PONE-D-21-40489Impact of Varying Levels of Soil Salinity on Emergence, Growth and Biochemical Attributes of Four Moringa oleifera LandracesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Adnan Noor Shah, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Article entitled “Impact of Varying Levels of Soil Salinity on Emergence, Growth and Biochemical Attributes of Four Moringa Oleifera Landraces” is of worth reading for farmers and scientific community. It can be considered for publication after changes because some suggestion and comments are given below.

Abstract

Line 1 replace “or” with “and”

Line 1 replace “major adversely” with “adverse”

Line 2 replace semiarid with semi-arid

Line 3 replace explore with investigate/inspect

Line 11 replace reduced with minimized

Line 11 misspelled room change with root

Introduction

Line 1 use one word urbanization or over population

Line 2 replace industrialization with commercial purposes.

Line 8 remove of roots

2nd paragraph line 1 remove reached

3rd paragraph line 1 remove herb

Line 2 it’s a source of herbal medicine because it is rich in antioxidants like….. and also used as vegetable.

Line 6 remove frequently

Line 8 mistake remove line root extract of moringa is also

Line 9 misspelled trees not tress

Line 11 it behaves as a

Line 13 replace Ca2+ with Ca2+

Last paragraph last line saline conditions

Italic “et al’’ in whole intro

Material and methods

Line 6 Experiment not experiments

Sowing and treatment imposition

Line 2 completely randomized block design

Line 3 replace light and temperature with natural conditions

Line 4 replace were with was

Line 5 remove s standards

Emergence parameter

Line 7 replace were with was

Growth and biochemical analysis

Line 2 replace at seedling age of with ‘’after’’

Line 3 seedlings

Statistical analysis is in italic

Result

Rearrange the line 3

Line 7 moringa seed not seedling

Paragraph 2 line 2 remove different

Line 9 only write showed

Paragraph 3 replace pigment with contends

Paragraph 4 line 7 remove decreased

Discussion

Discussion is very simple. Add some recent literature to support your findings in a comparative way.

Line 2 changes replace with attributes, recent references may be cited to improve the section with scientific approach.

Conclusion

Line 2 vigor or growth use one thing or write seedling emergence and vigor, growth…

Reference

Recheck and cross match all the reference. Format the reference according to journal requirement.

Table and figures

All the tables and figures may be added in the page after first citation.

Reviewer #2: The present study was conducted to evaluate four different levels of soil salinity on emergence, growth and biochemical attributes of four moringa oleifera landraces. The authors write the MS appreciably well however.

Suggestions/comments

Abstract

Line 07: Add the line regarding design of experiment.

Line 10: Add unit with salinity level of ‘7.5’ and ‘11.5’.

Line 13: Replace ‘Room volume’ with ‘root volume’.

Line 13: Add unit with salinity level of ‘7.5’.

Introduction

Line 01-02: Reference ‘Shahbaz and Ashraf, 2013’ paste after the industrialization.

Line 06: Remove the world ‘also’.

Paragraph 2, Line 03: replace ‘abiotic and abiotic’ with ‘biotic and abiotic’.

Paragraph 2, Line 03: Add names of biotic stresses.

Paragraph 3, Line 8-9: confused, rewrite it.

Paragraph 3, Line 11: Remove ‘is’ and replace expose with ‘exposes’.

Paragraph 3, Line 12-13: confusing, rewrite it.

Paragraph 4, Line 05: Add the word ‘different’ before the moringa landraces.

Material and methods

Experimental particulates:

Line 09: Rewrite the four levels of soil salinity

Emergence Parameter:

Line 04-06: Confusing and missing sentence, rewrite it

Line 09: write it just start of the parameters in line 3.

Statistical analysis

Line 1-2: Rewrite it

Result

Line 03: Rewrite it

Line 07: Confusing, rewrite it.

Paragraph 02, loin 11: Add ‘as’ after the word noted.

Paragraph 03, loin 09: Replace ‘was’ with ‘were’.

Paragraph 03, loin 10: Remove the word ‘all’.

Paragraph 03, loin 15: Remove the word ‘salinity level’.

Paragraph 04, loin 01: Rewrite it.

Paragraph 04, loin 07: confusing, reconsider it.

Discussion:

Line 1, 2, 3: Justify results with previous work and give possible reasons of correlate or contrary of your results with previous work.

Paragraph 03, line 02: Give reference of your data (fig 3)

Conclusion

Line 04: Replace ‘can be, with ‘is’.

Reference

Reference 07: Recheck and rewrite it

Reference EL Sabagh is mixing with other ref. and rewrite it.

Reference Ellis RA is missing volume, page and format is also different. Correct it.

Figure

Fig 3: Units format

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Talha Javed

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rubab Shabbir

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Impact of Varying Levels of Soil Salinity on Emergence, Growth and Biochemical Attributes of Four Moringa oleifera Landraces

PONE-D-21-40489R1

Dear Dr. Khan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Adnan Noor Shah, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Talha Javed

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rubab Shabbir