Review History

All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 29th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 24th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 24th, 2020 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 3rd, 2020.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 3, 2020 · Academic Editor


The reviewers' comments have been addressed, and thus your manuscript can be accepted. Thank you for your contribution to the PeerJ. Waiting for your next work.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 24, 2020 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Based on the reviews from two anonymous reviewers, before being accepted, your manuscript requires some modifications. Particularly, grammar corrections and language polishing are required to further improve the quality of this paper.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter.  Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The language is readable, but there are still many errors. I suggest that the manuscript should be extensively modified by a native English speaker.
The article includes sufficient introduction and background with relative references.
I did not see Figure legends of Fig. S1 and S2.
I cannot find Table S1, which should show the primers.
Raw data are provided.
The sections are right.

Experimental design

N application can alleviate the salt stress on plants. The authors aim to reveal how N concentrations affect the growth and photochemical parameters of feeding annual ryegrass under low salt stress. That is an important question in the environment science field.
The authors systematically analyzed the growth and photochemical parameters of feeding annual ryegrass at different treatments. The methodology is reliable and clearly described.
However, one problem is that the authors did not properly organize the data. In some figures, the x axis is N concentrations, while in others the x axis is salt concentrations.

Validity of the findings

Repeats were properly performed.
The data were statistically analyzed.
The conclusion is related to the main question asked by the research and supported by the data.

Additional comments

The following are specific comments and suggestions. The authors should be aware that the errors are much more than listed below. Therefore, the manuscript has to be carefully and extensively modified.
1. Line 18: damage on plants
2. Line 23: full name of “OJIP”
3. Line 42: remove “studies have shown that”
4. Line 47: reduce its damage; change evolvement to evolution
5. Line 53: change regulate to improve
6. Line 54: rephrase the sentence “The inorganic N …”
7. The authors analyzed the effects of N concentrations on plant growth. They show the data of 2, 5, 10 mM in Fig.1 but the data of 0.5, 2, 5 mM in Fig. S1. Why not put these data in one figure?
8. Please mark the x axis in Fig. S1D.
9. Line 264: remove “the”
10. Line 277-279: The authors compared their results to the findings of Sagi et al., 1997. However, they should convert salinity to NaCl concentration for comparison.
11. Line 300: The results are not from Fig. 1
12. Figure 3 legend: Rephrase the sentence “*indicate parameters statistically significant between different N levels under the same NaCl level.”
13. Line 326-327: what it represents?
14. Line 332: is consistent with
15. Acknowledgement: The authors should mention funding sources and people who helped them prepare the manuscript, instead of reviewers.


Basic reporting

This is a very meaningful manuscript with professional language, structure, and figures.

Experimental design

Rigorous experimental design.

Validity of the findings

The results are solid and valid.

Additional comments

I suggest adding “seedings” to the topic since the research object is the seedlings rather than the whole growth period.

To update some new literatures beyond the classic literatures to support the research results.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.