Biostimulant Potential of Ascophyllum nodosum in Mitigating the Effects of Salinity on the Germination of Zea mays L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript detected the effects of maize seeds/seedling growth under A. nodosum extract treatments. And characterized phenotypic and physiological changes. It could provide some new information in abiotic stresses. But it is lack of Control in each Picture. Major revision.

1. Introduction: please add some detailed information about sea-extract application and mays tolerance to salt.
2. Materials and Methods: (1) How many corn varieties used in this study? Best is marked tolerance variety and a different one; (2) add sub title. （3）Control or CK (normal condition) should be put in the experiment. Or at least select two varieties (tolerance and no-T).
3. Results: the Text explanation is too simple, need add related material and treatment and methods to gain the reruslts.
4. Fig 1 (1) add Fig1 Title? (2) the Picture need add Control or CK photos?
5. Fig 2 and Fig3, is similar to the Fig1 problems.
6. Fig4 need add control.
7. The format of Reference is not consistency. Add salt-tolerance references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. remove line 24-27
2. what is normal and abnormal seedling?
3. line 29-30, should clearly explain results related to " seedling growth and vigor, whereas increasing salinity progressively reduced all physiological variables" better to use percent increase compare with control
4. data related to antioxidant is missing 
5. introduction is too short add more related literature
6. discussion is too long and random, please make it more concise and write in compare and contrast with how this study adavances related studies and drawbacks of this study and how come be overcome.
7.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript entitled “Biostimulant potential of Ascophyllum nodosum in mitigating salinity effects on germination and early seedling development of Zea mays L.”, I consider that the study addresses a relevant and timely topic in the field of seed physiology and sustainable agriculture. The work evaluates the potential of a seaweed-based biostimulant to mitigate salinity stress during maize germination and early seedling development, using a structured experimental approach under controlled conditions. Overall, the manuscript presents scientifically sound results; however, some aspects related to clarity, organization, and interpretation require revision before the work can be considered for publication. These following topics should be addressed:

Title: The title is clear and appropriate, but you may consider specifying “early seedling development”, since more than germination is evaluated.

Abstract:

-Lines 24–26: The description of the three bioassays is slightly dense. Please, simplify wording for clarity.

- Lines 31–32: Mechanisms (osmotic adjustment, membrane stability, antioxidant activation) are mentioned without direct measurements. I recommend to rephrase to indicate association or inference, not direct evidence.

Iintroduction: For me this sectio has many redundancies, and should state clearer the research gap:

-Lines 63–64 and 66–67 repeat the study objective almost verbatim.

- The objective should appear once, clearly, at the end of the Introduction.

- Merge lines 63–68 into a single, concise objective paragraph.

M&M:

-Cultivar description (Lines 70–73), needs some more relevant details (grain color, use for silage).

-Bioassay 3 description (Lines 78–80), “moderate” and “severe” stress levels should be explicitly linked to specific MPa values.

-Mineral solution (Lines 81–84), this is an important methodological strength. Consider briefly listing which elements caused incompatibility, or move details to supplementary material.

Results: Some interpretative language appears and should be avoided:

-Bioassay 1 (Section 3.1), consider explicitly stating optimal dose ranges in the text, not only via figures.

-Bioassay 2 (Section 3.2), try to avoid causal explanations (e.g., “due to water deficit”), or move them to Discussion.

- Bioassay 3 (Section 3.3), consider adding a summary sentence highlighting the comparative advantage of the extract over the mineral solution.

Discussion: I think there is excessive long and fall into repetition. Please, consider to reduce the Discussion by 25–30%:

-Several ideas (osmotic stress effects, hormonal action, antioxidant role) are repeated multiple times.

-Results are restated instead of interpreted, especially in lines 170–210, results are described again rather than critically interpreted.

- Some mechanisms are discussed as if directly measured.

-Merge paragraphs that describe similar stress responses.

-Use conditional language (“may”, “likely”, “suggests”), when assessments has not been directly or precisely addressed in this work, or not completly clear.

Conclsusions:

-Avoid repeating mechanisms already discussed.

- Add a practical implication sentence (as “These findings support the potential use of Ascophyllum nodosum-based biostimulants as a practical tool for improving maize establishment in salt-affected soils”).

References: Minor formatting inconsistencies (spaces, punctuation) should be corrected according to MDPI style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally clear and understandable, requiring only minor editorial adjustments for improved flow and conciseness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The study addresses a relevant and timely topic, and the experimental concept is interesting. However, several important issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further.

The main points concern clarity, consistency, and reproducibility, particularly in the Materials and Methods section, as well as the use of precise terminology, proper definition of treatments and controls, and alignment of conclusions with the presented data. Some interpretations and generalizations extend beyond the actual scope of the experiments and should be revised accordingly.

Please refer carefully to the detailed reviewer report for specific, line-by-line comments and suggestions intended to help improve the quality, transparency, and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank you for carefully considering and incorporating my suggestions as a reviewer. The revisions have clearly strengthened the manuscript, improving its clarity, methodological precision, and overall presentation.

In my opinion, the paper is now well-prepared and suitable to move forward in the publication process.

With best regards,

Reviewer