Review Reports - Water Efficiency of Coriander under Flows of Application of Nutritive Solutions Prepared in Brackish Waters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General observations of the work:

Introduction:

Clearly highlight in the text the hypothesis of the work and its importance for regions where there is water scarcity

On lines 66 and 67: delete - NaCl and CaCl₂.2H₂O and (EC: 1.7, 3.0, 4.5 and 6.0 dS m^-1)

Material and methods

insert a photo of the arrangement of the plants in the hydroponic system

Insert a table with the amount of salts used in the preparation of each level of electrical conductivity of the solution

On lines 168-170, inform whether the data meets the assumptions of the anova and the normality test applied

Results and discussion

Insert the table with the summary of the analysis of variance

Throughout the text replace (p<0.01) with (p ≤0.01)

Throughout the text replace (p<0.05) with (p ≤0.05)

In the discussion, the authors need to explain the biological phenomena that occurred as a result of the treatments.

Author Response

December 5, 2022

Dear Reviewer

We thank the reviewers and editors for their time and effort in evaluating this paper, as well as for the comments and suggestions made to improve this manuscript titled “Water efficiency of coriander under flows of application of nutritive solutions prepared in brackish waters”.

We agree with the review reviewer's assessment of the review and have moved forward with the following changes:

Introduction:

We deleted the terms: NaCl and CaCl₂.2H₂O, as well as the salinity levels and flows, previously detailed, so that there was a better formulation of the objective of the work (on lines 64-66).
We clearly highlight the hypothesis of the work (on lines 66-68) and its importance for regions where there is water scarcity (on lines 68-72).

Material and methods:

We insert a photo of the layout of the plants in the hydroponic system (on line 98).
We replaced the figure that represents the experimental plot (on line 104).
We inserted a table with the amount of salts used in the preparation of each level of electrical conductivity of the solution (on lines 130-132).
We inform that the data meet the assumptions of the ANOVA and the normality test applied (on line 178 and 179).

Results and discussion:

We inserted two tables with the summary of the analysis of variance (Tables 2 and 3) and, therefore, we made improvements in the description of the results.
Throughout the text we replace (p<0.01) with (p ≤0.01); (p<0.05) with (p ≤0.05); and (p>0.05) with (p ≥0.05).
In the discussion, we explain the biological phenomena that occurred as a result of the treatments. For example, as noted in lines 390-395, where we explain the negative interference of salinity on plant growth. Such considerations can also be observed in lines 442-446, where we address the factors that contribute to the maintenance of cell turgor under salt stress conditions.

Other considerations:

We performed the replacement of figures 4-7, in which the “comma” had to be replaced by the “dot” in the numbers; in addition, we have improved the quality of these figures.
Finally, we made some adjustments, considered necessary, throughout the text for its better understanding by the magazine's readers.

Sincerely,

Edivan Rodrigues de Souza

Associate Professor

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased to read the manuscript titled “Water efficiency of coriander under flows of application of nutritive solutions prepared in brackish waters”. The material is presented appropriately and clearly, the data contained in figures represent understandable documentation of the research problem. The findings shown in the manuscript are interesting and valuable, but in my opinion, the article should be published in journals about plants or agriculture, not about water. The main focus of this article is the plant, and only different water conditions are used to evaluate its growth. I am convinced that the presented aspect is more interesting to journal's audience of "Plants", but the research problem is consistent with the scope of "Water", therefore I accept the article.

My minor suggestion - Line 80-81 – „…air temperature was range between 21.3 and 98.7% (Experiment II)…” - wrong information.

Fig. 3 – Fig. 6 - replace "comma" with "dot" in numbers, please