Osmopriming, Halopriming, and Chemopriming Differentially Modulate Stress Tolerance in Solanum lycopersicum Seeds Under Salinity and Iron Toxicity
and Hildegardo Seibert França 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title should better reflect the methodology and the major conclusions of the study. I suggest revising the title to something more specific and informative, such as: “Osmo-priming, Halo-priming, and Chemo-priming Improve Salinity and Iron Toxicity Tolerance in Solanum lycopersicum*.”*
The abstract is poorly structured and requires substantial improvement. It should include important numerical findings to better demonstrate the significance of the results. In addition, the logical flow of the abstract should be improved. Currently, the transition between the effects of salinity/iron toxicity and the mitigation effects of priming treatments is unclear. The abstract should first describe the stress-induced damages, followed by how different priming approaches alleviated those effects.
Recently, Karim et al. (2025) (DOI: 10.1111/ppl.70344) reported the role of KNO₃ priming in tomato under salt stress. Therefore, the authors should clearly justify how the present study differs from that report and explicitly highlight the novelty, research gap, and unique contribution of the current findings.
There is also inconsistency in the priming protocols. PEG and KNO₃ treatments were applied for 24 h, whereas SNP treatment was conducted for only 12 h. The authors should justify the rationale behind using different priming durations and explain how the results were compared across treatments under these unequal conditions.
The Materials and Methods section requires considerable improvement for better reproducibility. For example, the age or developmental stage of seedlings used for biochemical analyses was not clearly mentioned. Several methodological details should be expanded to allow accurate replication of the experiments by other researchers.
In addition, the quality and resolution of the bar graphs are very poor and difficult to interpret. The figures should be substantially improved with higher resolution, clearer labeling, and better overall presentation quality.
Author Response
Comment 1: The title should better reflect the methodology and the main conclusions of the study. I suggest revising the title to something more specific and informative, such as: “Osmo-priming, Halo-priming, and Chemo-priming Improve Salinity and Iron Toxicity Tolerance in Solanum lycopersicum.”
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The title has been revised to better reflect the methodology and the main findings of the study. The new title emphasizes the different priming strategies and their distinct responses under salinity and iron toxicity conditions, making it more specific and informative. This change can be found on page 1, lines 2–4.
Comment 2: The abstract is poorly structured and requires substantial improvement. It should include important numerical results to better demonstrate the significance of the findings. In addition, the logical flow of the abstract should be improved. Currently, the transition between the effects of salinity/iron toxicity and the mitigating effects of priming treatments is unclear. The abstract should first describe the stress-induced damage, followed by how the different priming approaches alleviated these effects.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions regarding the structure and clarity of the abstract. The abstract has been thoroughly revised to improve its logical flow and scientific robustness. Specifically, we reorganized the text to first describe the physiological and oxidative damage induced by salinity stress and iron toxicity, followed by a clear presentation of how the different priming strategies mitigated these effects. In addition, important quantitative results (e.g., changes in germination, antioxidant enzyme activities, and MDA content) were incorporated to better demonstrate the significance of the findings. These changes can be found on page 1, lines 13–37.
Comment 3: Recently, Karim et al. (2025) (DOI: 10.1111/ppl.70344) reported the role of KNO₃ priming in tomato under salinity stress. Therefore, the authors should clearly justify how the present study differs from that report and explicitly highlight the novelty, research gap, and unique contribution of the current findings.
Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The present study differs substantially from the work of Karim et al. (2025) (DOI: 10.1111/ppl.70344). While those authors investigated the effect of KNO₃ applied directly to tomato plants under salinity stress, our study employed KNO₃ as a seed-priming agent in Solanum lycopersicum. Therefore, our work focuses on the physiological and biochemical responses induced during the earliest stages of plant development, specifically germination and early seedling growth, which represents an important gap in the literature. Thus, the unique contribution of the present study lies in evaluating the potential of seed priming as a strategy to enhance salinity tolerance from the beginning of the plant life cycle.
Comment 4: There is also inconsistency in the priming protocols. PEG and KNO₃ treatments were applied for 24 h, whereas the SNP treatment was conducted for only 12 h. The authors should justify the rationale for using different priming durations and explain how results were compared across treatments under these unequal conditions.
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The different priming durations were selected based on previous studies indicating that SNP exhibits faster uptake and signaling activity than osmotic agents such as PEG and KNO₃, allowing significant physiological responses to be achieved after shorter exposure periods. Therefore, a duration of 12 h was adopted for SNP and 24 h for PEG and KNO₃, following the specific literature available for each treatment. We emphasize that comparisons among treatments were performed considering their respective optimized protocols, which are widely used in priming studies, without compromising the interpretation of the results. These changes can be found on page 4, lines 126–158.
Comment 5: The Materials and Methods section requires considerable improvement for better reproducibility. For example, the age or developmental stage of the seedlings used for biochemical analyses was not clearly stated. Several methodological details should be expanded to allow accurate replication of the experiments by other researchers.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The Materials and Methods section has been revised and expanded to improve the reproducibility of the study. Detailed information regarding the developmental stage of the seedlings used for biochemical analyses has been included, including the exact seedling age (days after germination) at the time of sampling. Additional methodological details were also provided to facilitate accurate replication of the experiments by other researchers. These changes can be found on pages 3–7.
Comment 6: The quality and resolution of the bar graphs are very poor and difficult to interpret. The figures should be substantially improved with higher resolution, clearer labels, and better overall presentation quality.
Response 6: The graphs will be submitted as individual high-resolution images rather than as a single grouped figure, as presented in the previous version. This approach will improve visualization and facilitate accurate interpretation of each dataset. However, the original photographs were taken with a low-resolution camera, which may limit their usability. In addition, the figure captions have been improved and can be found on page 10, line 329, and page 14, line 455.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevision Manuscript ID 4317547 Seeds MDPI
Seed Priming in Solanum lycopersicum L. under Salinity and Iron Toxicity (Fraga et al.)
The study fits well the aims and scope of the Journal and the topic appears interesting to the scientific audience. However, the manuscript presents some weak points that make it unsuitable for publication in its present form. The main limitation is that the study was conducted with a single cultivar. A single cultivar does not define the behaviour of a plant species, because in general a wide genetic variability exists within the germplasm of a given species in the germination response to stresses. The text could propose future studies involving multi-genotype experiments.
See below some specific comments that the Authors should consider to significantly improve their paper.
Abstract. The tomato used in this study should be reported.
Title. it is not clear from the title what priming is applied for.
Line 67. ‘The priming technique has been widely described as an effective strategy’. Please specify that priming is applied on seeds (seed priming technique).
Line 101. ‘with no specific cultivar designation provided by the manufacturer’. The name of tomato cultivar must be provided.
Paragraph 2.3. Priming treatment is not described adequately. How did the authors maintain seeds in Petri dishes? Over imbibed filter layers? Moreover, commonly during priming the seeds are kept at temperatures below the optimal for germination, to avoid early germination during the treatment. Moreover, after priming the seeds are washed and left to dry until the initial water content is achieved. The authors must explain why they incubated seeds at 25°C during priming and why they followed this procedure for priming.
Line 115. ‘paper moistened with solutions equivalent to 2.5 times the dry paper mass’. The authors must specify the mL of solution applied to imbibe filter paper. The ‘control’ must be described in this paragraph.
Line 116. Write BOD in full. What do the authors mean by ‘24 h photoperiod’? Light? Dark? What are the dimensions of Petri dishes?
Paragraph 2.6. The description is too concise. How did the authors calculate GSI? How did the authors measure radicle and seedling length? And when? In how many seeds per Petri dish?
Paragraph 2.7. The description is too concise. When did the authors analyse seeds for proteins, antioxidant enzymes and MDA? On germinated seeds? On radicles? On seedlings? More details must be provided in order to make the experiment repeatable.
Paragraph 2.8. Statistical analysis. More details. How many experimental factors? Which experimental design? Did the authors arc-sin transform the percentage values of germination before ANOVA?
Results. I wonder why priming treatments (PEG, SNP, KNO3) were not analysed all together for each type of stress, given that a single control was used in all experiments. Multiple graphs should be included into a single graph (one for each trait).
Discussion. In my opinion this section is too long. Long parts on seed physiology could be shortened, given that most of biochemical compounds (e.g., proline, ANA, GA) were not analysed in this study.
Conclusion. The authors should include a take-home message.
Tab. 6. In %G, letter for significance of Fe-EDTA 4 mM must be corrected in ‘c’.
Author Response
Comment 1: The main limitation is that the study was conducted using a single cultivar. A single cultivar does not define the behavior of a plant species, since there is generally wide genetic variability within the germplasm of a given species regarding germination responses to stress. The manuscript could propose future studies involving multiple genotypes.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We acknowledge that the use of a single cultivar is a limitation of the study, as it does not represent the genetic variability of the species, particularly regarding germination responses under stress conditions. This issue has been included in the revised version of the manuscript, in the Conclusion section, where we highlight the need for future studies involving multiple genotypes to broaden the understanding of physiological responses and the applicability of priming strategies under salinity stress and iron toxicity. This modification can be found on pages 20 and 21, lines 741–750.
Comment 2: The tomato cultivar used in this study should be mentioned.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We would like to clarify that the seed package from the Topseed brand did not provide cultivar identification, indicating only the commercial type “salad tomato.” This information has been included in the revised manuscript for greater clarity. The modification can be found on page 3, lines 120–124.
Comment 3: Title. It is not clear from the title what the priming treatment was applied for.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The title has been revised to better reflect the methodology and the main findings of the study. The new title emphasizes the different priming strategies and their distinct responses under salinity and iron toxicity, making it more specific and informative. This change can be found on page 1, lines 2–4.
Comment 4: Line 67. “Priming has been widely described as an effective strategy.” Please specify that priming is applied to seeds (seed priming technique).
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the observation. The wording has been revised in the manuscript to specify that this refers to seed priming, as suggested. This modification can be seen on page 3, line 91.
Comment 5: Line 101. “without specific cultivar designation provided by the manufacturer.” The name of the tomato cultivar should be provided.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for the observation. The seed lot used in this study was purchased from the Topseed brand, and the package did not provide cultivar identification, only the commercial tomato type. Therefore, it was not possible to provide the cultivar name. We kindly ask for the reviewer’s understanding regarding this limitation.
Comment 6: Section 2.3. The priming treatment is not adequately described. How were the seeds maintained in the Petri dishes? On layers of moistened filter paper? In addition, it is common for seeds to be maintained at temperatures below the optimum for germination during priming to prevent premature germination. Furthermore, after priming, seeds are usually washed and dried back to their initial moisture content. The authors should explain why seeds were incubated at 25 °C during priming and why this procedure was followed.
Response 6: We thank the reviewer for the observation. The description of the priming treatment has been revised and expanded in the Materials and Methods section. We also clarified the choice of 25 °C, which falls within the optimal temperature range for tomato seed germination (20–25 °C) and promotes metabolic activation during priming without inducing radicle protrusion (Amooaghaie & Nikzad, 2013). In addition, we clarified that after priming, the seeds were only surface-dried on absorbent paper and immediately subjected to germination tests. The use of surface-dried seeds without re-drying to their initial moisture content has been reported in the literature and may enhance germination performance when germination is initiated immediately after priming (Farooq et al., 2011). This modification can be found on page 4, lines 127–158.
Comment 7: Line 115. “paper moistened with solutions equivalent to 2.5 times the dry paper mass.” The authors should specify the volume (mL) of solution applied to moisten the filter paper. The “control” should also be described in this paragraph.
Response 7: In response to this comment, the procedure was detailed to clarify the exact volume of solution used for moistening the paper. The Germitest® paper was moistened with approximately 17 mL of solution, corresponding to 2.5 times the dry paper mass. The same volume was used for both treatment solutions (100 mM NaCl and 4 mM Fe-EDTA) and the control treatment. The control group consisted of non-primed seeds germinated on Germitest® paper moistened with 17 mL of distilled water under the same experimental conditions as the other treatments. This modification can be found on pages 4 and 5, lines 161–171.
Comment 8: Line 116. Write BOD in full. What do the authors mean by “24 h photoperiod”? Light? Darkness? What were the dimensions of the Petri dishes?
Response 8: We thank the reviewer for the comment. All observations were addressed in the revised manuscript. The term “BOD” was replaced by its full designation, Biochemical Oxygen Demand incubator, for greater clarity. The “24 h photoperiod” refers to continuous light conditions (constant exposure to white fluorescent light throughout the experimental period), and this information was explicitly stated in the manuscript. In addition, the dimensions of the Petri dishes were added; the dishes used had a diameter of 9 cm. These modifications can be found on pages 4 and 5, lines 161–171.
Comment 9: Section 2.6. The description is too concise. How was the Germination Speed Index (GSI) calculated? How and when were radicle and seedling lengths measured? How many seeds were placed in each Petri dish?
Response 9: We thank the reviewer for the comment. Section 2.6 has been revised and expanded to include all requested information, making the description clearer and more complete. The Germination Speed Index (GSI) was detailed by including the formula proposed by Maguire (1962), explicitly stating that the calculation was based on the number of seeds germinated daily throughout the evaluation period. It was also specified that primary root and shoot lengths were measured at the end of the 14-day experimental period using a digital caliper (accuracy ±0.01 mm), with results expressed in centimeters. Furthermore, the number of seeds evaluated per Petri dish was included according to the adopted experimental design. This modification can be found on page 5, lines 188–199.
Comment 10: Section 2.7. The description is too concise. When were the analyses of proteins, antioxidant enzymes, and MDA performed? On germinated seeds? Radicles? Seedlings? More details should be provided to make the experiment reproducible.
Response 10: We thank the reviewer for the comment. Section 2.7 was revised and expanded to clarify both the biological material and the sampling time. All biochemical analyses (soluble proteins, antioxidant enzyme activities—catalase and peroxidase—and lipid peroxidation through MDA content) were performed on seedling radicles collected four days after the beginning of the germination test. Samples consisted exclusively of primary root tissues from germinated seedlings, ensuring that the analyses reflected the early physiological status of development under the different treatments. These details were included in the revised manuscript to improve clarity and reproducibility. This modification can be found on page 6, lines 236–253.
Comment 11: Section 2.8. Statistical analysis. More details are needed. How many experimental factors were considered? What experimental design was used? Did the authors apply arcsine transformation to germination percentage data before ANOVA?
Response 11: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design (CRD), with treatments organized according to the different priming strategies and stress conditions applied. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared using Tukey’s test at the 5% significance level with the Sisvar software (version 5.6). We clarify that germination percentage data were not subjected to arcsine transformation because the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were met without the need for data transformation. Information regarding the experimental design can be found on page 5, lines 174–185.
Comment 12: Results. I would like to know why the priming treatments (PEG, SNP, KNO₃) were not analyzed together for each stress type, given that a single control was used in all experiments. Several graphs should be combined into a single figure (one for each trait).
Response 12: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The priming treatments (PEG, SNP, and KNO₃) were evaluated separately within each stress condition (NaCl and Fe) due to the different physiological modes of action of the priming agents, while using a common control group as a reference within each experimental system. This approach was adopted because the control represents the baseline condition without priming, allowing standardized comparisons among treatments, reducing unnecessary experimental variation, and enabling direct attribution of observed effects to the different priming agents within each stress condition. Two tables were prepared, one for each stress condition.
Comment 13: Discussion. In my opinion, this section is too long. Extensive sections on seed physiology could be shortened, since most biochemical compounds discussed (e.g., proline, IAA, GA) were not analyzed in this study.
Response 13: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The Discussion section was thoroughly revised to improve conciseness and focus on the results obtained in this study. Excessively descriptive passages and interpretative sections not directly related to the analyzed variables were removed, as well as extensive discussions of biochemical mechanisms that were not experimentally evaluated. The text was restructured to prioritize interpretation of the experimental data and avoid redundancy, resulting in a more objective discussion aligned with the study objectives. The revised Discussion can be found on pages 16–20.
Comment 14: Conclusion. The authors should include a main message.
Response 14: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The Conclusion section was revised to include the main message of the study. It was highlighted that salinity stress and iron toxicity negatively affect germination, early seedling growth, and redox homeostasis in S. lycopersicum, and that the effectiveness of priming depends on the type of stress. Under salinity stress, KNO₃ was the most effective treatment, whereas under iron toxicity none of the treatments were able to reduce lipid peroxidation or restore seedling growth. It was also emphasized that conventional priming presents limitations under severe iron stress, possibly due to intense production of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Future perspectives were included, highlighting the need for combined strategies and testing across different genotypes to improve the generalization of the results. This modification can be found on pages 20 and 21.
Comment 15: Table 6. In %G, the significance letter for Fe-EDTA 4 mM should be corrected to “c”.
Response 15: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The correction indicated for Table 6 was made, and the significance letter corresponding to the Fe-EDTA 4 mM treatment in %G was changed to “c”, as suggested. This modification can be verified on page 12, Table 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is descriptive, and based on very basic experiments. The work is of low scientific novelty but in general well done. Description of Material and Methods section needs improvement. Detailed comments are included in the pdf of the manuscript. Discussion should be shortened and authors should avoid description of the presented data, as it is a repetition of the results. The reference list needs improvement in format.
My recommendation is to accept the manuscript after minor revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Do you mean Biochemical Oxygen Demand incubator?
Response 1: Yes, we intended to refer to a Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) incubator. We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. The term has been corrected in the manuscript for greater clarity and can be found on page 4, line 132, and page 5, line 168.
Comment 2: Were only 100 seeds used in the experiments?
Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. We clarify that it was not only 100 seeds in total, but rather 100 seeds per treatment. Two independent experiments were conducted, corresponding to two stress conditions (salinity and iron toxicity), each consisting of eight treatments. In addition, the following controls were included: absolute control (distilled water), salinity control (100 mM NaCl), and iron toxicity control (4 mM Fe-EDTA). The text was revised to improve the clarity of this information. The revised passage can be found on page 5, line 178.
Comment 3: Enzyme extraction needs to be described.
Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. The enzymatic extraction method has been detailed in the manuscript to improve clarity and reproducibility. Information regarding the preparation of the extraction buffer, including its composition, pH, and the use of phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF), was added. The extraction conditions, such as the use of polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP), low-temperature procedures, centrifugation steps, and supernatant collection, were also described. In addition, the procedures for determining catalase and peroxidase activities were detailed, including reagent preparation, spectrophotometric reading conditions, and normalization of enzyme activities based on soluble protein content. These changes can be found on page 6, lines 215–233.
Comment 4: What about tissue homogenisation and extraction?
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. The description of tissue homogenization and the extraction procedure was not sufficiently detailed in the previous version. Therefore, the method for malondialdehyde (MDA) determination was improved in the manuscript to enhance clarity and reproducibility. Information was added regarding the extraction process, including the amount of plant tissue used, the composition of the extraction solution (trichloroacetic acid), homogenization and centrifugation conditions, sample preparation with thiobarbituric acid (TBA), and incubation conditions (temperature and duration). Furthermore, spectrophotometric reading conditions (532 and 600 nm wavelengths), the procedure used to correct for interferences, and the calculation of MDA concentration, including the molar extinction coefficient and the equation used, were described. These changes can be found on page 6, lines 236–253.
Comment 5: Include information about the age of the seedling.
Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. The age of the seedlings was not clearly specified and has now been included as 14 days. The change can be found on page 5, line 195.
Comment 6: Specify: seed germination but root or shoot length refers to seedlings not seeds!
Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. The specification “Solanum lycopersicum seeds” for all evaluated parameters was incorrect. The text was revised to properly distinguish the variables assessed, associating germination with seeds and root and shoot length with seedlings. These changes can be found on page 8, line 299, and page 12, line 418.
Comment 7: Specify conditions. It is not clear.
Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with the comment. Indeed, the experimental condition had not been specified. We added that the results refer to the salinity stress condition. The change can be found on page 9, line 318.
Comment 8: ???
Response 8: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The term “ηmol” was corrected to “nmol.” This change can be found on page 9, line 322.
Comment 9: Include information about the age of seedlings.
Response 9: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The age of the seedlings was added. The changes can be found on page 10, line 330, and page 14, line 456.
Comment 10: Please minimize description of result in the discussion part.
Response 10: We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. Descriptions of the results were removed from the Discussion section to improve conciseness and focus on interpretation. The changes can be found on page 16, lines 542–726.
Comment 11: In salt stress conditions.
Response 11: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We added the salinity stress condition. The change can be found on page 16, line 562.
Comment 12: In tomato [43] and quinoa [44].
Response 12: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The authors’ names were removed to maintain consistency with the journal style. The change can be found on page 16, line 562.
Comment 13: (Strikethrough text)
Response 13: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The term “by” was removed. The change can be found on page 17, line 572.
Comment 14: (Strikethrough text)
Response 14: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The term “by” was removed. The change can be found on page 17, line 573.
Comment 15: Change sentence structure.
Response 15: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence structure was improved by replacing an impersonal construction with a clearer form in which the authors are explicitly identified. This revision improves readability and aligns the text with academic writing standards. The change can be found on page 18, line 568.
Comment 16: Seeds of H. cannabinus were primed or seedlings?
Response 16: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The seeds were subjected to priming, and evaluations were performed on seedlings after germination. In other words, the treatment was applied to the seeds, which subsequently germinated and produced the seedlings analyzed. The passage was revised to make this information clearer. The changes can be found on page 17, lines 580–583.
Comment 17: Remove at the end of the sentence.
Response 17: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was revised to adjust the citation placement. In the original version, the reference was introduced at the beginning of the sentence, whereas in the revised version the citation was moved to the end of the sentence, as recommended. The changes can be found on page 17, lines 585–592.
Comment 18: Do not start with citation.
Response 18: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The reference was moved to the end of the sentence, and the structure was adjusted to emphasize the result rather than the author. The changes can be found on page 17, lines 585–592.
Comment 19: ???
Response 19: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The term “emission” was replaced with “formation.” The changes can be found on page 17, lines 594–595.
Comment 20: What does it mean?
Response 20: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The term “greater membrane stability” refers to the maintenance of membrane integrity, characterized by lower permeability and reduced levels of oxidative damage under stress conditions. The changes can be found on page 17, lines 602–604.
Comment 21: Do not start sentence with citation.
Response 21: We appreciate the reviewer’s correction. The passage was reformulated so that citation [64] appears at the end of the sentence. The changes can be found on page 17, lines 612–613.
Comment 22: I do not understand why physical messenger.
Response 22: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The passage was removed in order to simplify and streamline the discussion.
Comment 23: Greater or longer?
Response 23: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The passage was removed to reduce the length of the discussion; therefore, the term no longer appears in the manuscript.
Comment 24: What do you mean?
Response 24: We appreciate the reviewer’s question. The passage was removed to reduce the length of the discussion; therefore, the term no longer appears in the manuscript.
Comment 25: Promote.
Response 25: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The passage was reformulated and can be found on page 17, lines 608–613.
Comment 26: Do not use such style.
Response 26: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The format “by [10]” was removed. The text was revised to place the citation at the end of the sentence, improving clarity and readability. The changes can be found on page 18, lines 629–637.
Comment 27: Include common English name of the plant.
Response 27: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The common English name of the crop, “papaya,” was added to the text. The change can be found on page 18, line 641.
Comment 28: Change style of the sentence.
Response 28: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was reformulated to move the citation to the end of the sentence, making the text more direct. The changes can be found on page 19, lines 670–671.
Comment 29: Do not start the sentence with citation.
Response 29: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was reformulated to move the citation to the end of the sentence, making the text more direct. The changes can be found on page 19, lines 676–677.
Comment 30: Seed germination.
Response 30: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The term “seed germination” was added. The change can be found on page 20, line 728.
Comment 31: Early growth of seedlings.
Response 31: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The term “early seedling growth” was added. The change can be found on page 20, line 728.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for addressing my previous comments and substantially improving the manuscript. The revised version is significantly strengthened and is suitable for acceptance. However, a few minor issues should still be addressed before final publication:
- In the Abstract, please remove the specific mention of Brazil, as the issue discussed is of global relevance rather than being limited to a single country.
- The resolution and overall quality of the figures should be improved to enhance readability and facilitate better interpretation of the results.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFollowing a thorough review, I would like to inform you that all the suggested comments and observations have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. These improvements enhance the overall scientific quality of the paper and align it more closely with the publication standards of the journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was modified according to all of my suggestions.
