Comparative Physiochemical Mechanisms of Salt Tolerance between Cornus florida and Cornus hongkongensis subsp. elegans Based on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Soil salinization is an important ecological problem. Although dogwood plants are generally tolerant to salinity, their mechanisms of tolerance to saline soils are poorly understood.

The authors study two ornamental dogwood species: Cornus florida, a deciduous shrub, and Cornus hongkongensis subsp. еlegans, an evergreen shrub.

The research carried out by the authors is relevant and timely.

Literature review sufficiently reveals the essence of the problem, analyzed 22 literature sources.

The setting of the experiment is described in detail. Preparation of seeds for the experiment included seed pretreatment and cold stratification. Evaluation of germination and growth parameters of seedlings and biochemical evaluation - activity of antioxidant enzymes, accumulation of soluble sugars (spectrophotometrically) and content of elements Na, K, Ca (by atomic adsorption spectrometry) were performed. 

The authors thoroughly analyzed the results, using more than 30 literature sources.

The results were processed by a modern statistical package. The results are illustrated by 4 tables and 4 figures.

It was found that the species responded differently to salt stress. Inhibition of seed germination, growth, development and metabolic processes in seedlings was observed in both species of dogwood. Active development of the root system was noted, which may contribute to the mitigation of osmotic stress and nutritional imbalance. Preservation and increase of K cation content in both species of dogwood confirms high salt tolerance of the species. The role of sugars and K, Na, Ca cations in osmotic regulation was established. The authors recommend the use of Cornus florida and Cornus hongkongensis subsp. elegans species for landscaping of coastal areas.

The authors cited 61 literary sources, more than 43% of them no older than 10-12 years.

The material is presented in a well-structured form. The conclusions are consistent with the experimental data obtained.

As a remark - it is proposed to formulate a scientific hypothesis.

The article can be recommended for publication after the formulation of a scientific hypothesis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

I would like to thank you for your confidence in reviewing this manuscript.

I send you here my comments for the manuscript review.

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Comparative physiochemical mechanisms of salt tolerance between Cornus florida and Cornus hongkongensis subsp. Elegans based on germination and seedling growth

General remarks/suggestions

Abstract:

Line 16: Put the meaning of “GA3”.

Line 20: Replace “increased significantly” by “significantly increased”. The same remark for all the manuscript main text.

Line 21: Replace “inhibited significantly” by “significantly inhibited”. The same remark for all the manuscript main text.

Line 30: Please, review the keywords, as far as possible that these are not the same as the title.

Introduction:

Line 33: Replace “Saline soil is” by “Saline soils are”.

Lines 37-38: Replace “application” by “use or cultivation”.

Lines 54-57: Add reference(s) to support “Among these species, Cornus florida ………………………… in native areas.”.

Material and methods:

Line 74: How the authors did determine the seed viability?

Line 84: Put the meaning of “GA3”.

Line 85: The authors should put the meaning of “T1, and T2”.

Line 95: It is very difficult to understand the Table 1. Please, provide more information to define each abbreviation (CK, T1, T2, GA3). Could you justify why “0.45%” and not “0.5%”?

Lines 99-102: Please, provide more information to explain how these traits were assessed.

Lines 114-118: Please, provide more information to explain how these traits were assessed.

Line 120: Please, provide more information to explain how the samples were treated.

Results:

Line 137: Replace “increased significantly” by “significantly increased”. The same remark for all the manuscript main text.

Lines 149-150: I suggest to replace the Table 2 to Figures for more reader understanding the impact of salt stress to these traits.

Line 175: Table 4: Which biomass? Fresh or dry? Please to be more concise.

Line 189 and line 205: Quality of figures (Fig 1 and Fig 2) should be improved.

Conclusions:

Line 324: Replace “show” by “showed”.

References:

Please check references (in text and list) in relation to the journal's recommendations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx