Effects of Different Irrigation Water Sources Contaminated with Heavy Metals on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Different Field Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an impession that a draft is downloaded. It is not very convinient to read. 

The article is devoted to a very important problem - the study of the effect of irrigation water contaminated with heavy metals on the growth and development of plants. It is known that the toxicity of heavy metals is one of the key factors limiting growth processes and affecting plant metabolism, starting with seed germination. This factor affects the germination and energy of seed germination - an important stage in the plant life cycle. The study of seed germination in laboratory conditions include simple and inexpensive tests useful in determining the toxicological damage caused by the presence of various pollutants in the environment. This is what this article is devoted to.

However, it is poorly written, very verbose, and often inconsistent. The authors allow themselves numerous repetitions, refer to an excessive number of literary facts, which is permissible in a review, but not in an experimental article. Often, references to literature are only partially or very indirectly related to the described facts.

Introduction - 2.5 pages - too voluminous.

Below are provided only a part of the specific comments and suggestions for the improving the article.

Line 64 - what does the effect of oxygen mean (little/much or other indicators)? pH of what?

Line 65 - quality of soil moisture - what does it mean?

Lines 126-134 - too detailed, unnecessary.

Line 147 - repetition of the words “labor intensive”.

Lines 159-169. The aim of the study should be stated more briefly, not so detailed.

It would be better to merge)tables 2 and 3, perhaps removing the last column from table 2.

The authors constantly paraphrase the tables, which is not necessary; it is enough to cite the most important points arising from these tables.

Lines 354-356. "Germination and the early plant growth stage are critical for crops whose seeds are used as food [55]". Why only as food? The authors themselves study alfalfa and ryegrass - forage plants, and the articles they refer to talk not only about food plants, and reference 56 mainly talks about herbaceous plants.

Lines 354-367. A repetition of what was already given in the introduction.

Line 361 - references 58 and 59 are unsuccessful and are unlikely to be directly related to the stated provisions.

Lines 382-406. Too many examples. This is not a review!

Line 511 - The decrease in protein content in tissues exposed to heavy metals has been reported by many workers [100-101]. What does exposed tissues mean? This article is about seeds. Unnecessary and unsuccessful references. Lines 522-526. Should be moved to the discussion. The conclusion presents the main states of the study, not assumptions.

The article must be shortened by at least a third

• Among the cited references there are comparatevily many old ones. The recent publications (within the last 5 years) consist about a half maybe. Not all references are relevant. It does not  include an excessive number of self-citations.
• The conclusions should be remade.
• The figures/tables/are more or less  appropriate.They properly show the data. They are easy to interpret and understand.

 

• Novelty: The results provide an advancement of the current knowledge for the concreye region of the world.
• Scope: The work fit the journal scope.
• The results interpreted appropriately and are significant.  The conclusions justified and supported by the results.
• The article is written in an UN-appropriate way. The data and analyses presented more or less appropriately.  Standards for presentation of the results used are not the highest.
• Scientific Soundness: The study is not totally correctly designed and technically sound. The analyses performed with the adequate  technical standards.  The data robust enough to draw conclusions. The methods, tools, software, and reagents described with un- sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results. The raw data available and correct.
• Interest to the Readers: The conclusions could be  interesting for the readership of the journal. The paper attract a definit readership, and be of interest to a  number of people concen. 
• Overall Merit: There is an overall benefit to publishing this work  in a corrected form. The work advance the current knowledge. The authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments. 
• English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable? Quite appropriate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is not my native language, I am not sure that I can judge
its quality in this manuscript.

Author Response

It is an impession that a draft is downloaded. It is not very convinient to read. 

The article is devoted to a very important problem - the study of the effect of irrigation water contaminated with heavy metals on the growth and development of plants. It is known that the toxicity of heavy metals is one of the key factors limiting growth processes and affecting plant metabolism, starting with seed germination. This factor affects the germination and energy of seed germination - an important stage in the plant life cycle. The study of seed germination in laboratory conditions include simple and inexpensive tests useful in determining the toxicological damage caused by the presence of various pollutants in the environment. This is what this article is devoted to.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in enhancing our manuscript's readability and scientific quality. We have revised it as much as possible according to your recommendations. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort.

However, it is poorly written, very verbose, and often inconsistent. The authors allow themselves numerous repetitions, refer to an excessive number of literary facts, which is permissible in a review, but not in an experimental article. Often, references to literature are only partially or very indirectly related to the described facts.

Response: Thank you. The whole manuscript has been reorganized and unnecessary repetitions have been deleted.

Introduction - 2.5 pages - too voluminous.

Response: Thank you. The introduction has been reorganized and reduced to approximately 1.5 pages. 

Below are provided only a part of the specific comments and suggestions for the improving the article.

Line 64 - what does the effect of oxygen mean (little/much or other indicators)? pH of what?

Response: Completed. The sentence has been revised.

Line 65 - quality of soil moisture - what does it mean?

Response: Completed. The sentence has been revised.

Lines 126-134 - too detailed, unnecessary.

Response: Completed.

Line 147 - repetition of the words “labor intensive”.

Response: Completed. The unnecessary part deleted.

Lines 159-169. The aim of the study should be stated more briefly, not so detailed.

Response: Completed. The unnecessary part deleted.

It would be better to merge)tables 2 and 3, perhaps removing the last column from table 2.

Response: Combining Tables 2 and 3 will change and distort the shape of the table. Also, since Table 2 is not our findings, it would be more appropriate to show it in the Material and Model section. Thank you.

The authors constantly paraphrase the tables, which is not necessary; it is enough to cite the most important points arising from these tables.

Response: Completed. The important points in the tables are indicated. Thank you

Lines 354-356. "Germination and the early plant growth stage are critical for crops whose seeds are used as food [55]". Why only as food? The authors themselves study alfalfa and ryegrass - forage plants, and the articles they refer to talk not only about food plants, and reference 56 mainly talks about herbaceous plants.

Response: Completed. This sentence was revised.

Lines 354-367. A repetition of what was already given in the introduction.

Response: Completed. The part of the manuscript was revised.

Line 361 - references 58 and 59 are unsuccessful and are unlikely to be directly related to the stated provisions.

Response: Completed. A study was cited indicating the sensitivity and fragility of the ecosystem in which the research area is located.

Lines 382-406. Too many examples. This is not a review!

Response: Completed. The unnecessary part deleted.

Line 511 - The decrease in protein content in tissues exposed to heavy metals has been reported by many workers [100-101]. What does exposed tissues mean? This article is about seeds. Unnecessary and unsuccessful references.

Response: Completed. This part was deleted.

Lines 522-526. Should be moved to the discussion. The conclusion presents the main states of the study, not assumptions.

Response: I want to keep this sentence. Because the sentence (lines 522-526) is not an assumption, but a suggestion, and is a method often used to remove heavy metals from the area. Thank you.

The article must be shortened by at least a third.

Response: Especially, repeated parts of the manuscript have been reorganized and reduced. The manuscript is 13 pages without the references list after reductions.

• Among the cited references there are comparatively many old ones. The recent publications (within the last 5 years) consist about a half maybe. Not all references are relevant. It does not include an excessive number of self-citations.

Response: Some older references have been deleted. However, there are not many studies on the effects of irrigation water quality on early development and germination in plants. Therefore, we have to retain some of the references. There are also 5 self-citations in total, of which the irrelevant ones were deleted.

• The conclusions should be remade.
• Response: Completed. This section was revised.
• The figures/tables/are more or less appropriate. They properly show the data. They are easy to interpret and understand?
• Novelty: The results provide an advancement of the current knowledge for the concrete region of the world.
• Scope: The work fit the journal scope.
• The results interpreted appropriately and are significant.  The conclusions justified and supported by the results.
• The article is written in an UN-appropriate way. The data and analyses presented more or less appropriately.  Standards for presentation of the results used are not the highest.
• Scientific Soundness:The study is not totally correctly designed and technically sound. The analyses performed with the adequate  technical standards.  The data robust enough to draw conclusions. The methods, tools, software, and reagents described with un- sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results. The raw data available and correct.
• Interest to the Readers:The conclusions could be  interesting for the readership of the journal. The paper attract a definit readership, and be of interest to a  number of people concen. 
• Overall Merit:There is an overall benefit to publishing this work  in a corrected form. The work advance the current knowledge. The authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments. 
• English Level:Is the English language appropriate and understandable? Quite appropriate.

Response: Your suggestions were extremely helpful in improving our manuscript's readability and scientific quality. We have revised the manuscript as much as possible according to your suggestions. We sincerely thank you for your valuable time and sharing your knowledge. We also thank you for your positive thoughts about our article.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Effects of different irrigation water sources contaminated with heavy metals on seed germination and seedling growth of different field crops" presents an interesting idea but has several critical shortcomings that need to be addressed:

• The abstract effectively states the purpose of the study. However, the phrase "this study aims to evaluate the effects of certain water sources..." could be clarified further for better understanding. A more detailed description of the objective would enhance the clarity of the abstract.
• The abstract contains some long and complex sentences that may affect readability. Breaking down these sentences or reorganizing them for improved flow would increase the overall clarity.
• The term "ger-mination" in line 26 should be corrected to "germination" for accuracy.
• The abstract does not specify which device was used to determine the concentration of heavy metals (lines 42–43).
• The conclusion section within the abstract is too general. Providing more specific details about the key findings and their implications would enhance the effectiveness of this section.
• The keywords section requires minor revisions. It is advisable to choose terms that differ from those used in the title to enhance searchability and comprehensiveness. Kindly revise accordingly.
• It is suggested that the introduction be reorganized for better structure. Begin by discussing the importance of crops, then address the abiotic stressors that impact them, and finally narrow down to the specific effects of heavy metals. This logical flow would make the section more coherent.
• The sections discussing the impact of heavy metals on germination and growth should be integrated into one comprehensive section rather than repeating them across multiple paragraphs. This would eliminate redundancy and improve the manuscript's flow.
• The novelty of this study should be explicitly stated in the introduction, particularly in comparison with previous studies on the same topic. Highlighting the unique aspects of this research would clarify its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
• Ensure that all scientific names are italicized consistently throughout the manuscript.
• Please perform a thorough check to ensure consistency in formatting throughout the manuscript. Small inconsistencies can disrupt the professional presentation of the work.
• The sterilization process using a 5% NaClO solution would benefit from further explanation regarding the choice of concentration and duration. Clarifying the rationale behind these specific conditions would strengthen the methodology.
• It would be helpful to provide more detailed information about the filter paper treatment and preparation process. Were the filter papers treated before use? If so, what method was used to prepare them? Additional clarification will improve the reader's understanding of the materials and methods.
• In the discussion of the germination rate, it would be beneficial to incorporate more relevant studies to provide a broader context. This will help readers better understand the significance of the findings in relation to the current literature.
• The discussion section could be more concise by consolidating similar findings to reduce repetition. Presenting the results in a more structured manner would enhance the clarity and impact of the section.
• Clearly state how the results of this study support or contradict other research in the field. In addition, a more in-depth discussion of the specific biochemical or physiological pathways affected by heavy metals would provide a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
• The final conclusion section appears somewhat scattered. A more focused summary of the key findings and their significance would enhance the impact of the conclusion. It would be useful to wrap up the discussion with a clear statement of the main results and their broader implications.
• It would be valuable to discuss the limitations of the study in the conclusion section. Additionally, incorporating suggestions for further research, particularly regarding the barrier properties of the studied materials, would strengthen the conclusions and provide avenues for future exploration.
• Several references cited in the manuscript are outdated, particularly those mentioned in lines 653, 697, and 698. It is recommended to update these references with more recent and relevant studies to strengthen the scientific foundation of the research.
• It is unclear whether the images in Figure 1 were taken by the authors or sourced from an external reference. If these images were obtained from another source, proper citation and compliance with copyright regulations must be ensured. However, it would be preferable for the authors to provide original photographs of the river taken during their own research to enhance the authenticity and reliability of the study.

Author Response

The paper titled "Effects of different irrigation water sources contaminated with heavy metals on seed germination and seedling growth of different field crops" presents an interesting idea but has several critical shortcomings that need to be addressed:

• The abstract effectively states the purpose of the study. However, the phrase "this study aims to evaluate the effects of certain water sources..." could be clarified further for better understanding. A more detailed description of the objective would enhance the clarity of the abstract.

Response: Completed. The sentence has been revised.

• The abstract contains some long and complex sentences that may affect readability. Breaking down these sentences or reorganizing them for improved flow would increase the overall clarity.

Response: Completed. Long and complex sentences were shortened and written more clearly.

• The term "ger-mination" in line 26 should be corrected to "germination" for accuracy.

Response: This is due to the journal's writing format. It is not intervened. Many words like this can be broken up in the text.

• The abstract does not specify which device was used to determine the concentration of heavy metals (lines 42–43).

Response: The equipment used is specified in the materials and methods section (2.2. Preparations and analysis of water samples).

• The conclusion section within the abstract is too general. Providing more specific details about the key findings and their implications would enhance the effectiveness of this section.

Response: The conclusion section of the abstract was revised.

• The keywords section requires minor revisions. It is advisable to choose terms that differ from those used in the title to enhance search ability and comprehensiveness. Kindly revise accordingly.

Response: Keywords were revised.

• It is suggested that the introduction be reorganized for better structure. Begin by discussing the importance of crops, then address the abiotic stressors that impact them, and finally narrow down to the specific effects of heavy metals. This logical flow would make the section more coherent.

Response: The introduction section has been reorganized in line with your suggestions.

• The sections discussing the impact of heavy metals on germination and growth should be integrated into one comprehensive section rather than repeating them across multiple paragraphs. This would eliminate redundancy and improve the manuscript's flow.

Response: The discussion section has been reorganized in line with your suggestions.

• The novelty of this study should be explicitly stated in the introduction, particularly in comparison with previous studies on the same topic. Highlighting the unique aspects of this research would clarify its contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Response: This research is a special study in terms of evaluating the ecotoxicological effects of irrigation water quality and revealing the specific effects of different heavy metals (especially Cu and Fe) on germination and seedling development of field crops. When the literature is examined, it is seen that the general effects of heavy metals on agricultural production are examined in general. In this study, irrigation waters taken from different water sources in Kahramanmaraş Plain were comparatively analysed and the negative effects of each source on plant development were supported with quantitative data. In addition, this research, which was conducted using Petri dishes in a controlled laboratory environment, determined that certain species were more sensitive to heavy metals. This situation contributed to the revealing of different responses on a species basis and to the understanding of the specific effects of pollution. In this respect, the study provides important data for sustainable agriculture and irrigation management by examining the effects of heavy metal pollution on early plant development in detail.

• Ensure that all scientific names are italicized consistently throughout the manuscript.

Response: scientific names double checked.

• Please perform a thorough check to ensure consistency in formatting throughout the manuscript. Small inconsistencies can disrupt the professional presentation of the work.

Response: Thank you, the Whole manuscript was double-checked to eliminate inconsistencies.

• The sterilization process using a 5% NaClO solution would benefit from further explanation regarding the choice of concentration and duration. Clarifying the rationale behind these specific conditions would strengthen the methodology.

Response: Sodium hypochlorite is a widely used and effective disinfectant. Leading health authorities such as the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), WHO (World Health Organization), and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) provide specific standards and recommendations regarding the use of sodium hypochlorite in disinfection. Sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) solution, which is widely used in sterilization processes, is a strong oxidizing agent that effectively destroys the cell structures of microorganisms and ensures their effective destruction. The reason for choosing 5% NaClO solution is that it provides a balance between its effectiveness and safe use. This concentration is powerful against a wide range of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and viruses, while minimizing the risk of unnecessary corrosiveness or toxicity. Lower concentrations (1–2%) may be insufficient, especially for spore-forming bacteria and resistant microorganisms, while higher concentrations (10% and above) may pose a risk to both equipment and user safety due to their corrosive effects. The exposure time during the sterilization process is also of great importance. Although the contact time varies depending on the type of material to be sterilized and the level of contamination, determining it in the range of 10–30 minutes ensures effective microbial inactivation while minimizing the negative effects on the material.

Anonymous, 2019. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chemical disinfectants: Guidelines for healthcare settings. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/chemical-disinfectants.html

Anonymous, 2020. World Health Organization (WHO). Cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in the context of COVID-19. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/cleaning-and-disinfection-of-environmental-surfaces-in-the-context-of-covid-19

Anonymous, 2021. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). List N: Disinfectants for use against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). https://www.epa.gov/coronavirus/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2

• It would be helpful to provide more detailed information about the filter paper treatment and preparation process. Were the filter papers treated before use? If so, what method was used to prepare them? Additional clarification will improve the reader's understanding of the materials and methods.

Response: CYTIVA WHATMAN589/1 Circles - 90 mm filter paper was used in the study.

• In the discussion of the germination rate, it would be beneficial to incorporate more relevant studies to provide a broader context. This will help readers better understand the significance of the findings in relation to the current literature.

Response: Thank you, we used relevant studies to discuss germination.

• The discussion section could be more concise by consolidating similar findings to reduce repetition. Presenting the results in a more structured manner would enhance the clarity and impact of the section.

Response: Thank you, Necessary reductions were made to ensure integrity of meaning.

• Clearly state how the results of this study support or contradict other research in the field. In addition, a more in-depth discussion of the specific biochemical or physiological pathways affected by heavy metals would provide a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

Response: Our results have demonstrated the effects of water sources irrigated with alternative water sources but contaminated with industrial wastewater on plant germination and early development parameters. No such study exists in the literature. Some domestic wastewaters have examined the effects of different plant species on germination and plant development. In addition, the physiological and biochemical effects of heavy metals on plants are mentioned in the text. Since physiology is a different field, it is not discussed in depth.

• The final conclusion section appears somewhat scattered. A more focused summary of the key findings and their significance would enhance the impact of the conclusion. It would be useful to wrap up the discussion with a clear statement of the main results and their broader implications.

Response: The conclusion section was revised as your suggestions.

• It would be valuable to discuss the limitations of the study in the conclusion section. Additionally, incorporating suggestions for further research, particularly regarding the barrier properties of the studied materials, would strengthen the conclusions and provide avenues for future exploration.

Response: The limitations of the study were shown in section 5.

• Several references cited in the manuscript are outdated, particularly those mentioned in lines 653, 697, and 698. It is recommended to update these references with more recent and relevant studies to strengthen the scientific foundation of the research.

Response: Some references were updated. However, some specific studies were kept in the reference list

• It is unclear whether the images in Figure 1 were taken by the authors or sourced from an external reference. If these images were obtained from another source, proper citation and compliance with copyright regulations must be ensured. However, it would be preferable for the authors to provide original photographs of the river taken during their own research to enhance the authenticity and reliability of the study.

Response: Photographs coded A, B and C were taken by the author Ömer Süha Uslu. A reference statement has been made for the photo coded D. (Anonymous, 2025. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%C4%B1r_Baraj%C4%B1_-_Kahramanmara%C5%9F_03.jpg#filelinks )

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript some changes are required which I have mentioned below

Abstract:

A preliminary ecotoxicological assessment is necessary before large-scale irrigation

The study highlights the importance of using uncontaminated irrigation water for optimal crop production

quantify the impact (e.g., percentage decrease in germination or seedling growth)

Material and Methods:

widely cultivated in the Kahramanmaraş region, particularly near the dam

These crops were selected due to their extensive use by local farmers and their commercial importance

 It would be useful to mention the depth of water collection (e.g., surface water, mid-depth).

The time of sampling (morning/evening) can also be included, as heavy metal concentrations can fluctuate

Results:

In this study, heavy metal concentrations in all irrigation water samples were measured and compared with the maximum allowable limits (Tables 2 and 3)

The results indicate that Cu levels in Karasu Creek irrigation water exceed the permissible limit by approximately 5 times, while Fe levels are 3.7 times higher (Table 2)

Similarly, Cu concentrations were found to be 8 times higher in Oklu Creek, 5 times higher in Erkenez Creek, and 6 times higher in Sır Dam compared to the permissible limit.

Cd concentrations were extremely high in Erkenez Creek (20 times) and Sır Dam (23 times) above the permissible limit (Table 3).

Seedling length was significantly affected by cultivar and irrigation water, while their interaction was non-significant (Tables 4 and 5).

Wheat exhibited the highest seedling length (28.58 cm), followed by corn (17.99 cm)

Among irrigation water sources, the highest seedling length was recorded with Sır Dam water (22.28 cm), while the lowest was observed with Karasu Creek water (15.06 cm)

Corn had the highest seedling fresh weight (4.65 g), followed by wheat (1.67 g)

Author Response

I have reviewed the manuscript some changes are required which I have mentioned below;

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in enhancing the readability and scientific quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your recommendations as much as possible. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort.

Abstract:

A preliminary ecotoxicological assessment is necessary before large-scale irrigation

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

The study highlights the importance of using uncontaminated irrigation water for optimal crop production quantify the impact (e.g., percentage decrease in germination or seedling growth)

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Material and Methods:

widely cultivated in the Kahramanmaraş region, particularly near the dam

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

These crops were selected due to their extensive use by local farmers and their commercial importance

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

It would be useful to mention the depth of water collection (e.g., surface water, mid-depth).

The time of sampling (morning/evening) can also be included, as heavy metal concentrations can fluctuate

Response: Water collection depth and sampling time were added.

Results:

In this study, heavy metal concentrations in all irrigation water samples were measured and compared with the maximum allowable limits (Tables 2 and 3)

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

The results indicate that Cu levels in Karasu Creek irrigation water exceed the permissible limit by approximately 5 times, while Fe levels are 3.7 times higher (Table 2)

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Similarly, Cu concentrations were found to be 8 times higher in Oklu Creek, 5 times higher in Erkenez Creek, and 6 times higher in Sır Dam compared to the permissible limit.

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Cd concentrations were extremely high in Erkenez Creek (20 times) and Sır Dam (23 times) above the permissible limit (Table 3).

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Seedling length was significantly affected by cultivar and irrigation water, while their interaction was non-significant (Tables 4 and 5).

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Wheat exhibited the highest seedling length (28.58 cm), followed by corn (17.99 cm)

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Among irrigation water sources, the highest seedling length was recorded with Sır Dam water (22.28 cm), while the lowest was observed with Karasu Creek water (15.06 cm)

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Corn had the highest seedling fresh weight (4.65 g), followed by wheat (1.67 g)

Response: Completed. The sentence has been added to the related section.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed manuscript titled "Effects of different contaminated irrigation water sources on seed germination and seedling growth of different plant species". The aim of the research is to demonstrate that the composition of water influences seed germination and early growth of selected plant species. The results showed that all irrigation waters containing heavy metals (Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Cr, As, and Cd) had statistically significant negative effects on seed germination and seedling growth of four field crop seeds: wheat, alfalfa, ryegrass, and corn, widely cultivated in the Kahramanmaraş region. There are studies on similar topics, but the complexity of many factors (soil, climate, type of vegetation, seed condition and also water chemistry) means that each study gives individual and very valuable results. The findings of this study will assist farmers and city administrators in educating the public by highlighting the impacts of environmental pollution on food security, livelihoods, and healthy living. I am convinced that the presented aspect of the impact of contaminated water on plant growth is relevant to the field and will interest readers of the journal "Water". The article raises an important aspect that it is not indifferent what water is used to irrigate crops. The material is presented appropriately and clearly, the data contained in figures and tables represent understandable documentation of the research problem (they are legible and make the text easier to understand). The references are appropriate. In the "Discussion" section, the Authors provide many examples from other researchers, which proves that the issues discussed are known to them not only from their own research, but also use the experience and knowledge of other researchers. The conclusions are formulated in a rather general way, but are consistent with the presented research results and arguments. I recommend the publication in its present form, I do not propose any additional comments on the text, tables and figures.

Author Response

Comment 1. I have reviewed the manuscript “Effects of Different Contaminated Irrigation Water Sources on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Different Plant Species". The results showed that all irrigation waters containing heavy metals had statistically significant negative effects on seed germination and seedling growth. Manuscript is interesting and valuable and the findings of this study will assist farmers and city administrators in educating the public by highlighting the impacts of environmental pollution on food security, livelihoods, and healthy living. The material is presented appropriately and clearly, the data contained in figures and tables represent understandable documentation of the research problem. I am convinced that the presented aspect is interesting to the journal's audience of "Water". I recommend the publication in its present form; I do not propose any additional comments.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your views and thoughts about our article. Also, thank you for your feedback, taking the time and effort in reviewing this paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I thank the authors for their sensitivity to criticism
and attention to comments. They listened to most of them:
the article became a little shorter, the list of references
was reduced by 8 sources. In fact, in the experimental article
it should be even shorter. Take this as a wish for the future.
You need to write shorter and more specifically - this way it
will be easier for the reader to understand the essence of the matter.
Considering the important problem raised in the article, its practical significance - preserving a clean environment, maintaining the purity of agricultural products, I propose to accept the article in a revised version.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the requested revisions, and I acknowledge their efforts in improving the quality of the paper. The necessary changes have been implemented satisfactorily.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Effects of different contaminated irrigation water sources on seed germination and seedling growth of different plant species” submitted by Ömer Süha Uslu entails the findings of a pot trial to assess the germination in response to heavy metals contaminated water. Overall, the content of MS falls well within the aim and scope of the journal, however, there are several critical deficiencies that have been highlighted for authors consideration.

TITLE

“contaminated irrigation water sources” is an ambiguous term and must be replaced with precise type of contamination studied in this trial.

ABSTRACT

“Field crops such as wheat, alfalfa, ryegrass, and corn play a vital role in agriculture and livestock production, particularly in the Kahramanmaras plain” is a too generalized statement, whereas readers expect a consolidated research problem/question as the starting phrase of the abstract.

Abstract lacks a concise description of treatments and recorded findings, moreover, no meaningful results-based information has been provided.

“The results demonstrated that irrigation water contaminated with heavy metals significantly affected seed germination and seedling growth” This is something that is too generalized and already known.

INTRODUCTION

The authors have failed to establish the study rationale by highlighting research gaps. There is no effective and critical analysis of peer findings to establish the need of conducting this study rather introduction in the present form gives the impression of a report writing instead of a research article.

Research hypothesis is missing and research objectives must be rewritten to clarify the goals of this study.

METHODOLOGY

Methodology is flawed because treatment effects have been assessed in lab trial without any repetition and it is strongly suggested to repeat the trials in field to establish the validity of research findings.

Details of statistical analysis are missing.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results do not effectively present the impact of water treatments on germination and other seedling traits. Although the discussion is detailed but research findings have not been interpreted rather generalized information has been presented. Discussion must be rewritten to discuss the recorded findings in the light of peer findings.

CONCLUSION

Again too general information has been presented. I suggest authors summarize the pronounced findings and elaborate their perspective utilization in global scenario.

Overall, the manuscript lacks depth with too many technical flaws in methodology and discussion section.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need improvement

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. All suggestions were very useful in making our manuscript more readable and scientific. As much as possible, revisions were made in line with your suggestions. Thank you for your efforts.

The manuscript entitled “Effects of different contaminated irrigation water sources on seed germination and seedling growth of different plant species” submitted by Ömer Süha Uslu entails the findings of a pot trial to assess the germination in response to heavy metals contaminated water. Overall, the content of MS falls well within the aim and scope of the journal, however, several critical deficiencies have been highlighted for authors' consideration.

TITLE

“contaminated irrigation water sources” is an ambiguous term and must be replaced with precise type of contamination studied in this trial.

Response: The title of the paper was revised. See lines 2-4.

 

ABSTRACT

“Field crops such as wheat, alfalfa, ryegrass, and corn play a vital role in agriculture and livestock production, particularly in the Kahramanmaras plain” is a too generalized statement, whereas readers expect a consolidated research problem/question as the starting phrase of the abstract.

Abstract lacks a concise description of treatments and recorded findings, moreover, no meaningful results-based information has been provided.

“The results demonstrated that irrigation water contaminated with heavy metals significantly affected seed germination and seedling growth” This is something that is too generalized and already known.

Response: The abstract of the paper was revised. See lines 19-43.

 

INTRODUCTION

The authors have failed to establish the study rationale by highlighting research gaps. There is no effective and critical analysis of peer findings to establish the need of conducting this study rather introduction in the present form gives the impression of a report writing instead of a research article.

Research hypothesis is missing and research objectives must be rewritten to clarify the goals of this study.

Response: The title of the paper was revised and double-checked. See lines 45-130.

METHODOLOGY

Methodology is flawed because treatment effects have been assessed in lab trial without any repetition and it is strongly suggested to repeat the trials in field to establish the validity of research findings.

Response: Thank you. In the upcoming years, it is planned to make a project and establish this trial in field conditions. Thus, the complete development process of the plants will be examined. This research is for preventing wrong applications in large areas and for the preliminary impressions of the reactions of the commercially valuable plant seeds to irrigation water sources.

Details of statistical analysis are missing.

Response: Revised. See lines 180-181

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results do not effectively present the impact of water treatments on germination and other seedling traits. Although the discussion is detailed but research findings have not been interpreted rather generalized information has been presented. Discussion must be rewritten to discuss the recorded findings in the light of peer findings.

ResponseThese both sections were partly revised.

CONCLUSION

Again too general information has been presented. I suggest authors summarize the pronounced findings and elaborate their perspective utilization in global scenario.

Overall, the manuscript lacks depth with too many technical flaws in methodology and discussion section. 

Response: The conclusion section was revised. See lines 491-512

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      First of all, the title is a bit general. This can be improved by using this title: “Effects of different irrigation water sources contaminated with heavy metals on seed germination and seedling growth of different field crops”.

2.      In my opinion, there should have been more than one seasons. If so, the data would have been sufficient.; the methods can be reduced in lines 26-30; they are heavy metals

3.      The results are too general and ambiguous in the abstract. It should be more specific with significant data and changes in parameters.in line 33, please add which metals in Karasu Creek affects surveyed parameters

4.      At the end, the meaning and the contribution of the study should be stated. The current one is not acceptable (lines 33–35).

5.      Because the study was conducted in 2017, the references are too outdated. Please update the references to improve the needs of the study in the current situation.

6.      Some statement should be cited in the introduction, such as lines 40–42, 49–54, and 90–108.

7.      The crops are poorly introduced. Please improve.

8.      A proper objective statement should be presented at the end of the introduction.

9.      The writing in the materials and methods should be improved. This section encounter several grammatically errors and typos.

10.  The section 2.2. should be rewritten and divided into different subsections.

11.  The information of the crops is not sufficient.

12.  Results should be written in past tense. Please move the tables to supplementary data or reduce the figures. It is better to analyze as factors for showing interaction

13.  Metals have been abbreviated previously. Please do not keep abbreviating the terms repeatedly. Please remove lines 462-465; “texted crops”, tested crops? in line 481. The applicability, meaning, further research, or contribution of the study should be delivered at the end of the conclusion.

14.  The references format should be checked according to the journal guidelines. Likewise, statements and declarations should be checked as well.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2.

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. All suggestions were very useful in making our manuscript more readable and scientific. As much as possible, revisions were made in line with your suggestions. Thank you for your efforts.

1. First of all, the title is a bit general. This can be improved by using this title: “Effects of different irrigation water sources contaminated with heavy metals onseed germination and seedling growth of different field crops”.

Response: The title of the paper was revised. See lines 2-4.

 

2. In my opinion, there should have been more than one seasons. If so, the data would have been sufficient.; the methods can be reduced in lines 26-30; they are heavy metals

Response: The sentence was revised. See lines 27-33.

2. The results are too general and ambiguous in the abstract. It should be more specific with significant data and changes in parameters.in line 33, please add which metals in Karasu Creek affects surveyed parameters.

Response: The sentence was revised. See lines 38-40.

3. At the end, the meaning and the contribution of the study should be stated. The current one is not acceptable (lines 33–35)

Response: The sentence was revised. See lines 40-43.

4. Because the study was conducted in 2017, the references are too outdated. Please update the references to improve the needs of the study in the current situation.

Response: Some old references were updated.

5. Some statement should be cited in the introduction, such as lines 40–42, 49–54, and 90–108.

Response: References were added in lines 49-51 and 57-61. Also, In addition, the other specified parts are sentences that express our observations and aims in our research. These sentences are not referenced.

6. The crops are poorly introduced. Please improve.

Response: Revised.

7. A proper objective statement should be presented at the end of the introduction.

Response: Revised. Lines 118-125

8. The writing in the materials and methods should be improved. This section encounter several grammatically errors and typos.

Response: The M&M section is revised and grammatical errors were checked.

9. The section 2.2. should be rewritten and divided into different subsections.

Response: The M&M section is revised and divided into different sections.

10. The information of the crops is not sufficient.

Response: The importance of crops was explained in lines 132-136.

11. Results should be written in past tense. Please move the tables to supplementary data or reduce the figures. It is better to analyze as factors for showing interaction

Response: Results were revised as past tense. The interaction table was moved to a supplementary data source.  

12. Metals have been abbreviated previously. Please do not keep abbreviating the terms repeatedly. Please remove lines 462-465; “texted crops”, tested crops? in line 481.

Response: Only abbreviations for metals were used. The specified sentence was deleted. The misspelled "texted crops" was changed to tested crops.

13. The applicability, meaning, further research, or contribution of the study should be delivered at the end of the conclusion.

Response: The conclusion was revised.

14. The references format should be checked according to the journal guidelines. Likewise, statements and declarations should be checked as well.

Response: All references were revised according to the journal guidelines

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The file with my review comments is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the manuscript is generally clear and comprehensible, but it could benefit from minor revisions for improved fluency and precision. Some sentences may be rephrased to enhance readability, and a few grammatical adjustments are needed. A careful proofreading or review by a native English speaker is recommended to ensure clarity and a smooth flow throughout the text.

Author Response

Reviewer responses

Reviewer 3#

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. All suggestions were very useful in making our manuscript more readable and scientific. As much as possible, revisions were made in line with your suggestions. Thank you for your efforts.

1. Abstract

• Line 19: The phrase “Field crops such as wheat, alfalfa, ryegrass, and corn play a vital role in agriculture and livestock production, particularly in the Kahramanmaras plain” could be clarified by specifying why these crops are critical in this context.
• Response: The sentence was specified and revised. See lines 18-19.
• Lines 21-24: Please briefly mention the concentrations of heavy metals found in each water source here or summarize their range, as this will provide context for the impact discussed.
• Response: Some heavy metal concentrations were specified. See lines 28-31.

 

2. Introduction

• Line 38: The phrase “poses a regional and worldwide hazard to humans and animals” might be more effective if it includes specific examples or types of impacts (e.g., toxicological effects on health).
• Response: The sentence was specified and revised. See lines 40-43.
• Line 47: Some studies on heavy metal accumulation and toxicity have shown variation in plant responses; could you briefly mention any specific plant species differences?
• Response: A study was used to notify the effects of heavy metal concentrations on plants. See lines 28-31.
• Lines 90-96: The section on the textile industry is informative, but it would benefit from further references to similar studies in other regions, if available. This could strengthen the relevance of your findings on industrial pollutants.
• Response: Some information given in the textile industry. See lines 97-102.
•  

3. Materials and Methods

• Line 109-111: Provide more detail on the sampling method (e.g., frequency of sampling, distance from the pollution sources).

Response: More detail was provided in the related section.

• Line 115: Were any replicates taken for water sample analysis? If so, please specify here.

Response: Revised.

• Line 129: For the seed sterilization procedure, it would be helpful to briefly explain why a 5% NaClO solution was chosen and whether alternative methods were considered.

Response: Provided reference.

• Line 139-141: Please provide more information about the Petri dishes used (e.g., brand, material) and if they were sterilized before use.

Response: In such studies, the brands of plastic petri dishes are not given and of course, the petri dishes are supplied sterilized from the factory.

 

4. Results

• Line 152-153: The sentence “The data provide a concise and precise…” seems incomplete. Consider rephrasing for clarity.
• Response: The sentence was revised. See lines 166-168.
• Table 3: It would be helpful to specify units for all concentrations clearly. Furthermore, additional labels in this table to indicate which metals exceed permissible limits would be beneficial.
• Response: The units of all concentrations were added. See Table 3.
• Line 154-155: Could you clarify which specific parameters were significantly impacted by the Karasu Creek water? For instance, was there a difference in root vs. shoot length, or was it mainly the germination rate?
• Response: The effects of Karasu Creek water samples on all parameters such as germination rate, rootlet length, plumule length, etc. are shown in different sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 ...etc.
•  

5. Discussion

• Line 83-85: Consider discussing more specific mechanisms by which heavy metals affect seed germination, such as interference with hormonal signaling or cellular damage.
• Response: Thank you very much, since the results of our study were seed germination and early seed growth parameters, we did not look at hormonal signaling or cellular damage characteristics.
• Line 88-89: Given the high prevalence of metals in polluted water, would these findings support the potential for phytoremediation in such regions? If so, this could be discussed as a future research direction.
• Response: It has been added to the suggestions in the conclusion section. Thank you. See lines 486-488.

 

Questions

1. Could you provide more insight into the concentration ranges of each metal that were found in the water sources? Understanding the extent of contamination will help readers relate these results to potential practical applications or policy changes.

Answer 1: The article focuses on Cu, Fe and Cd metals because they are particularly high in concentration. Information about these metals is provided in the introduction and discussion sections.

2. Was any analysis conducted on the soil in the germination environment to check for residual heavy metals that might influence the results?

Answer 2: Yes, we are planning to conduct field and soil experiments in our future studies.

3. Did you consider testing additional seedling parameters, such as chlorophyll content or oxidative stress markers, to further assess the physiological impact of the contaminated water?

Answer 3: Thank you for your recommendation. Yes, we intend to test additional seedling parameters such as chlorophyll content or oxidative stress markers in our future studies to further evaluate the physiological impact of contaminated water.

 

Minor Edits and Language Suggestions

• Lines 20-22: The phrase “to assess the effects of some water sources” would be clearer as “to assess the effects of specific water sources.”
• Response: Revised. See lines 20-21.
• Line 24: Consider rephrasing “Faculty of Agriculture, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University” to “Faculty of Agriculture at Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University.”
• Response: Revised. See line 23.
• Lines 27-28: Please clarify if "All of the water samples to be used were analyzed..." refers to samples from all the mentioned creeks and the dam.
• Response: Revised. See lines 26-28.

 

I recommend acceptance of this manuscript with minor revisions. Addressing these suggested revisions and clarifying technical aspects will enhance the clarity and impact of this study.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have thoroughly gone through the revised version and appreciate the authors as they have incorporated significant changes and improvements. However, my prime concerns persist such as;

In the introduction section, the authors have failed to establish the study rationale by highlighting research gaps. There is no effective and critical analysis of peer findings to establish the need to conduct this study rather introduction in the present form gives the impression of a report writing instead of a research article. Moreover, the research hypothesis is missing, and research objectives still need to be clarified to present the goals of this study.

The methodology is flawed because treatment effects have been assessed in lab trials without any repetition, and it is strongly suggested to repeat the trials in the field to establish the validity of research findings.

Research findings must be interpreted based on recorded findings, rather generalized information has been presented by authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need minor polishing 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I checked all comments that the authors have adequately addressed the comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Thus, I suggest publication

Lines 29-31 can be reduced in abstract

Please make in short in conclusion; please mention the highlight only