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.
The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. Although the other reviewer did not join in the second round, their comments are not very critical and have also been addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Curtis Daehler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Section Editor identified some items to be addressed in proof:
1. The Abstract must disclose the salt concentration used in the soil experiments; without this information, the study's contribution cannot be understood.
2. Line 17 "are remain" - delete "are"
3. Line 43 "excessive details about global trend predictions have been omitted to address these gaps" - I did not understand this wording. Please reword this sentence.
4. Tables and Figures -- the abbreviation "DMRT" needs to be explained (alternatively, it could be explained in Methods).
The authors addressed all my concerns in the revised version of the manuscript.
The design is well improved.
Findings us quite nice and well interpreted.
Specific comments have been raised by both reviewers, and should be properly addressed by the the authors.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The content of the manuscript is significant, but major improvements are needed to increase the quality of presentation and readability. Please refer to my comments in other sections.
1. Justify the absence of drainage holes in pots, especially under saline conditions.
2. Mention whether the experiment was randomized within blocks or grouped in the greenhouse to prevent location bias.
3. Clarify the rationale for the control (CK): Was it a “no salt stress + conventional practice”?
4. Specify the coating or release mechanism (e.g., resin-coated urea?) and whether it was mixed into soil or surface applied.
5. Clarify if samples were taken at the same time of day (especially for physiological data), to avoid diurnal variation.
6. Include manufacturer and model for all instruments (you did this well for most, but not for all, e.g., conductivity meter).
7. Clearly indicate units for each biochemical result measured.
Results:
1. Line 232: Change the title to results.
2. Clarify what “I, T, P, F, M, C” mean earlier in the section (or briefly recall them), even if introduced previously in the methods. This helps readers focus on interpretation, especially in standalone reading.
Discussion:
1. Whenever you discuss a key outcome (e.g., “significantly increased biomass,” “improved water status”), briefly refer to statistical significance and effect size if possible.
2. Please discuss your findings with other plants.
3. When discussing ion balance, briefly mention ion transporter regulation (e.g., HKT1, SOS1) as possible contributors.
4. When addressing antioxidant enzyme activity, suggest potential transcriptional upregulation or hormonal signaling (e.g., ABA or ethylene).
5. Diversify your citations to include recent reviews (2020–2024) on salt tolerance, osmoregulation, and water-fertilizer interaction.
6. When you mention omics and smart agriculture tools, cite key recent papers (e.g., on phenomics or machine-learning-based irrigation).
7. Clarify how your findings can be generalized or applied across different crop systems or soil types.
8. The drop in proline and sugars under MP and CP is interpreted as reduced stress, but may also reflect reallocation of metabolic resources.
9. Specify what “multi-omics” will address: e.g., “Transcriptomics can identify regulatory genes associated with salt-responsive ion transport.”
10. Suggest a timeline or experimental design for field testing: “Seasonal field trials across salinity gradients in coastal soils will be initiated using paired MP and FI plots.”
11. Please reference sub-figures specifically when addressing the data.
Abstract:
1. The abstract contains too much methodological and numerical detail, which may overwhelm readers. Simplify by summarizing major findings without excessive numbers (e.g., gas exchange rates and osmolyte values). Focus more on key outcomes, such as “MP treatment improved yield by X% while enhancing ion balance and antioxidant defense.”
2. Strengthen the closing sentence by re-emphasizing the novelty and application potential of the results.
Introduction:
1. Condense global salinity data and focus more on the knowledge gap.
2. Use a structured flow for the introduction:
a. Problem: Soil salinity
b. Impact on Pakchoi
c. Current Solutions & Gaps
d. Rationale for Water-Fertilizer Integration
e. Study Objectives
Conclusion:
The conclusion is lengthy without a direct and precise focus on the key findings of this study. Therefore, I suggest rewriting the conclusion.
I would like to recommend a major revision of the paper. I would also like to review the revised version of the paper. Overall, the author has chosen a novel topic. And it is under the scope of PeerJ.
In the abstract, all abbreviations must be explained well.
What is FI?
Line 19: replace “aiming” with “aims to”
Line 27: "total soluble organic osmolytes accumulation was minimized."
“was minimized."
Line 31: Then, FI, explain it kindly, then use an abbreviation.
Line 40-41……………….in countries such as Europe, America…………………these are not countries. Kindly rephrase the sentence.
"Water-fertilizer" should be hyphenated consistently (earlier: "water and fertilizer")
Line 17-19 use this revised phrase
"This study examines how coordinated water-fertilizer regulation mitigates Na⁺ toxicity under salt stress, enhancing Pakchoi's salt tolerance and yield. The findings aim to optimize agronomic practices for salt-tolerant Pakchoi cultivation."
Introduction
Line 53, support your introduction with more mechanistic statements, such as
“Recent studies suggest that post-transcriptional modifications such as N6-methyladenosine (m6A) play a critical role in regulating stress-responsive gene expression in plants (Reference below).
Writers, readers, and erasers of N6-Methyladenosine (m6A) methylomes in oilseed rape: identification, molecular evolution, and expression profiling. BMC Plant Biology, 25(1), 147. doi: 10.1186/s12870-025-06127-3
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
Some redundancy and grammar mistakes should be corrected, such as
1. China is commonly known………………..
2. Reduce or avoid the harmful effects……………… replace with “reduce or prevent”
Citation mixes different styles; kindly uniform the style according to the journal.
0.15%NaCl…………………….kindly specify whether it is soil salinity by weight, irrigation water concentration, or solution molarity for clarity.
Better to use conjunctions for a better flow of the introduction
Line 72, kindly cite this reference as you are saying studies, but only one reference was given.
Progress in understanding salt stress response in plants using biotechnological tools. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2021.02.007
Dissecting the osmotic and oxidative stress responses in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive wheat genotypes under saline conditions. DOI: 10.17221/459/2024-PSE
Line 105: Kindly use a more scientific term, not “two leaves and one heart.” What does it mean by one heart?
For parameters, kindly use a heading. Like Line 203 uses heading, Line 208 uses heading, Line 215 uses heading, and Line 222 uses heading.
Results
The font size of the results is not uniform, also row spacing is different.
Discussion
Line 580 to 582, rephrase the sentence and citation style.
All the citations in the discussion section must be rearranged. This is not the correct way to write citations. E.g.
-This aligns with findings by Zhang et al. (2020), who emphasized that drip irrigation can improve rhizosphere soil moisture distribution and enhance plant water status (Zhang et al., 2020).
-This corresponds with observations by Xie et al. (2021), who reported that plastic film mulching with drip irrigation successfully prevented surface salt accumulation in tomato cultivation (Xie et al., 2021).
And only referring that our results are consistent with previous studies is not enough, try to give more logical reasons behind your findings.
Lines 645 to 649: Avoid using references if you are talking about future prospects.
I would suggest not adding the Prospects section. Delete completely.
Conclusion
Avoid using headings in the conclusion. Give a brief paragraph of your findings.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question & limited to supporting 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.