Reclamation of Saline Soil under Association between Atriplex nummularia L. and Glycophytes Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable assistance. All observations contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors attempted to apply phytoremediation technologies for salt-affected soil reclamation. This could help me comprehend the research question and the main objective of this study. However, there are several questions about the authors' understanding of the strategies and general knowledge of phytoremediation, as well as the study's methodology. There are numerous issues that must be addressed. One of the worst points is the research writing, which needs to be improved; however, the presentation in graphs and tables is professional and flawless. 

Abstract

This section should be revised. Please provide the key results, including the significant numbers.

I'm not sure if the authors understand phytoremediation approaches properly.

Introduction

The introduction has been divided into several fragments. This section should synthesize all knowledge bodies and fuse them into primary subparagraphs to help all readers understand it better. The materials in the Introduction did not help me discover the research question, main objective, or novelty findings. This section should be completely revised.

Materials and Methods

- How did the authors obtain the study plants used in this study?

- How many replicates (plots) did the authors use for one treatment?

- The research methodologies have several issues about their precision and correctness. Authors should also provide all references to physicochemical properties of soils, including soil depth measurements.

- All plant scientific names should be italicized.

Results

- All tables must provide the number of replicates for each experimental treatment.

- The abbreviated term, such as O. sativa, can be used the second time and so on of the scientific names.

Discussion

I comprehend the content displayed in Discussion; yet, the writing style is identical to that of the Introduction. I would advise authors to thoroughly revise it.

- Please check the sentence in line 278.

- Based on the Discussion section, I may not have fully understood the phytoremediation potential of the study plants. For the benefit of all readers, I would urge that authors mention and discussion the phytoremediation potential of the study plants in deeper detail.

- There are numerous issues that must be addressed using evidence-based criteria.

Conclusions

Please revise it thoroughly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable assistance. All observations contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Based on their contributions, we worked on improving the text of the manuscript to clarify the central idea of our study.

In the text we have included the changes based on your questions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for invitation to review the manuscript “Strategies for Reclamation of Saline Soils in consortium management of halophytes and glycophytes plants” The present paper is much suitable for the journal and following are the critical suggestion to improve the manuscript further.

## Phytoremediation is an efficient technique for the reclamation of salt affected soils.  does this practice has been used commercial level?

## variables of salinity and sodicity were evaluated.  What does it means?

# Salinization is one of the main processes of soil degradation in the world, besides being one of the environmental factors limiting the productivity of agricultural crops [1,2]. Its occurrence is mainly associated to arid and semi-arid regions around the world, occurring in practically all the continents and corresponds to 7% of total world´s surface area [3,4]. The paragraph is lacking the scientific importance.

## The standard reference are missing for the analysis of Table in Materials and Methods section Soil chemical characteristics and particle size distribution

# Statistical analysis reference is missing??

## All figure are made good but we can reduse the axis of figure then it will be more clear.

Example: In Figure 2. Exchangeable Na+ [(A) 0-10 cm; (C) 10-30 cm; (E) 30-60 cm] and K+ [(B) 0-10 cm; (D) 10-30 168
cm; (F) 30-60 cm] at 9 and 18 months as result of the applied treatments. The axis for A up to 6 Likewise other  should be minimize.

Range of pH not in proper Check it.

## Discussion is lacking the scientific improvement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable assistance. All observations contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the authors compared the capacity of halophytes and glycophytes in reclamation of saline soils.

The study is interesting and worthy.

However, I think the manuscript is wordy. The authors need to concise it.

I am wondering why the authors considered Mimosa caesalpiniifolia, Leucaena leucocephala and Azadirachta. As there are some model plants and some efficient halophytes the authors should investigate them.

Some of the result are strange.  For example, exchangeable Ca and Mg at later date are not significant. How the authors explained it?

Moreover, the authors should also  include the physiological basis of the ion homeostasis.

Some phenotypic pictures are expected.

Some of the vital references on halophytes overlooked.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable assistance. All observations contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. The answers to your queries are in the PDF file .

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Indeed, the authors did not attempt to revise this manuscript in response to my suggestions. This paper, in my opinion, needs to be revised (major revision). Although the authors amended significant context in the paper, it should be revised further as follows:
1) The botanical authority should be mentioned after the scientific name for the first time.
2) Authors should provide the source of the study plants in the paper.
3) Authors should discuss the study plants regarding phytoremediation aspects.
4) Conclusions should be revised. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable assistance. All responses and comments are in the PDF file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised version is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review of manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf