Enhancing Wheat Growth and Yield through Salicylic Acid-Mediated Regulation of Gas Exchange, Antioxidant Defense, and Osmoprotection under Salt Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The author’s investigated the carried  out to assess the effects of increasing levels of Salicylic acid (0-, 10- and 20-mM SA) priming in comparison to H2O priming on plant growth, physio-biochemical activities and yield of two wheat varieties (AARI-11 and Ujala-15) under 0- and 170-mM Sodium Chloride (NaCl) toxicity. The manuscript sounds scientific and hold potential for Salicylic acid-priming induced modulation for growth and photosynthetic efficiency of wheat cultivars under salt stress. However some points are suggested to improve the overall quality of the manuscript before final publication.

Moderate English editing is required and some typographical errors must be corrected.

Suggestions for authors:

The title of the manuscript is quite confusing. Rewrite it.

Keywords: Add more relevant keywords.

Abstract: In abstract, rather than general statements, only results should be highlighted to summarize the overall novelty of the manuscript. Rewrite it.

L38: Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Cl^-. Modify it.

Introduction: The introduction is too lengthy and fussy. It must highlight the novelty of your research problem with supportive literature. There is a lack of connection between different sub-sections. The authors must focus on the current status of wheat under saline stress rather than general introduction of salinity and its detrimental effects. It should be rewritten.

The sections and sub-sections should be mention with numbers like section 2, sub-section 2.1.

Why the authors have chosen these varieties. Justify them. Also add their pedigree details.

What standard protocols the authors have followed to prepare different saline solutions.

Instead of H2O, replace it with water.

“Estimation of Oxidants and Antioxidants activities in leaves” Replace “Antioxidants” with “antioxidative enzymes”

Figures are not visible. All figures must be of high resolution. Modify them.

In Figure 1, if T1 is water priming than T0 is what? Specify the control.

There is no visibility of the statistical analysis. The authors must replace all the figures with high resolution images of high dpi.

Rectify spacing error throughout the manuscript.

There is no clarity between results and discussion.

Discussion: It should be more precise and informative. It seems very clumsy. Rewrite the section with latest references.

Conclusion: It should highlight only the major findings of the present study. Rewrite the section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

• The title of the manuscript is quite confusing. Rewrite it.

Response: The title has been revised for better for clarity (Lines 1-6).

• Keywords: Add more relevant keywords.

Response: Some of the keywords more related to the study have been added (Lines 31).

• Abstract: In abstract, rather than general statements, only results should be highlighted to summarize the overall novelty of the manuscript. Rewrite it.

Response: Improved according to the suggestion (Lines 19-30).

• L38: Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Cl^-. Modify it.

Response: Modified (Lines 36).

• Introduction: The introduction is too lengthy and fussy. It must highlight the novelty of your research problem with supportive literature. There is a lack of connection between different sub-sections. The authors must focus on the current status of wheat under saline stress rather than general introduction of salinity and its detrimental effects. It should be rewritten.

Response: This section has been thoroughly revised, incorporating recent and relevant studies, and features improved flow for a clearer understanding (Lines 34-59; 67-69; 72-83)

• The sections and sub-sections should be mentioned with numbers like section 2, sub-section 2.1.

Response: Changes as suggested.

• Why the authors have chosen these varieties. Justify them. Also add their pedigree details.

Response: The relevant justifications and pedigree of both varieties have been added to the manuscript (91-93).

• What standard protocols the authors have followed to prepare different saline solutions.

Response: Changes have been made according to the suggestion (Lines 128-181)

• Instead of H₂O, replace it with water.

Response: Modified.

• “Estimation of Oxidants and Antioxidants activities in leaves” Replace “Antioxidants” with “antioxidative enzymes”

Response: Modified (Lines 128).

• Figures are not visible. All figures must be of high resolution. Modify them.

Response: Modified.

• In Figure 1, if T1 is water priming than T0 is what? Specify the control.

However, if there is still a need to explain T0 in the description also, it can be replaced as { T0 (control/ No priming or NaCl stress) }. 

• There is no visibility of the statistical analysis. The authors must replace all the figures with high resolution images of high dpi.

Response: Replaced.

• Rectify spacing error throughout the manuscript.

Response: Changed as suggested.

• There is no clarity between results and discussion.

Response: The discussion section has been revised and the relevant improvements were done.

• Discussion: It should be more precise and informative. It seems very clumsy. Rewrite the section with latest references.

Response: Modified and more recent work has been cited in the discussion section.

• Conclusion: It should highlight only the major findings of the present study. Rewrite the section.

Response: The conclusion section has been revised and more of the major findings were added (Lines 450-457).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Brief Summary

The manuscript stress-2187824 investigated the effects of salicylic acid seed priming on wheat tolerance to salinity. The authors conducted a greenhouse experiment, studying increasing levels of salicylic acid on two wheat varieties (AARI-11 and Ujala-15) under salinity conditions of 0 and 170 mM NaCl.  Plant growth, physio-biochemical activities and yield of the plants were evaluated after 50 days of growth.

The authors carried out the experiments and handled the data appropriately. However, the manuscript presents huge flaws in the quality of the presentation. See broad comments below and the specific comments on pdf the file attached.

Broad comments

·         Introduction: The introduction places the study in a broad context and highlights why the study was needed. The aim and working hypothesis are also described clearly. However, the list of references must be enriched with new ones.

·         Materials and Methods: The description of the methods lacks important details. See specific comments on the pdf file attached.

·         Results: The results section is almost clear. Some sentences are hard to follow, the English language should improve this aspect. Beyond this aspect, the quality of the figures in  not appropriate. See specific comments on the pdf file attached.

·         Discussion: The discussion is not presented correctly. There is not a clear flow of the concepts and a comparison of the findings with previous reports is almost missing and the cited works were not described properly. Moreover, the list of references must be enriched with new ones. See specific comments on the pdf file attached.

·         Conclusions: The authors presented a summary of the study and future research directions. I suggest highlighting the importance of the findings obtained.

Other comments

All the sections need substantial improvements for the English language (grammar, typos, and format).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

• Introduction:The introduction places the study in a broad context and highlights why the study was needed. The aim and working hypothesis are also described clearly. However, the list of references must be enriched with new ones.

Response: The introduction section has been revised and the more recent work has been cited (Lines 41-82).

• Materials and Methods:The description of the methods lacks important details. See specific comments on the pdf file attached.

Response: Thank you, for the suggestion. Improvements have been made throughout Section 2, according to the comments.

• Results:The results section is almost clear. Some sentences are hard to follow, the English language should improve this aspect. Beyond this aspect, the quality of the figures is not appropriate. See specific comments on the pdf file attached.

Response: The language has been thoroughly revised for greater clarity and the figures have been updated and replaced throughout the manuscript to enhance their quality (section 3)

Discussion: The discussion is not presented correctly. There is not a clear flow of the concepts and a comparison of the findings with previous reports is almost missing and the cited works were not described properly. Moreover, the list of references must be enriched with new ones. See specific comments on the pdf file attached.

Response: The discussion section has undergone revision, incorporating relevant improvements and incorporating references to more recent studies.

• Conclusions:The authors presented a summary of the study and future research directions. I suggest highlighting the importance of the findings obtained.

Response: The conclusion section has been revised to include a more comprehensive highlights of the major findings. (Lines 450-457).  

• Other comments All the sections need substantial improvements for the English language (grammar, typos, and format).

Response: The language throughout the manuscript has been revised for clarity and improved expression. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the manuscript following all my previous suggestions. I have no further suggestions.