Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the effects of waste drilling fluid on two leguminous species (Trifolium pratense and Astragalus sinicus) and associated soil properties, with a focus on plant physiological responses and phytoremediation potential. The topic is relevant and timely, particularly in the context of: Environmental pollution from oil and gas activities - Soil remediation strategies -&- Plant responses to combined abiotic (salinity, alkalinity, toxicity) stresses.

The study integrates plant physiology, soil science, and ecological restoration, which is commendable. However, despite its relevance, the manuscript presents important conceptual inconsistencies, methodological weaknesses, and interpretation issues that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
(see the attached report).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic explored in this manuscript represents a significant scientific contribution, as it addresses the “Effects of waste drilling fluid on physiological characteristics of two leguminous plants and soil properties”.

However, modifications to the manuscript are necessary for a better understanding of the work. In the section 1. Introduction, authors need to incorporate results from studies on the topic under investigation. The authors very effectively justify the effects of waste drilling fluid on the environment. However, presenting results from previously conducted studies on this subject is essential—not only to highlight the new findings but also to demonstrate how the present study contributes to the ongoing understanding of the topic.

The section 2. Material and Methods is very well written. The experimental design is clear and appropriate for the study's objectives. The authors determined a large number of variables in the experiment, which ensures the robustness of the research.

The units used throughout the text need to be carefully revised. For instance, all units must be standardized as mg L^–1 instead of mg/L.

The section 3. Results, there is a large volume of data, which is described in detail. However, Figure 9 presents a Pearson correlation analysis that includes several variables not previously addressed in the text (such as chla, chlb, car, chlab, Pn, Gs, Ci, Tr, FvFm, PSII, NPQ, and qp). The authors mention that 23 variables were used in this analysis. However, other plant growth variables were not addressed in this analysis. These variables were neither presented in the Results section nor described in the Materials and Methods. Therefore, the authors should carefully review this data, either by removing the undocumented variables from the figure or by introducing and explaining them appropriately earlier in the manuscript.

The section 4. Discussion in is framed within the context of the literature, demonstrating that the results of the present study are corroborated by previous findings on the topic.

In section 5. Conclusions, the conclusions are consistent and aligned with the findings of the study.

Section References, they all need to be reviewed. There is no standard. For instance, it cites some authors and uses et al. (all authors should be mentioned in the citation perspective). In the titles of papers, all words begin with capital letters. Only the first word should be capitalized throughout the title, unless it is a proper noun. Journal titles should be abbreviated and in italics. Currently, this is not the case.

Additional suggestions and comments can be found in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To all authors; 

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of your manuscript and compared it with the previous submission.

The revisions you have made are clear and have substantially improved the quality and clarity of the work.

Thank you for your valuable work and the quality of the revisions made.