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.
I appreciate your positive and constructive attitude toward the suggestions of reviewers. I believe your manuscript is now ready for publication. We look forward to your next article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I appreciate your positive and constructive attitude toward the reviewers' suggestions. However, your article requires some minor revisions before publication. Please carefully read the reviewers' comments and consider each of them. If you disagree with any particular suggestion, it would be beneficial to provide clear and well-reasoned justifications for your perspective. Additionally, could you please add the raw data from your study as a supplemental file?
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
The salinity of agricultural soil will be one of the most important issues that scientists may spend so much time on in the future. Therefore, your article has valuable data for the next studies. However, some parts of your article need to improve. I listed them below.
The methodology should be detailed to make it reproducible. Please add the details such as concentrations, stages, and calibration curves.
Please check your references and the reference list.
Each factor was evaluated in itself. Why did not you evaluate the interactions between time, treatment, and tillering stage? If you made it, you should have explained in the article.
Please carefully read the reviewers' suggestions about your article. If you do not accept one or more of their suggestions, give your reasons.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
No comment
# The author mentioned that four replicates were performed per treatment (line 168 to 174). However, n=3 was presented in the figure legend. Why not consistent?
# In each replicate, how many plants was measured? The information should be provided.
# All the methods should be described instead of only citation (line 224 to 226).
# Most physiology experiments were performed on 0.5g tissue. How many plants the tissue came from?
# The authors used two kinds of rice: Xiangliangyou900 and Huanghuazhan. What’s their difference? Have the author compared whether they had consistent morphology and physiology results?
# The authors had a conclusion “the main stem stem showed greater salt tolerance than the tillers under salt stress by increasing SOD, CAT, and POD enzyme activities” (line 602). However, when compare Figure 6a and 6c, the SOD enzyme activities in stem and tiller are similar on the 7d, 21d and 28d under salt stress. On the 14d and 35d, the tiller has more SOD activities. How the authors explain this?
In this manuscript, authors performed the morphology and physiology study of rice under salt stress and found that Pro-Ca alleviated the effects caused by salt stress. The authors conducted a large amount of data collection and analysis, although there is no mechanism study at all. The conclusions are for the most part supported by the data. However, there are several concerns that should be addressed prior to publication.
I think this manuscript brings a certain novelty to the area.
Some corrections and suggestions were made, always aiming to improve the study.
All observations are highlighted in yellow in the text.
Some points need to be detailed.
The present study brings new analyzes in the area.
The English language must be improved.
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.