into consideration.

Comment 1: checked

Comment 2: soil name was added and concerning NPK dynamics in the soil, the work just concerns the plant (physio-biochemical aspects), not the soil. the NPK dynamics in the soil and which has a pedological aspect is currently being written.

Comment 3: It is not a modeling of irrigation, it is a pot experiment to know the exact effect of biochar (without environmental effects) and the irrigation done according to the field capacity of the soil.

Comment 4: The phosphorus represented is a mobile phosphorus.

Comment 5: I 'm not analyzed the CEC of the soil during the experiment ou avec le biochar, it's juste a simple analysis for identifie the soil.

Comment 6: conclusions improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

thank you for addressing some of the suggestions made in the first round of reviews. The corrections made are appropriate.

However, I suggest completing the remaining issues I raised in the first round of reviews (the line numbering is from the most recently submitted version after the first round of reviews):

Line 310 (Table 4) Why are the distinguishing letters (A, B, C; a, b, c) not given in this Table. In the other Tables the letters are found.

L227; L278 (Figures) Underlining in the Figure text is visible (mmol L-1 and others) this should be corrected. In addition, a good addition consistent with the Tables would be to provide letters representing significant differences between values.

L354 The discussion section has been completed very little. I suggest a discussion of all the results discussed in the manuscript.

Good luck

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you so much for your comments.

L310: differents letters added (see Table 4).

L227, L278: all figures are checked.

Concerning the significant differences between the values I did not use letters in the figures because they will be cluttered, I just used the ANOVA test in table 3. If it is necessary I will put it in a separate table .

L354: discussion improved.

Best regards

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

all comments have been corrected

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf