Physiological Responses of Pak Choi (Brassica rapa Subsp. Chinensis) Genotypes to Salt Tolerance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The presented article describes the tolerance of different Pak Choi genotypes to salt stress. 24 local genotypes were subjected to 4 different salt concentrations. Effect of different salt concentrations on electrolyte leakage, maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), number of leaves and leaf were detected. It was discovered that salt treatment inhibits the growth of Pak Choi, but the suppression of growth was less expressed in the salt-tolerant genotypes compared to the weak salt-tolerant ones. These findings indicate that certain local Pak Choi accessions can be perspective for the cultivation and breeding of new varieties with salt tolerance.

 

The article can be published after some corrections.

1. line 16 and further.

“Through cluster analysis of electrolyte leakage data, we discovered 'IT262109', 'IT279432', and 'IT185735' as native species displaying the strongest salt tolerance.”

They are not species, they are accessions.

 

2. lines 94-107 repeat lines 79-92.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Some English words must be changed for more adequate sinonims.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Collegaues: 

I attach suggestions and corrections.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, Congratulations on the manuscript, but I have some suggestions that I would like you to amend. I indicate these below.

 

The manuscript does not formally meet the requirements of MDPI. Please fix this.

The Introduction chapter needs a lot of modifications. The literature references used are adequate, but there are not enough literature references neither about the plant species itself, nor about salt stress tolerance, nor about hydroponics, nor about the results achieved with regard to the method used. The chapter is weak, a strong one requires expansion, please revise it strongly.

162-164. why are there lines in the manuscript? I do not understand.

It is not a good idea to combine the Results and Discussion chapters. Please keep these two chapters separate as separate chapters. So I don't accept that. Pay attention to coherence.

Cross-references in Figure 1 and Table 1 should be followed by Figures and Tables. It doesn't appear that way here.

Figure 1: The words Group are rewritten for the specific meaning, because it is more difficult to follow.

Conclusions: not good at all, please rewrite it. This part should be placed in the Results chapter, it should not be described here at all, but what short and long-term conclusions were reached based on the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In several places, the English sentences need to be strongly improved.

Author Response

Response for reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors, Congratulations on the manuscript, but I have some suggestions that I would like you to amend. I indicate these below.
The manuscript does not formally meet the requirements of MDPI. Please fix this.
Comment 1. The Introduction chapter needs a lot of modifications. The literature references used are adequate, but there are not enough literature references neither about the plant species itself, nor about salt stress tolerance, nor about hydroponics, nor about the results achieved with regard to the method used. The chapter is weak, a strong one requires expansion, please revise it strongly
Our response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed your comment accordingly.
Comment 2. 162-164. why are there lines in the manuscript? I do not understand.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed your comment accordingly.
Comment 3. It is not a good idea to combine the Results and Discussion chapters. Please keep these two chapters separate as separate chapters. So I don't accept that. Pay attention to coherence.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed your comment accordingly.
Comment 4. Cross-references in Figure 1 and Table 1 should be followed by Figures and Tables. It doesn't appear that way here.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed your comment accordingly.
Comment 5. Figure 1: The words Group are rewritten for the specific meaning, because it is more difficult to follow.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed your comment accordingly.
Comment 6. Conclusions: not good at all, please rewrite it. This part should be placed in the Results chapter, it should not be described here at all, but what short and long-term conclusions were reached based on the results.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your careful review and have addressed your comment accordingly.
References
Hanin, M., Ebel, C., Ngom, M., Laplaze, L. and Masmoudi, K., 2016. New insights on plant salt tolerance mechanisms and their potential use for breeding. Frontiers in plant science, 7, p.1787.
Basak, N., Rai, A.K., Sundha, P., Meena, R.L., Bedwal, S., Yadav, R.K. and Sharma, P.C., 2022. Assessing soil quality for rehabilitation of salt-affected agroecosystem: A comprehensive review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, p.935785.
Afzal, M.Z., Jia, Q., Ibrahim, A.K., Niyitanga, S. and Zhang, L., 2020. Mechanisms and signaling pathways of salt tolerance in crops: understanding from the transgenic plants. Tropical Plant Biology, 13, pp.297-320.
Upadhyay, T.K., 2019. Impact of hydroponics: present and future perspective for farmer’s welfare. Journal of Environment, Science and Technology, 5(2), pp.19-26.
Wu, Y., Huang, B., Peng, X. and Zhang, J., 2021. Development of an in vitro hydroponic system for studying the interaction between banana plantlet and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC), 146, pp.107-114.
Nhut, D.T., Ngan, H.T.M., Mai, N.T.N. and Tung, H.T., 2022. In Vitro Hydroponic Culture System in Plant Micropropagation. In Plant Tissue Culture: New Techniques and Application in Horticultural Species of Tropical Region (pp. 191-206). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Zhao, Z., Zhang, W., Liu, Y., Li, S., Yao, W., Sun, X., Li, S., Ma, L., Sun, J., Yang, Q. and Li, Y., 2021. De novo hydroponics system efficiency for the cuttings of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 27(6), pp.1413-1421.
Peng, Q., Guo, L., Ali, F., Li, J., Qin, S., Feng, P. and Liang, D., 2016. Influence of Pak choi plant cultivation on Se distribution, speciation and bioavailability in soil. Plant and Soil, 403, pp.331-342.
Sun, H., Wei, C., Xu, W., Yang, J., Wang, X. and Qiu, Y., 2019. Characteristics of salt contents in soils under greenhouse conditions in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, pp.3882-3892.
Pant, A.P., Radovich, T.J., Hue, N.V. and Miyasaka, S.C., 2012. Pak choi (Brassica rapa, Chinensis group) yield, phytonutrient content, and soil biological properties as affected by vermicompost-to-water ratio used for extraction. HortScience, 47(3), pp.395-402.

 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you for your work, you fixed most of the things I pointed out. I'd like a few more small things.

Title 3 is incorrect.

Even now, the Introduction and Conclusions are short. Please expand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf