Agronomic Potential and Limitations of Factory-Derived Tea Waste in Kale Cultivation Under Drought Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. There is too much description of the research background in the introduction, and it is suggested to condense it. There is insufficient description of the research progress on the physiological indicators of tea under drought stress and the addition of tea waste in the core research content of the article. It is necessary to supplement the research progress on the drought resistance of kale to provide theoretical basis for the setting of mild and moderate drought in experimental design. In addition, there is a lack of description of the research progress on the application of tea waste in tea production, which cannot make readers understand why relevant research is needed. The importance of tea waste as a soil amendment is not adequately described. The description of the research purpose and significance in the last paragraph of the introduction is too simplistic. It is necessary to supplement the research hypotheses and scientific questions that need to be addressed, such as: (1) What degree of drought stress and the amount of tea waste added are beneficial for the growth and development of kale? (2) The regulatory mechanism of drought stress and tea waste addition on physiological indicators of kale?
2. In section 2.1 of Materials and Methods, it is necessary to introduce the drought resistance of two types of kale, which is more conducive to the analysis of later results and discussions; 2.2. The physical and chemical properties data of tea waste and soil in Tables 1 and 2 are insufficient, and it is necessary to supplement the content of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium elements in order to better evaluate the impact of tea waste addition on soil nutrients.
3. 2.4 In the experiment, there are three factors: the variety of kale, the amount of tea waste added, and drought stress. Is it appropriate to use a randomized block design? Why not use split zone design? Why choose 75% FC and 50% FC for drought stress in experimental design? Why choose physiological index measurement after 21 days of drought stress? Do you need to provide the basis for the settings, and is there any pre experimental verification?
4. The result analysis is too simple, only qualitative analysis results description, without quantitative analysis results description, and lacks significance analysis description, which cannot intuitively compare the differences between different treatments. Please supplement and improve it.
5. Why is there no standard deviation in Tables 5-8 when only the average values of each indicator are available? There is also no description of the sample size and the number of repetitions of the measurement indicators. The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between different treatments for PFW, PDW, and RDW indicators in Table 7 need to be supplemented (lack of letter markings).
6. What is the specific role of principal component analysis in research? Although principal component analysis helped reveal key trait combinations related to drought resistance, it has no effect on explaining the regulatory effects of drought stress and tea waste addition on physiological indicators of kale. It is recommended to conduct regression analysis or structural equation to explain its potential mechanism.
7. The writing style of the discussion needs to be modified, and the discussion is more like an extension of result analysis, lacking exploration of the mechanism revealed by experimental results, and not discussing the response mechanism of physiological indicators of cabbage under the interaction of three factors: cabbage variety, tea waste addition amount, and drought stress. It is necessary to discuss and analyze: (1) Why does tea residue have a dose-dependent effect as a soil amendment? (2) Why does a low dose (5%) exacerbate the stress caused by phenolic compounds, while a higher dose (10%) improves dry matter accumulation and partially alleviates mineral contributions to drought effects? (3) The tea waste generated by factories is not suitable for direct use under stress conditions, but can it provide agricultural benefits when applied or processed at a higher rate? In order to provide support and basis for the conclusion. The correlation between the cited references and the research results is also insufficient. Suggest discussing and integrating the analysis results, focusing on the key issues that need to be addressed, and proposing innovative research points and theoretical application value.
8. Move the second paragraph of the conclusion to the discussion section. If the conclusion can explain the regulatory mechanism of drought stress and tea waste addition on physiological indicators of kale, it will greatly improve the overall innovation and level of the article.
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript extensively to sharpen the introduction, justify methodological choices, strengthen quantitative presentation of results, clarify statistical reporting, and deepen the mechanism-oriented discussion.
Comments 1: There is too much description of the research background in the introduction, and it is suggested to condense it. There is insufficient description of the research progress on the physiological indicators of tea under drought stress and the addition of tea waste in the core research content of the article. It is necessary to supplement the research progress on the drought resistance of kale to provide theoretical basis for the setting of mild and moderate drought in experimental design. In addition, there is a lack of description of the research progress on the application of tea waste in tea production, which cannot make readers understand why relevant research is needed. The importance of tea waste as a soil amendment is not adequately described. The description of the research purpose and significance in the last paragraph of the introduction is too simplistic. It is necessary to supplement the research hypotheses and scientific questions that need to be addressed, such as: (1) What degree of drought stress and the amount of tea waste added are beneficial for the growth and development of kale? (2) The regulatory mechanism of drought stress and tea waste addition on physiological indicators of kale?
Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive comment. We condensed general background and expanded the rationale aligned with the study’s core. We now (i) briefly summarize the agronomic relevance of factory tea waste; (ii) position kale drought responses and why 75% and 50% FC represent mild and moderate stress levels commonly used in leafy vegetable studies; and (iii) present explicit objectives and hypotheses. We also clarified why research on tea-waste use in leafy vegetables under water deficit is needed, pointing to the gap we address (tea-waste studies now cited in the introduction).
Manuscript changes (Introduction):
(i) briefly summarize the agronomic relevance of factory tea waste
Kale (Brassica oleracea var. acephala) is a widely cultivated leafy vegetable valued for its rich phytochemical profile and associated health benefits [1]. Originating in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is one of the oldest domesticated morphotypes of B. oleracea and remains an important crop worldwide [2]. In addition to its nutritional value, which includes glucosinolates, fiber, minerals and vitamins, [3 -5] kale exhibits considerable genetic diversity across cultivars, reflected in variation in leaf color, morphology, and flavor [6-8]. Because it is grown in temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions, understanding its resilience to water stress is a global priority. Recent bibliometric work further underscores the increasing research focus on drought stress, particularly in physiological and antioxidant response pathways [9].
(ii) position kale drought responses and why 75% and 50% FC represent mild and moderate stress levels commonly used in leafy vegetable studies
Greenhouse experiments in cabbage maintained at 80–60% of field capacity demonstrated clear reductions in plant height, stem diameter, leaf number, leaf area, shoot biomass, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, transpiration, and chlorophyll content [16 (Abbas et al., 2023)]. Likewise, most Brassica seeds germinate effectively at 50–75% field capacity [17 (Mohan et al., 2023)], indicating that these moisture levels represent physiologically relevant thresholds for early development. On this basis, irrigation at 75% FC can be regarded as a mild drought stress, whereas 50% FC constitutes a moderate stress level that causes measurable reductions in growth and physiology without inducing irreversible damage.
(iii) present explicit objectives and hypotheses. We also clarified why research on tea-waste use in leafy vegetables under water deficit is needed, pointing to the gap we address (tea-waste studies now cited in the introduction)
A statement was added at the end of paragraph 4.
Among these residues, tea waste represents an especially abundant yet underutilized resource with potential to improve soil properties under stress conditions.
Paragraph 5 has been revised to better address the research gap.
Factory-derived tea waste has recently attracted attention as an organic amendment because of its high organic matter, phenolic compounds, and mineral composition. Previous studies have highlighted its potential for sustainable valorization [29 Debnath et al 2021] and reviewed its bioactive properties relevant to agriculture [30 Çakmak et al 2024]. Experimental evidence indicates that tea-waste-derived biochar can reduce phytotoxicity and improve seed germination in garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) [31 Tunklová et al 2022]. Composting or incorporating tea waste into soil has been reported to enhance soil organic matter, aggregation, and nutrient availability, thereby improving growth and yield in pepper and maize [32,33]. It may also contribute to salinity mitigation by increasing cation exchange capacity and soil moisture retention [34,35]. Despite these findings, its potential effects on leafy vegetables under drought conditions remain largely unexplored. This knowledge gap is particularly relevant given the dual challenges of crop productivity and waste management in modern agriculture.
Inserted Objectives & Hypotheses at the end of the Introduction:
This study evaluates the effects of tea-waste amendments on kale under controlled water-deficit conditions. By testing different incorporation levels and irrigation regimes, we aimed to assess whether tea waste can be used as a sustainable soil amendment to improve drought resilience in kale cultivation. The objective was to quantify the main and interactive effects of drought severity (100, 75, and 50% field capacity), tea-waste dose (0, 5, and 10% w/w), and cultivar on kale growth and physiological traits. We hypothesized that: (H1) drought would reduce biomass and physiological performance; (H2) a 10% tea-waste amendment would partly offset drought effects through its contribution of nutrients and organic matter; (H3) cultivars would differ in their response patterns; and (H4) interactions between tea waste and drought stress would exert stronger effects than single factors alone
Comments 2: In section 2.1 of Materials and Methods, it is necessary to introduce the drought resistance of two types of kale, which is more conducive to the analysis of later results and discussions; 2.2. The physical and chemical properties data of tea waste and soil in Tables 1 and 2 are insufficient, and it is necessary to supplement the content of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium elements in order to better evaluate the impact of tea waste addition on soil nutrients.
Response 2: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insightful and constructive feedback. Manuscript revise as follows.
The following information regarding this has been added to the material section.
These cultivars were chosen because they represent contrasting morphotypes that are widely cultivated in different production systems. Leaf structure and morphology may influence physiological responses such as transpiration, light interception, and water-use efficiency, making them relevant for evaluating drought × amendment interactions. Although no detailed drought-resistance profiles are available for these specific varieties, this study provides a first comparative assessment of their performance under controlled water-deficit conditions.
We also expanded Tables 1–2 to report N, P, and K for tea waste and available P / exchangeable K for soil.
Manuscript changes:
2.1 Plant material: brief note that no prior drought profiling exists for these two commercial cultivars; rationale for inclusion.
2.2 For tea waste, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) contents were added, while for soil, total nitrogen (N), available phosphorus (P), and exchangeable potassium (K) were included to provide a more complete characterization.
Comments 3: 2.4 In the experiment, there are three factors: the variety of kale, the amount of tea waste added, and drought stress. Is it appropriate to use a randomized block design? Why not use split zone design? Why choose 75% FC and 50% FC for drought stress in experimental design? Why choose physiological index measurement after 21 days of drought stress? Do you need to provide the basis for the settings, and is there any pre experimental verification?
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for raising these important points. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was selected because all three factors were randomized at the pot level, with each pot functioning as an independent experimental unit.
Manuscript revised following explanation.
A randomized block design was employed, with five replicates per treatment and five plants in each replicate. The experiment followed a factorial arrangement with two kale varieties (VK1 and VK2), three tea waste levels (0%, 5%, 10%), and three drought stress levels corresponding to 100%, 75%, and 50% of field capacity (DS0, DS1, and D2 respectively). Each treatment combination consisted of five individual plants, resulting in total of 90 plants (2 varieties x 3 tea waste levels x 3 drought stress levels x 5 plants per treatment). Morphological and physiological parameters were recorded individually for each plant to ensure precise replication. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was chosen because all factors were randomized at the pot level, and no hierarchical restriction required a split-plot layout.
Irrigation at 100%, 75%, and 50% of field capacity represented well-watered, mild, and moderate drought stress, levels commonly used in Brassica studies to impose realistic deficits without causing mortality [16 Abbas et al., 2023; 17 Mohan et al., 2025]. Drought treatments were maintained for 21 days, with irrigation based on the water requirements of the control group. Stress was applied for 21 days to allow physiological adjustment and measurable growth responses. Pilot checks confirmed that these conditions produced consistent, separable effects without irreversible damage.
Comments 4: The result analysis is too simple, only qualitative analysis results description, without quantitative analysis results description, and lacks significance analysis description, which cannot intuitively compare the differences between different treatments. Please supplement and improve it.
Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and helpful comments. We revised each Results subsection to include clear relative/percent differences and explicit references to significance letters.
For example:
In VK1 under DS2, plant height was 16.48 cm in TW0 but dropped to 15.22 cm in TW1 and 17.62 cm in TW2, while in VK2 the corresponding values were 8.62, 9.52, and 10.46 cm, indicating that tea waste addition did not mitigate drought and in some cases exacerbated reductions.
We also added a separate paragraph summarizing the interaction of tea waste and drought stress, in order to provide a clearer comparison of treatment differences. This additional analysis highlights the magnitude of change for each trait and quantitatively supports the interpretation of interaction effects.
Overall, tea waste × drought stress interactions produced consistent declines in most traits, with the magnitude of change varying among treatments (Table 8). Under TW0, DI rose from 0.00 to 1.53 from DS0 to DS2, while under TW1 it increased from 1.03 to 1.69 (+64%) and under TW2 from 0.76 to 1.80 (+137%). Plant height declined by 28.9% in TW0, 22.7% in TW1, and 20.1% in TW2. Leaf thickness decreased by 11.3% in TW0, 0.6% in TW1, and 20.9% in TW2, while leaf length shortened by 34.8%, 27.5%, and 14.5%, respectively. Leaf number fell by 17.3% in TW0, 16.1% in TW1, and 23.4% in TW2. Chlorophyll content (SPAD) increased slightly under stress, by 2.4% in TW0, 8.3% in TW1, and 10.7% in TW2. Leaf weight decreased by 43.3% in both TW0 and TW1, and by 33.3% in TW2. Leaf area declined by 42.6% in TW0, 29.0% in TW1, and 31.2% in TW2, while RWC decreased by 32.9%, 24.1%, and 22.0%, respectively. Shoot fresh weight was reduced by 55.1% in TW0, 42.9% in TW1, and 46.3% in TW2, and shoot dry weight by 46.7%, 32.7%, and 41.6%. Root length decreased by 25.4% in TW0, 13.6% in TW1, and 33.7% in TW2, and root diameter by 33.6%, 10.0%, and 22.2%. Root fresh weight declined by 46.8% in TW0, 28.2% in TW1, and 40.5% in TW2, while root dry weight decreased by 39.5%, 38.1%, and 44.8%. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that drought stress reduced morphological and physiological performance across all tea-waste levels, with 10% tea waste sometimes alleviating but not preventing drought-induced losses.
Comments 5: Why is there no standard deviation in Tables 5-8 when only the average values of each indicator are available? There is also no description of the sample size and the number of repetitions of the measurement indicators. The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between different treatments for PFW, PDW, and RDW indicators in Table 7 need to be supplemented (lack of letter markings).
Response 5: We are truly grateful for the reviewer’s constructive and valuable feedback. We updated all data tables to report mean ± SE (and retained LSD letter groupings) and added a sentence in 2.4 clarifying replication: RCBD with five replicates per treatment, five plants per replicate, with replicate means used for ANOVA (SPAD averaged over three leaves per replicate). However, we add some explanation in this section.
The experiment followed a factorial arrangement with two kale varieties (VK1 and VK2), three tea waste levels (0%, 5%, 10%), and three drought stress levels corresponding to 100%, 75%, and 50% of field capacity (DS0, DS1, and D2 respectively). Each treatment combination consisted of five individual plants, resulting in total of 90 plants (2 varieties x 3 tea waste levels x 3 drought stress levels x 5 plants per treatment). Morphological and physiological parameters were recorded individually for each plant to ensure precise replication. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was chosen because all factors were randomized at the pot level, and no hierarchical restriction required a split-plot layout.
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the inclusion of all parameters in Table 7. To prevent confusion and improve clarity, we have removed PFW, PDW, and RDW from this table, as these traits did not show significant interaction effects between variety and drought stress. Only the parameters exhibiting statistically significant interactions are now presented in Table 7.
Comments 6: What is the specific role of principal component analysis in research? Although principal component analysis helped reveal key trait combinations related to drought resistance, it has no effect on explaining the regulatory effects of drought stress and tea waste addition on physiological indicators of kale. It is recommended to conduct regression analysis or structural equation to explain its potential mechanism.
Response 6: We deeply appreciate the reviewer thorough and insightful suggestions. We reframed PCA as an exploratory, dimension-reduction tool to (i) reveal correlated trait groups and (ii) prioritize markers for drought response; we avoid causal claims. We added text in Methods/Discussion to make this explicit and to position regression/SEM as valuable future work beyond our current dataset.
Manuscript changes:
2.6 Statistics: sentence clarifying PCA purpose.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed in R Studio as an exploratory, dimension-reduction approach to identify the major sources of variation among treatments. It was used to detect correlated groups of morphological and physiological traits and to highlight key indicators contributing most to overall variability. Correlation patterns were further visualized through polar heatmaps and hierarchical clustering. PCA was not used to infer causal relationships but rather to summarize multivariate patterns and trait associations.
4.4. Trait Interrelationships Revealed by PCA and Correlation Heatmap
Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed two major trait clusters explaining 78.3% of the total variance. Biomass-related traits grouped closely, while water relation and leaf traits formed a second cluster, and SPAD and damage index emerged as stress indicators. Similar clustering has been reported in Brassica oleracea, where PCA distinguished tolerant from sensitive accessions [40], and in kale, where root traits and osmolytes contributed to resilience under combined stress [11]. Comparable findings in wheat confirm PCA as a robust tool for detecting interdependent traits and identifying reliable markers of drought tolerance [44].
In our study, PCA provided an integrated view of how drought stress and tea waste levels shaped trait coordination in kale. As a multivariate exploratory tool, it summarized multivariate patterns without implying causality, revealing correlated groups most responsive to water deficit and organic amendment.
Comments 7: The writing style of the discussion needs to be modified, and the discussion is more like an extension of result analysis, lacking exploration of the mechanism revealed by experimental results, and not discussing the response mechanism of physiological indicators of cabbage under the interaction of three factors: cabbage variety, tea waste addition amount, and drought stress. It is necessary to discuss and analyze: (1) Why does tea residue have a dose-dependent effect as a soil amendment? (2) Why does a low dose (5%) exacerbate the stress caused by phenolic compounds, while a higher dose (10%) improves dry matter accumulation and partially alleviates mineral contributions to drought effects? (3) The tea waste generated by factories is not suitable for direct use under stress conditions, but can it provide agricultural benefits when applied or processed at a higher rate? In order to provide support and basis for the conclusion. The correlation between the cited references and the research results is also insufficient. Suggest discussing and integrating the analysis results, focusing on the key issues that need to be addressed, and proposing innovative research points and theoretical application value.
Response 7: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive comment. In response, the Discussion section has been substantially rewritten to move beyond result description and to provide a mechanistic interpretation of the interactions among variety, drought stress, and tea-waste application level.
Specifically:
We now explain why tea waste shows a dose-dependent effect—highlighting that low rates (5%) can aggravate stress due to phenolic toxicity and temporary nitrogen immobilization, whereas higher rates (10%) supply sufficient organic matter and mineral nutrients (K, Ca, Mg) to improve soil aggregation, moisture retention, and nutrient uptake, thereby partially alleviating drought-induced biomass loss.
We emphasize that factory-derived residues are unsuitable in raw form under stress conditions but can provide agronomic benefits when composted or applied at higher rates, referencing recent studies that demonstrate reduced phytotoxicity and improved nutrient release after processing (Ekbiç et al., 2022; Çakmak et al., 2024; Karataş, 2024).
We have integrated new comparative references and explicitly linked them to our results to strengthen the literature–data correlation (e.g., Barickman et al., 2020; Bauer et al., 2022; Debnath et al., 2021). Each citation now supports a specific physiological or biochemical mechanism.
The revised structure (Sections 4.1–4.4) now explicitly discusses the interactive effects of the three factors and the mechanisms underlying physiological indicators, including water relations, pigment stability, and dry-matter accumulation.
Finally, we added a brief theoretical perspective, proposing that tea-waste amendments represent dual-function organic inputs whose agronomic outcome depends on phenolic load, mineral balance, and decomposition stage, offering innovative insights for sustainable residue management under stress conditions.
We believe these revisions fully address the reviewer’s concern. The new version provides a clearer mechanistic interpretation, stronger integration of cited literature with experimental results, and a forward-looking framework linking our findings to practical and theoretical applications in sustainable soil management.
Comments 8: Move the second paragraph of the conclusion to the discussion section. If the conclusion can explain the regulatory mechanism of drought stress and tea waste addition on physiological indicators of kale, it will greatly improve the overall innovation and level of the article.
Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The second paragraph of the Conclusion, which discussed future research directions and genotype evaluation, has been relocated to the Discussion (now integrated into Section 4.9, ‘Agronomic Potential and Limitations of Tea Waste Under Drought Stress’). This improves the logical flow by linking experimental outcomes with future perspectives and agronomic implications.
In addition, the Conclusion section has been rewritten to emphasize the regulatory mechanisms identified in this study. Specifically, we now explain how drought stress reduces chlorophyll stability, relative water content, and biomass accumulation, while tea-waste addition modulates these effects in a dose-dependent manner. The 5% amendment aggravated stress through phenolic toxicity and N immobilization, whereas 10% improved physiological balance via organic matter and mineral enrichment. These revisions strengthen the innovative and mechanistic interpretation of our findings and align the conclusion with the reviewer’s recommendations.
Revision in manuscript:
4.9. Agronomic Potential and Limitations of Tea Waste Under Drought Stress
This study highlights both the promise and the challenges of using factory-derived tea waste to enhance kale performance under drought stress. While higher application rates (10%) partly buffered water deficit effects through improved soil structure and nutrient supply, lower doses (5%) intensified stress symptoms, likely due to phenolic toxicity and temporary nitrogen immobilization. The dose dependent outcomes demonstrate that regularly influence of tea waste operates through both chemical (phenolic) and physical-nutritional (organic matter and mineral) pathways that jointly determine plant’s physiological balance under stress. Varietal differences (Karadeniz Yaprak vs. КЕЙЛ) further underline the genetic basis of stress response, where contrasting leaf water content and pigment stability suggest distinct mechanisms of drought adaptation. This observation aligns with Bauer et al. [11 Bauer et al 2022] and Ben Ammar et al. [40 Ben Ammar 2022], who reported cultivar-specific drought responses and proposed indices such as the Stress Tolerance Index (STI) for effective screening B. oleracea.
From an agronomic perspective, factory-derived tea waste cannot be safely applied in raw form under drought conditions; however, composting or biochar conversion can re-duce phenolic load, enhance nutrient release, and improve soil health. Future research should: (i) evaluate diverse kale genotypes under combined drought × amendment interactions, (ii) employ integrative stress indices such as STI, and (iii) investigate physiological markers including chlorophyll stability and antioxidant defense. Combining genotype se-lection with optimized processing of agro-industrial residues represents a sustainable strategy to improve drought resilience and close nutrient cycles in vegetable production systems.
- Conclusions
Drought stress in kale regulated physiological responses primarily through reduced chlorophyll stability, osmotic imbalance, and inhibited biomass accumulation. The integration of tea-waste amendment modified these effects in a dose-dependent manner. At 5 %, residual phenolics and transient nitrogen immobilization aggravated oxidative stress, whereas at 10 %, increased organic matter and exchangeable minerals improved water retention and nutrient uptake, partially restoring pigment stability and dry matter production. Thus, drought and organic amendment interact through both chemical (phenolic) and physical–nutritional (mineral–OM) pathways that determine plant performance. Raw tea waste is therefore unsuitable under stress conditions; however, when applied at higher rates or after processing, it can function as a sustainable soil conditioner supporting physiological resilience and yield stability in kale cultivation under limited water availability.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your submission. This paper presents an intriguing area touching on sustainable crop production, waste / byproduct management, and novel strategies for overcoming abiotic stress. Please see my comments for your consideration below:
Introduction: In general, some more specific examples from the literature, especially in regards to any existing studies using tea waste, would be beneficial to strengthen the last few paragraphs of the introduction. The introduction would also benefit from a more clear objective.
Line 42 - Please remove the unnecessary ' - '.
Line 55 - 'Nutrient content shifts under stress' is vague, please clarify how nutrient composition may vary under stress, providing specific examples.
Line 57 - Is the biomass loss referring to kale specifically? Please clarify.
Line 88 - Please provide more context to the germination study. What crops?
Line 90 - What properties may be improved by incorporating tea waste, specifically?
Materials and Methods: In general, the materials and methods adequately explain the experiment. Throughout, please ensure the term 'replicate' and 'replication' are appropriately used considering the randomized complete block design is used. The term 'replicate' appears to be used interchangeably throughout and is causing some confusion.
Line 122 - How many seedlings per cultivar? This may be a typo, but sounded odd.
Line 123 - Please detail the rate of fertilizer application in addition to the grade.
Line 129-130 - 'The method of [34]' sounds unconventional. Please consider revising to something such as 'The method outlined by XX [34]. This appears in a few other places throughout (Line 156), so consider revising for flow.
Line 157 - Consider replacing the period with a colon, and then number as follows: 0) XX; 1) XX
Line 174 - Please add more details to explain the root washing protocol, such as the mesh size.
Results: The results section requires major revision. The presentation of all results in the first paragraph is unusual, and this information should be presented in the sections below where individual parameters are discussed, or you can consider grouping parameters as needed. Another major concern is the presentation of two-way interactions in the case where the three-way interaction is significant. In this case, please re-structure the results to present only the significant three-way interaction, and consider restructuring the tables to avoid presenting data for two-way interactions when the three-way interaction is significant. The results for each parameter should also be expanded to clearly explain the significant interaction being discussed, and would benefit from some relative comparisons or references to data, such as '125% higher than X...' or 'a two-fold increase under X...'.
While revising tables, there are also several instances where the abbreviation in the table does not match the abbreviation in the footnote. Double-check each abbreviation to ensure that they match in the table and in the footnote. Accordingly, please be consistent in how the parameter is referred to in-text, for example 'Leaf length - LL' in the table is referred to as 'Petiole length' in text, which caused some confusion during my review. This occurs with several parameters so please carefully check them all.
Discussion and Conclusion: Overall, the discussion seems adequate but I would like another opportunity to provide more detailed review after the results are improved. Accordingly, please ensure that the discussion and conclusions appropriately reflect the improved results. Highlighting the causal relationship with phenolic compounds in the conclusion seems inappropriate, as this parameter was never measured in the study. The concluding remark arguing that higher rates of tea waste may improve drought stress due to 'mineral content' is vague and lacks a clear scientific foundation, especially when lower rates are said to have aggravated plant stress.
Overall, although I am suggesting some major revisions to this paper, it does present a valuable and novel project that has value in the sustainable agriculture context.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript extensively to sharpen the introduction, justify methodological choices, strengthen quantitative presentation of results, clarify statistical reporting, and deepen the mechanism-oriented discussion.
Introduction: In general, some more specific examples from the literature, especially in regards to any existing studies using tea waste, would be beneficial to strengthen the last few paragraphs of the introduction. The introduction would also benefit from a more clear objective.
Comments 1: Line 42 - Please remove the unnecessary ' - '.
Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The introductory sentence was revised to remove redundancy and improve conciseness. The section now reads:
“Optimal growth of kale occurs at temperatures below 22°C, while temperatures above 25°C inhibit leaf development and reduce yield.”
Comments 2: Line 55 - 'Nutrient content shifts under stress' is vague, please clarify how nutrient composition may vary under stress, providing specific examples.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. The sentence has been revised to specify how nutrient composition changes under stress. The updated text now reads:
“Stressful conditions such as drought or seasonal heat reduce chlorophyll and carotenoid levels in kale, and may also alter mineral composition—typically decreasing nitrogen, potassium, and calcium concentrations while increasing sodium and proline accumulation as adaptive responses [12, 13].”
This revision clarifies the direction and physiological relevance of nutrient changes, providing concrete examples as requested.
Comments 3: Line 57 - Is the biomass loss referring to kale specifically? Please clarify.
Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. The sentence has been revised to clarify that the biomass loss refers specifically to kale under drought stress. The updated text now reads:
“In kale, drought stress reduces growth, physiological activity, and the accumulation of primary and secondary metabolites, with biomass losses exceeding 10% within two weeks of water deficit [14 Barickman et al 2020, 15 Park 2024].”
This change specifies the crop species and provides appropriate context and citations.
Comments 4: Line 88 - Please provide more context to the germination study. What crops?
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. The sentence has been revised to specify the crop species used in the referenced experiment. The updated text now reads:
“Experimental evidence indicates that tea-waste-derived biochar can reduce phytotoxicity and improve seed germination in garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) [31 Tunklová et al., 2022].”
This clarification provides the necessary experimental context and improves the precision of the reference.
Comments 5: Line 90 - What properties may be improved by incorporating tea waste, specifically?
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The sentence has been revised to specify which soil and plant properties are improved through tea-waste incorporation. The updated text now reads:
“Composting or incorporating tea waste into soil has been reported to enhance soil organic matter, aggregation, and nutrient availability, thereby improving growth and yield in pepper and maize [32 Karataş, 2024; 33 Yıldırım et al., 2025].”
This revision clarifies the specific soil and physiological properties affected by tea waste and strengthens the mechanistic link between amendment and plant response.
Materials and Methods: In general, the materials and methods adequately explain the experiment. Throughout, please ensure the term 'replicate' and 'replication' are appropriately used considering the randomized complete block design is used. The term 'replicate' appears to be used interchangeably throughout and is causing some confusion.
Comments 6: Line 122 - How many seedlings per cultivar? This may be a typo, but sounded odd.
Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation. The sentence referring to plant numbers has been corrected and clarified in Section 2.4 (Experimental Design). The revised text now reads:
“Each treatment combination consisted of five individual plants, resulting in a total of 90 plants (2 varieties × 3 tea-waste levels × 3 drought-stress levels × 5 plants per treatment).”
This correction provides clear information on the experimental replication and confirms that the study included 90 plants in total.
Comments 7: Line 123 - Please detail the rate of fertilizer application in addition to the grade.
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The fertilizer rate and application details have been clarified to enhance methodological transparency. The revised text (Section 2.3. Seedling Production) now reads:
“Nitrogen fertilization was supplied using diammonium phosphate (DAP, (NH₄)₂HPO₄) and urea (46% N, (NH₂)₂CO). The total N input per pot was standardized based on the soil mass. Prior to transplanting, each pot received 0.35 g of DAP as a basal application. Urea was provided at a total rate of 0.45 g per plant, divided into two equal doses: the first incorporated into the soil with the basal fertilizer at planting, and the second applied as a top dressing one week before initiating the drought-stress period.”
This clarification specifies both the fertilizer form and rate, ensuring consistency with the total nitrogen equivalent of 160 kg N ha⁻¹ and improving reproducibility of the experiment.
Comments 8: Line 129-130 - 'The method of [34]' sounds unconventional. Please consider revising to something such as 'The method outlined by XX [34]. This appears in a few other places throughout (Line 156), so consider revising for flow.
Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this helpful stylistic observation. The phrasing has been revised throughout the manuscript for smoother flow and consistency with international journal style. The specific sentence now reads:
“Drought stress was applied two weeks after transplanting, following the procedure described by Kıran et al. [36, 2023].”
“Visual scoring of drought damage was performed according to the method described by Kıran et al. [37, 2016] and Kuşvuran et al. [38, 2011]”
Similarly, other instances of “the method of” have been revised to “the method described by” or “according to the procedure outlined by” to improve linguistic clarity and stylistic uniformity.
Comments 9: Line 157 - Consider replacing the period with a colon, and then number as follows: 0) XX; 1) XX
Response 9: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. The drought-damage scoring description has been reformatted to improve clarity and consistency. The revised text now reads:
“The point values and corresponding morphological appearances were defined as follows:
0) Plants unaffected by drought stress; 1) Slight slowdown in growth; 2) Onset of wilting in lower leaves; 3) Curling and wilting of upper leaves; 4) Severe wilting and yellowing of leaves with drying at leaf margins; 5) Complete wilting and drying of lower leaves.”
This change enhances readability and conforms to scientific formatting standards.
Comments 10: Line 174 - Please add more details to explain the root washing protocol, such as the mesh size.
Response 10: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. Additional methodological detail regarding the root washing procedure has been included for clarity and reproducibility. The revised text now reads:
“Roots were carefully removed from pots and washed over a 1 mm mesh sieve to remove adhering soil particles without damaging fine roots.”
This addition specifies the mesh size used during root washing and ensures transparency in the biomass measurement protocol.
Comments 11. Results: The results section requires major revision. The presentation of all results in the first paragraph is unusual, and this information should be presented in the sections below where individual parameters are discussed, or you can consider grouping parameters as needed. Another major concern is the presentation of two-way interactions in the case where the three-way interaction is significant. In this case, please re-structure the results to present only the significant three-way interaction, and consider restructuring the tables to avoid presenting data for two-way interactions when the three-way interaction is significant. The results for each parameter should also be expanded to clearly explain the significant interaction being discussed, and would benefit from some relative comparisons or references to data, such as '125% higher than X...' or 'a two-fold increase under X...'.
While revising tables, there are also several instances where the abbreviation in the table does not match the abbreviation in the footnote. Double-check each abbreviation to ensure that they match in the table and in the footnote. Accordingly, please be consistent in how the parameter is referred to in-text, for example 'Leaf length - LL' in the table is referred to as 'Petiole length' in text, which caused some confusion during my review. This occurs with several parameters so please carefully check them all.
Response 11: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. The Results section has been thoroughly reorganized into thematic subsections and expanded with explicit effect sizes to enhance clarity. Interpretation now follows the hierarchy of significance: when the variety × tea waste × drought stress (V × TW × DS) interaction was significant, only the three-way simple effects are reported, and redundant two-way results were removed. Traits without a significant three-way term are presented under the relevant two-way interaction or main effects.
The tables were revised accordingly: Table 5 now includes only parameters with significant three-way interactions, while Tables 6–8 present traits for which the three-way interaction was not significant but at least one two-way interaction was. In addition, we corrected all abbreviation inconsistencies (e.g., RWC vs. LWC, VK2 label, and TW spacing) and standardized the table footnotes, units, and significance notation.
These revisions improved the logical flow, reduced redundancy, and strengthened consistency between the text and tables, fully addressing the reviewer’s recommendations.
Comments 12: Discussion and Conclusion: Overall, the discussion seems adequate but I would like another opportunity to provide more detailed review after the results are improved. Accordingly, please ensure that the discussion and conclusions appropriately reflect the improved results. Highlighting the causal relationship with phenolic compounds in the conclusion seems inappropriate, as this parameter was never measured in the study. The concluding remark arguing that higher rates of tea waste may improve drought stress due to 'mineral content' is vague and lacks a clear scientific foundation, especially when lower rates are said to have aggravated plant stress.
Overall, although I am suggesting some major revisions to this paper, it does present a valuable and novel project that has value in the sustainable agriculture context.
Response 12: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. Following the revision of the Results section, both the Discussion and Conclusion were carefully updated to ensure consistency with the improved findings. We removed any causal statements related to phenolic compounds and mineral content, as these parameters were not directly measured. Instead, these aspects are now discussed as plausible explanatory mechanisms, supported by relevant literature and clearly framed within the study’s limitations.
To enhance logical flow, mechanism-related statements were relocated from the Conclusion to the Discussion, where they are integrated with the interaction findings (variety × tea waste × drought stress). The Conclusion has been condensed to emphasize key outcomes, practical implications, and future research directions. These revisions improve scientific rigor, align interpretations with the measured data, and fully address the reviewer’s concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have revised the manuscript extensively to sharpen the introduction, justify methodological choices, strengthen quantitative presentation of results, clarify statistical reporting, and deepen the mechanism-oriented discussion. Suggest revising the format and language expression according to the publication requirements of the journal, and checking for errors in the images, tables, and text in the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Comment: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback regarding language quality. In response, the entire manuscript has been thoroughly revised for grammar, fluency, and academic expression. Terminology inconsistencies were corrected (e.g., unification of terms such as plant fresh/dry weight and relative water content), and sentence structures were refined to ensure clarity and coherence.
All grammatical and stylistic corrections have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for easy verification. We have carefully reviewed every section to ensure that the text now meets the journal’s standards for linguistic accuracy and scientific readability.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI still have major concerns with the data analysis process. Table 4 indicates that there is a significant three-way interaction for several parameters, including DI, PH, LT, LL, LN, SPAD, LW, LA, RWC, PDW, RL, and RFW, which means the various two-way interactions should not be presented, though they are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8.
Author Response
Comments 1: I still have major concerns with the data analysis process. Table 4 indicates that there is a significant three-way interaction for several parameters, including DI, PH, LT, LL, LN, SPAD, LW, LA, RWC, PDW, RL, and RFW, which means the various two-way interactions should not be presented, though they are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8.
Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important statistical observation. We fully agree that the presence of significant three-way interactions (variety × tea waste × drought stress) requires careful interpretation and that two-way effects should not be presented as independent outcomes.
Accordingly, we have restructured the Results section to ensure full compliance with factorial ANOVA interpretation principles:
Table 5 is now presented as the primary analytical table, reflecting the three-way interaction and forming the basis for all interpretations.
Tables 6–8 have been moved to the Supplementary Material (Tables S1–S3) and are now described explicitly as “simple effects within the significant three-way interaction.” These tables are included only to illustrate the direction and magnitude of responses within specific factor combinations and are not interpreted independently.
To clarify this structure, an explanatory sentence was added in Section 2.6 (Statistical Analyses): “Because several traits exhibited significant three-way interactions (variety × tea waste × drought stress), simple two-way means were presented only to aid interpretation of specific factor combinations. These tables are not intended as independent analyses but to illustrate component patterns within the overall three-factor interaction.”
The Results narrative was revised to reference only Table 5 as the main source of interpretation, while Supplementary Tables S1–S3 are cited briefly for descriptive support.
All related revisions are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript to ensure visibility.
We believe these revisions now fully address the reviewer’s concern and ensure that the data presentation aligns with accepted factorial ANOVA interpretation standards.
Additional clarifications have been provided as requested. The Supplementary Materials and Data Availability sections were expanded and refined for greater transparency and compliance with Agronomy journal requirements.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomyXXXXXXX/s1. Table S1: Interaction effects of variety and tea waste level on morphological and physiological traits of kale under drought conditions; Table S2: Interaction effects of variety and drought stress on morphological and physiological traits of kale cultivated in tea-waste-amended soil; Table S3: Interaction effects of tea waste level and drought stress on morphological and physiological traits of kale. These tables provide detailed two-way interaction data illustrating simple effects within the significant three-way (variety × tea waste × drought stress) interaction, supporting the main statistical outcomes presented in Table 4 of the manuscript.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article and the Supplementary Materials; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for making significant revisions and improvements to this manuscript! These efforts have greatly improved the logic flow and scientific merit of your work. Please proof the entire article again for typos and grammatical errors. I tried to point out some here but there were several small typos and phrases that should be modified.
Line 138-143: Consider also including an estimated application rate in kg N /ha to contextualize the rates used in your study.
Line 154: Add 'complete' to say 'randomized complete block design', to match what was said on Line 164.
Lines 229-233, 276-279, 288-291: These are all discussion points and would be more appropriate in the discussion section.
Line 251: I would suggest removing the statement that SPAD was more complex, as this is subjective and is not an actual result.
Line 290: There is no need for the odd style used here. I would just say 'alleviating — but not preventing —' or 'alleviating, but not preventing,...'
Line 332: Saying 'interaction' would be clearer.
Line 441: Revise this sentence as 'regularly influence' sounds like a typo and I'm not sure what you meant to say.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
As mentioned above, there are many small typos, incomplete sentences, and lack of articles (for example, line 442 says 'determine plant's', when it would sound better as 'determine a plant's'). These are mostly minor issues, but I would recommend a careful proofing to ensure these are alleviated prior to publication.
Author Response
Comments 1: Line 138-143: Consider also including an estimated application rate in kg N /ha to contextualize the rates used in your study.
Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To provide agronomic context for the pot-scale fertilization, an estimated field-equivalent nitrogen rate was calculated and incorporated into the revised manuscript (Lines 138–143). This estimation was based on the nutrient quantities applied per 2-L pot, scaled to a 0–20 cm soil depth (2,000 m³ ha⁻¹). Accordingly, the combined application of diammonium phosphate (DAP) and urea corresponds to approximately 270 kg N ha⁻¹ (≈ 63 kg N ha⁻¹ from DAP and 207 kg N ha⁻¹ from urea). The corresponding paragraph has been rephrased for clarity and grammatical precision, with the term top dressing explicitly defined for improved readability.
“updated text in the manuscript”
Nitrogen fertilization was supplied using diammonium phosphate (DAP; (NH₄)₂HPO₄) and urea (46% N; (NH₂)₂CO). The total nitrogen input per pot was standardized according to the soil mass to ensure uniform nutrient availability. Before transplanting, each pot received 0.35 g of DAP as a basal application. Urea was applied at a total rate of 0.45 g per plant, divided into two equal portions: the first incorporated into the soil together with the basal fertilizer at planting, and the second applied to the soil surface (as a top dressing) one week prior to the initiation of the drought-stress treatment. Based on the 2 L pot volume, this corresponds to an estimated field-equivalent rate of approximately 270 kg N ha⁻¹ (≈ 63 kg N ha⁻¹ from DAP and 207 kg N ha⁻¹ from urea), assuming an equivalent soil depth of 0–20 cm. This conversion is presented solely to contextualize the pot-scale fertilization and does not imply field-scale recommendations.
The amendments are contained in Lines 139–150 on pages 4–5 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: Line 154: Add 'complete' to say 'randomized complete block design', to match what was said on Line 164.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this attentive observation. The term “randomized block design” has been corrected to “randomized complete block design” to ensure consistency and accuracy in the description of the experimental layout. The revised sentence now clearly defines the design structure and replication scheme.
“updated text in the manuscript”
Change in Manuscript (Line 154):
A randomized complete block design was employed, with five replicates per treatment and five plants in each replicate.
The amendment is contained in Lines 161 on page 5 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 3: Lines 229-233, 276-279, 288-291: These are all discussion points and would be more appropriate in the discussion section.
Response 3: We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.
“Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to summarize multivariate patterns and trait associations rather than to infer causal relationships.” This repositioning ensures a clearer distinction between data presentation and interpretation. The sentence was also slightly refined for academic clarity and grammatical precision.
As suggested, this interpretative statement has been relocated from the Results section to the Discussion.
“updated text in the manuscript”
The sentence originally in Lines 229–231 has been moved to the Discussion section and now appears under Section 4.4 (Lines 380–381 page 17) as:
“PCA was not used to infer causal relationships but rather to summarize multivariate patterns and trait associations.”
The interpretative sentence originally located in Lines 276–279—“The addition of tea waste did not enhance root elongation under stress but improved length and thickness under non-stress conditions, suggesting that organic amendment primarily benefited growth when moisture was adequate”—has been moved to the Discussion section, under Section 4.2 (Interactive Effects of Drought Stress and Tea-Waste Amendment). The paragraph was expanded and refined to integrate this statement with a broader interpretation of dose-dependent amendment effects. This revision clarifies the interactive role of tea-waste levels under varying moisture regimes and enhances the overall logical flow of the Discussion.
Change in Manuscript:
The addition of tea waste did not enhance root elongation under stress but improved root length and thickness under non-stress conditions, suggesting that organic amendment primarily benefited growth when soil moisture was adequate.
The amended text appears in Section 4.2, Lines 335-338 (page 16) of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer Comment (Lines 288–291):
These are all discussion points and would be more appropriate in the discussion section.
We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. The interpretative statement originally found in Lines 288–291—“Overall, drought stress consistently reduced all morphological and physiological parameters. The magnitude of reduction differed among treatments, with VK1 showing greater resilience and TW2 occasionally alleviating—but not preventing—stress-induced losses.”—has been relocated to the Discussion section under Section 4.9 (Agronomic Potential and Limitations of Tea Waste Under Drought Stress). The section was expanded to include a broader interpretation of varietal resilience and amendment effects, emphasizing the dual chemical and physical pathways through which tea waste influences drought response.
Change in Manuscript:
Overall, drought stress consistently reduced all morphological and physiological parameters, although the magnitude of reduction varied among treatments. The variety Karadeniz Yaprak (VK1) exhibited greater resilience, and the 10% tea-waste treatment occasionally **alleviated—but not prevented—**stress-induced losses.
The revised and expanded text now appears in Section 4.9, Lines 449-452 (page 18) of the revised manuscript.
Comments 4: Line 251: I would suggest removing the statement that SPAD was more complex, as this is subjective and is not an actual result.
Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.
The subjective phrase “SPAD responses were more complex” has been removed to maintain objectivity and focus on measurable results. The paragraph was slightly revised for grammatical accuracy and smoother flow while retaining the detailed description of SPAD trends across drought and amendment treatments.
Change in Manuscript (Line 251):
Original:
Chlorophyll content (SPAD) responses were more complex. Values generally decreased with stress but occasionally increased under TW2, suggesting that nutrient release from higher amendment rates might have partially supported pigment retention.
Revised:
Chlorophyll content (SPAD) generally decreased under drought stress but occasionally increased under TW2, suggesting that nutrient release from higher amendment rates may have partially supported pigment retention.
The remainder of the paragraph (reporting cultivar-specific SPAD values and comparative trends) was retained without change.
The revised and expanded text now appears in Section 3.2, Lines 251-253 (page 11) of the revised manuscript.
Comments 5: Line 290: There is no need for the odd style used here. I would just say 'alleviating — but not preventing —' or 'alleviating, but not preventing,....
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this valuable stylistic suggestion. The sentence has been revised accordingly and already appears in the updated version under Section 4.9 (Agronomic Potential and Limitations of Tea Waste Under Drought Stress) as:
*“Overall, drought stress consistently reduced all morphological and physiological parameters, although the magnitude of reduction varied among treatments. The variety Karadeniz Yaprak (VK1) exhibited greater resilience, and the 10% tea-waste treatment occasionally **alleviated—but not prevented—*stress-induced losses.”
This phrasing follows the reviewer’s recommendation for a more conventional and academic expression.
Change in Manuscript:
Implemented in Section 4.9, Lines 449-451 (page 18) of the revised manuscript.
Comments 6: Line 332: Saying 'interaction' would be clearer.
Response 6: We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation.
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The sentence has been revised to include the word “interaction” for improved clarity and to accurately describe the combined effects of drought stress and tea-waste amendment. This change ensures consistency with the terminology used throughout the Results and Discussion sections.
Change in Manuscript (Line 332):
Original:
4.2. Interactive Effects of Drought Stress and Tea Waste Amendment
Revised:
4.2. Interaction Effects of Drought Stress and Tea-Waste Amendment
(Alternatively, if the section title already reflected interaction, the term “interaction” was also inserted within the text where relevant to highlight the factorial relationship between factors.)
Implemented in Section 4.2, Line 332 (page 16) of the revised manuscript.
Comments 7: Line 441: Revise this sentence as 'regularly influence' sounds like a typo and I'm not sure what you meant to say.
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for identifying this wording issue. The phrase “regularly influence” was indeed a typographical error and has been corrected to clearly express the intended meaning. The revised sentence now accurately describes the dual mechanisms through which tea waste affects plant responses under stress.
Change in Manuscript (Line 441):
Original:
The dose-dependent outcomes demonstrate that regularly influence of tea waste operates through both chemical (phenolic) and physical-nutritional (organic matter and mineral) pathways that jointly determine plant’s physiological balance under stress.
Revised:
The dose dependent outcomes demonstrate that the influence of tea waste operates through both chemical (phenolic) and physical-nutritional (organic-matter and mineral) pathways, which jointly determine plant physiological balance under stress.
Implemented in Section 4.9, Lines 445-447 (page 18) of the revised manuscript.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response 1: We extend our sincere gratitude to the referees for their valuable feedback. The manuscript has been carefully revised for grammatical accuracy, and all modifications have been highlighted using the Track Changes function. A detailed list of revisions is also provided below, indicating the specific line numbers that were modified in the revised version.
Line 25, page 1: The word “must be removed” has been changed to “must be degraded or removed.”
Line 38, page 1: The word “work” has been changed to “analyses.”
Line 45, page 2: The word “to understand” has been changed to “for studying.”
Line 65, page 2: The word “depress” has been changed to “reduce.”
Line 71, page 2: The word “rates up” has been changed to “rates by up.”
Line 77, page 2: The word “that amendment” has been changed to “soil amendment.”
Line 111, page 3: The word “broad, waxy leaves” has been changed to “broad, and waxy leaves.”
Line 117, page 3: The word “provides a first” has been changed to “provides the first.”
Line 121, page 3: The word “excluded” has been changed to “removed.”
Line 124, page 3: The word “presented” has been changed to “shown.”
Line 136, page 4: The word “3-4” has been changed to “three to four.”
Line 138, page 4: The word “established” has been changed to “planted.”
Line 140, page 4: The word “total N” has been changed to “total nitrogen.”
Line 141, page 4: The word “based on” has been changed to “according to.”
Line 141, page 4: The words has been added “to ensure uniform nutrient availability.”
Line 142, page 4: The word “Prior to” has been changed to “Before.”
Line 143, page 4: The word “provided” has been changed to “applied.”
Line 144, page 4: The word “doses” has been changed to “portions.”
Line 144, page 4: The word “soil with” has been changed to “soil together with.”
Line 145, page 4: The word “applied as a top dressing)” has been changed to “applied to the soil surface (as a top dressing).”
Line 146, page 4: The word “before initiating” has been changed to “prior to initiation.”
Line 146, page 4: The word “period” has been changed to “treatment.”
Line 161, page 5: The word “randomized block” has been changed to “randomized complete block.”
Line 170, page 5: The word “required” has been changed to “necessitated.”
Line 194, page 7: The word “evaluation was” has been changed to “evaluations were.”
Line 202, page 7: The word “obtained” has been changed to “measured.”
Line 203, page 7: The word “0.01 mm precision” has been changed to “precision of 0.01 mm.”
Line 204, page 7: The word “blade” has been changed to “tip.”
Line 208, page 7: The word “replicate weighed” has been changed to “replicate and weighed.”
Line 211, page 7: The word “samples dried” has been changed to “samples were dried.”
Line 225, page 7: The word “and” has been changed to “as well as.”
Line 228, page 7: The word “presented only to” has been changed to “presented to.”
Line 230, page 7: The word “to illustrate” has been changed to “serve to illustrate.”
Line 246, page 8: The word “drought level depended” has been changed to “drought level were depended.”
Line 256, page 8: The word “except the” has been changed to “except for the.”
Line 203, page 10: The word “according to” has been changed to “with.”
Line 207, page 10: The word “on cultivar” has been changed to “on both cultivar.”
Line 211, page 10: The word “increased to” has been changed to “increased again to.”
Line 213, page 10: The word “intensified” has been changed to “exacerbated.”
Line 215, page 10: The word “moderated” has been changed to “alleviated.”
Line 220, page 10: The word “alleviated” has been changed to “reduced.”
Line 221, page 10: The word “reductions” has been changed to “losses.”
Line 246, page 10: The word “DI” has been changed to “the damage index (DI).”
Line 252, page 11: The word “decreased with stress” has been changed to “decreased under drought stress.”
Line 252, page 11: The word “might” has been changed to “may.”
Line 257, page 11: The word “lessened” has been changed to “reduced.”
Line 266, page 11: The word “intensified” has been changed to “aggravated.”
Line 286, page 11: The word “negligible” has been changed to” minimal.”
Line 291, page 14: The word “function” has been changed to “role.”
Line 306, page 15: The word “clustering instead” has been changed to “instead clustering.”
Line 330, page 16: The word “constrains” has been changed to “reduces.”
Line 332, page 16: The word “Interactive” has been changed to “Interaction.”
Line 339, page 16: The word “especially” has been changed to “particularly.”
Line 339, page 16: The word “contiditons” has been added.
Line 341, page 16: The word “can” has been changed to “may.”
Line 342, page 16: The word “sufficient” has been changed to “the higher.”
Line 344, page 16: The word “thereby” has been added.
Line 346, page 16: The word “concentration” has been added.
Line 346, page 16: The word “RWC” has been changed to “reltive water content.”
Line 346, page 16: The word “while” has been changed to “whereas.”
Line 347, page 16: The word “noted” has been changed to “reported.”
Line 348, page 16: The word “loss” has been changed to “degradation.”
Line 349, page 16: The word “suggest” has been changed to “indicate.”
Line 349, page 16: The word “derive” has been changed to “arise.”
Line 350, page 16: The word “level” has been added.
Line 352, page 16: The word “but” has been changed to “while.”
Line 353, page 16: The word “relations” has been changed to “interactions.”
Line 354, page 16: The word “define safe effective” has been changed to “establish safe, and effective.”
Line 356, page 16: The word “the” has been added.
Line 353, page 16: The word “refers” has been changed to “focuses.”
Line 404, page 17: The word “amendments” has been added.
Line 443, page 18: The word “buffered” has been changed to “mitigated.”
Line 443, page 18: The word “through improved” has been changed to “by improving.”
Line 446, page 18: The word “regularly” has been changed to “the.”
Line 447, page 18: The word “that” has been changed to “which.”
Line 448, page 18: The word “plants” has been changed to “plant.”
Line 455, page 18: The word “mechanisms of” has been changed to “mechanisms.”
Line 455-456, page 18: The word “This observation aligns” has been changed to “These observations are consistent.”
Line 457, page 18: The word “drought” has been deleted.
Line 457, page 18: The word “proposed” has been changed to “identified.”
Line 469, page 19: The word “regulated” has been changed to “affected.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
