The Effect of Salinity and Drought on the Essential Oil Yield and Quality of Various Plant Species of the Lamiaceae Family (Mentha spicata L., Origanum dictamnus L., Origanum onites L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title of the paper is "The effect of salinity and drought on the essential oil yield and quality of three plant species" , but unfortunately there is only one sentence in the abstract that deals with this issue.  In the main body of the article, most experiments explored the effects of stress on plant growth parameters and the content of stress-related metabolites, but I did not see the relationship between these and essential oil content and quality.

2. The title of the results section is not appropriate to make it clear what will happen next.

3. Personally, I think the discussion part is inadequate.

4. In the conclusion part of the article, there are contents that do not belong to the conclusion.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for all your comments They were really helpful to make the appropriate changes and resubmit our paper

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

There are many errors in this manuscript, please check carefully and correct.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The Abstract and Introduction part are very good.

While the results description was very poor, and it need extensive editing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments that you have posed

They were beneficial in modifying rewriting or correcting the sections of the paper that were not clear or caused misunderstandings

I hope now that our paper is appropriate for the journal's demands

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have following comments:

1.        Line 24: How were the concentrations for salt stress selected? Please provide a justification.

2.        Abstract: This section should be independent. Avoid the use of short forms and acronyms in the abstract.

3.        Abstract: Include a brief summary of the main conclusions drawn from the research in this section. Mention any implications or applications of the findings.

4.        Abstract: Consider rewriting the abstract for clarity.

5.        Line 116: Provide detailed information about the Theta probe.

6.        Line 121: Explain why the third leaf was chosen.

7.        Discussion: Highlight the limitations of the study in the discussion section. Conclusion: Conclude the paper in a way that brings the discussion to a logical and satisfying end. Ensure that the conclusion provides closure to the reader, leaving a lasting impression of the study.

8.        Discussion and Conclusion: Both sections need extensive revision.

9.        Language: Check the paper thoroughly for English and grammar errors.

Language: Check the paper thoroughly for English and grammar errors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I want to thank you first of all for all of your remarks and valued comments that you have posed

they contributed to modifying/rewriting and correcting all the sections of the paper that were not clear or caused misunderstanding

I hope now that our paper is appropriate  for the journal's demands

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this manuscript, the authors conducted a study to understand the effects of salt stress in combination with drought in species of the Lamiaceae family.

Below, we provide general and specific comments

General comments

In the statistical analysis, we believe that the authors should conduct a two-way ANOVA to check for the presence of an interaction effect between the two independent variables, salinity level, and irrigation allocation

Throughout the manuscript, in the chemical formulas, the numbers indicating the number of atoms should be in subscript.

In Section 2, materials and methods, subsection 2.1, 'Plant material and experimental design', it is not clear that authors investigated two levels of irrigation, with four salinity treatments for each.

In Section 2, materials and methods, subsection 2.2, 'Plant Material and Experimental Design,' the authors mention that 4 repetitions were carried out. However, in subsection 2.8, 'Statistical Analysis,' they mention 8 repetitions (plants) per treatment. There is confusion, and this needs to be clarified.

In Section 2.8, 'Statistical Analysis,' did the authors check whether the assumptions of homogeneity of variances and normality were met in order to perform the ANOVA?

In Section 3, ‘Results’, subsection 3.1, 'Growth,' the results regarding the growth (height) of plants, dry weight of leaves, and dry weight of inflorescences, as well as levels and percentage variations of oil, should be presented in the form of figures or tables

Lines 232: “Salinity did not 232 significantly affect total chlorophylls’ concentration in Origanum species …”. The Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, the columns should display alphabetical superscripts that demonstrate the significant differences between treatments.

Tables 1 to 4: Authors should specify the number of repetitions conducted for each mean value. Additionally, include superscript letters to indicate any significant differences resulting from ANOVA and post-hoc tests.

In the results section, the values from tables 2 and 3 are not commented upon. A more detailed interpretation of the values in tables 2, 3, and 4 is requested.

In section 4, Discussion, the results regarding the concentrations of proline in the studied species are not discussed. The authors conduct a literature review but do not discuss the results of the experiment.

Specific comments

Line 41: Explain the meaning of the abbreviation “EOs”

Line 84: The sentence has a small grammatical error (“it”)

Line 96: Please indicate the scientific name of the three studied species

Line 106: Experiment, not “experinment”

Line 109: Please correct the date on which fertilization was performed.

Line 110: Please confirm the date 22/03/2020

Line 118: Please indicate the harvesting date.

Line 134: Please correct the sentence: “In these barley(?) extracts, the free Pro concentration was determined by the acid-ninhydrin reagent method”

Line 146: The meaning of the abbreviation MDA should be explained.

Line 219: Figure 1 presents values for hydrogen peroxide and not values for proline concentration.

Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, the colours for the columns representing 0 and 150 mmol are identical, causing confusion in reading. Please use patterns that allow for their distinction.

Line 264, Table 1: A table caption is missing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for all  the remarks and the comments that you have posed

They were beneficial in modifying/ rewriting or correcting all the sections of the paper that were, not clear or caused misunderstandings

I hope now that our paper is appropriate for the journal's demands

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In view of the author's modification, I agree to accept it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Please revise the manuscript carefully this time.

Please see the attachement and the mark in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

The manuscript format and the Language need extensive revise.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your effort and your comments

They helped us improve our paper 

We have tried to make all the appropriate changes 

We changed the abstract, we clarified the conclusions, and we see all over again very carefully the references

We correct our mistakes and we hope now that our paper is proper for the journal standards

Thank you for all

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf