Effects and Mechanisms of Attapulgite Clay-g-(AA-co-AAm) Hydrogel (ACH) in Alleviating Saline Stress in Spinach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper, and I can see that the authors put a lot of work into it. The topic—looking at how different rootstocks affect salt stress tolerance—is very relevant and practical, especially for horticultural production in saline soils. The data seem solid, and the experimental setup is fine. But the paper reads a bit messy and overcomplicated in places. The story doesn’t come out clearly, and some parts need serious tightening and rewriting before it’s ready.

 

Detail Comments:

 

The introduction is too long and not very focused. You talk a lot about salinity stress in general, but it takes too long to reach the specific problem and why these particular rootstocks were chosen. Try to cut it down and clearly state what the real gap is. What’s new here compared to all the other salt-tolerance/rootstock papers already out there?

 

The materials and methods section has a lot of details, which is good, but it’s not easy to follow. For example, you list many measured parameters (ions, pigments, proline, etc.), but the logic of why each one was measured isn’t very clear. Maybe organize it by physiological process or purpose—otherwise readers get lost.

 

Results: there’s a ton of data, but the presentation is pretty dry. You just keep saying “this increased, that decreased.” Try to highlight the main patterns and what they mean biologically. Which rootstock actually performs best, and why? Is it ion exclusion, osmotic adjustment, better photosynthesis? Bring out the mechanism more clearly.

 

The discussion is too repetitive and needs better structure. You’re basically restating the results paragraph by paragraph instead of really interpreting them. Focus on two or three key messages—don’t try to comment on everything. Compare your findings with the most relevant literature and show where you agree or differ.

 

Figures and tables: some are good, but a few are overcrowded. The captions are too short and don’t tell the reader what to look for. Make them more self-contained.

 

Language: readable, but quite stiff and overformal. Too many long sentences and repeated phrases. Try simpler, more direct English. Shorter sentences will make the text flow better.

 

The conclusion is very generic. Don’t just say “the tolerant rootstocks improve salt tolerance.” Tell us what’s practically useful—for example, which combination is most promising and what physiological traits make it better.

Author Response

Comments 1: The introduction is too long and not very focused. You talk a lot about salinity stress in general, but it takes too long to reach the specific problem and why these particular rootstocks were chosen. Try to cut it down and clearly state what the real gap is. What’s new here compared to all the other salt-tolerance/rootstock papers already out there?

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the introduction section and streamlined the content related to the general introduction of saline-alkali stress, which has effectively shortened the length of the introduction and improved its focus.

Comments 2: The materials and methods section has a lot of details, which is good, but it’s not easy to follow. For example, you list many measured parameters (ions, pigments, proline, etc.), but the logic of why each one was measured isn’t very clear. Maybe organize it by physiological process or purpose—otherwise readers get lost.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. In response, we have categorized each measured parameter in the Materials and Methods section based on logical frameworks (e.g., physiological processes or research purposes) to facilitate readers' understanding. Details of these revisions can be found in lines 634, 638, 652, and 667 of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 3:Results: there’s a ton of data, but the presentation is pretty dry. You just keep saying “this increased, that decreased.” Try to highlight the main patterns and what they mean biologically. Which rootstock actually performs best, and why? Is it ion exclusion, osmotic adjustment, better photosynthesis? Bring out the mechanism more clearly.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments on the Results section of our manuscript. Following your insightful advice, we have further refined the Results section with targeted improvements. These revisions aim to enhance the interpretability of the results and highlight their biological significance.

 

Comments 4: The discussion is too repetitive and needs better structure. You’re basically restating the results paragraph by paragraph instead of really interpreting them. Focus on two or three key messages—don’t try to comment on everything. Compare your findings with the most relevant literature and show where you agree or differ.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In response, we have revised the Discussion section with targeted improvements: we have streamlined repetitive content, optimized the overall structure.Detailed revisions can be found in lines 449-545 and 514-525 of the manuscript.

 

Comments 5: Figures and tables: some are good, but a few are overcrowded. The captions are too short and don’t tell the reader what to look for. Make them more self-contained.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments on the figures and tables of our manuscript.

Comments 6: Language: readable, but quite stiff and overformal. Too many long sentences and repeated phrases. Try simpler, more direct English. Shorter sentences will make the text flow better.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have refined the language accordingly: we have simplified overly formal expressions, shortened lengthy sentences, and reduced repetitive phrases to make the text more fluent and direct, as you recommended.

Comments 7: The conclusion is very generic. Don’t just say “the tolerant rootstocks improve salt tolerance.”Tell us what’s practically useful—for example, which combination is most promising and what physiological traits make it better.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have refined the language accordingly: we have simplified overly formal expressions, shortened lengthy sentences, and reduced repetitive phrases to make the text more fluent and direct, as you recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Effects and Mechanisms of Attapulgite Clay -g-(AA-co-AAm) Hydrogel (ACH) in Alleviating Saline Stress in Spinach" is an interesting paper, but requires a series of clarifications:
1 For fig 5, explain in more detail the influence of adding ACH on the chlorophyll in spinach. It is not specified in the texts fig 5a, fig 5b, fig 5c, fig 5d. The same thing for the other figures.
2 For fig 6, specify fig 6b, 6c, in the text with explanations.
3 What do a and b and c represent in the columns in the graphs fig 5,6,7?
4 How was the cultivation done, the watering of the plants. How long did the cultivation last (days, weeks?)
5 I did not understand how to add ACH to the soil
6 I did not understand table 1. In fig 5,6,7 the sample with 0.4 addition is discussed. Explain table 1 in point 4.4 more precisely
If these clarifications are made, the paper can be published.

Author Response

Comments 1: For fig 5, explain in more detail the influence of adding ACH on the chlorophyll in spinach. It is not specified in the texts fig 5a, fig 5b, fig 5c, fig 5d. The same thing for the other figures.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised this section with targeted adjustments. Meanwhile, we have applied the same logic to other figures, supplementing their subfigure-specific explanations to ensure clarity.

Comments 2: For fig 6, specify fig 6b, 6c, in the text with explanations.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In response, we have made targeted revisions as you recommended: we have explicitly referenced Subfigures 6b and 6c in the main text, and supplemented each with corresponding explanatory content.

Comments 3: What do a and b and c represent in the columns in the graphs fig 5,6,7?

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have supplemented the specific meanings of the labels "a", "b", and "c" for the columns in Figs. 5, 6, and 7.Details of these revisions can be found in lines 188–190, 220–222, and 273–274 of the manuscript.

Comments 5: How was the cultivation done, the watering of the plants. How long did the cultivation last (days, weeks?)

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the plant cultivation details. We have supplemented the manuscript with key information. Details of this supplementary content can be found in lines 608–612 of the manuscript.

Comments 6: I did not understand how to add ACH to the soil.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have supplemented the manuscript with key details. Details of this supplementary information can be found in lines 595–599 of the manuscript.

Comments 6: I did not understand table 1. In fig 5,6,7 the sample with 0.4 addition is discussed. Explain table 1 in point 4.4 more precisely.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have made targeted revisions: we have added more detailed interpretations of Table 1, relevant revision details can be found in lines 593–612 of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors it is ok for me

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers for their valuable comments; all the issues in the manuscript have been addressed and revised.