Overall

this paper describes Use of Nitric Oxide and Hydrogen Peroxide for Better Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Water Deficit Conditions and its impact of growth, physiological and biochemical mechanism. Study is interesting and might be helpful in improving yield of bread wheat under drought conditions. There are any short-comings in the study which should be improved to enhance the readability of the manuscript.

Comments on abstract, title, references

1- Aim of the study is clear, but authors did not identified the research gap 2-Authors should mention whether it is a field experiment or pot study -3 Title is informative and relevant, but is a too long title. Authors should try to shorten the title if possible 4-Although the references are relevant, but most of the used references are old. Authors should use recent finding to support the study.

Comments on introduction/background

5-Authors have reviewed the relevant literature and presented the problem in a scientific way, but most of the citations used are old. There is a lot of current literature published in the form of research articles and systematic reviews, authors should consult that to have a recent outlook. 6-Authors have identified the research gap, but it is not very clear. authors, mentioned that there are "no or very few reports" It means that authors did not explore the literature very well and they are not sure whether few reports are available or not. 7-Objectives of the study are clearly explained.

Comments on methodology

8- Authors does not give the source of information about the tolerance of two genotypes. Authors, should provide some authentic reference for their information that one genotypes is moderately tolerant and one is highly tolerant. Moreover, authors did not differentiate between moderate and highly drought tolerant.

9- information provided should be easily understood. ," then tagged as T2 (SNP (0 and 0.1 mM)), T3 (H2O2 (0 and 1mM)), or T4 (SNP + H2O2 (0.1 mM and 1 mM))" here, one treatment factor is shown with two concentration in T2 and T3 which is confusing whether T2 are two treatments or one. What I understood that authors want to say that in T2, H2O2 is "0" and SNP is "0.1mM". authors should clarify the information.

10- Methods section contain many confusing and misleading statements, authors should give special attention to them. for example "After sowing, the seeds were air-dried until a constant weight was obtained" here it must be "before sowing". Authors are advised to carefully read the whole text, and clarify the confusions. 11-Dimension of pots are not clear (28-30 cm? what?)

12- how many plants per pot were maintained? How many plants were used to measure root-shoot data? how plants were uprooted? authors should provide all this information, so that experiment may be reproducible.

13-authors should provide weather attributes of green house i.e. temperature, light concentration and quality, humidity, CO2 concentration

14- Formula for LRWC is not correctly formatted.

15-Statistical analyses is not fully explained. Authors have three factors (i.e. stress, cultivar, treatment), how these were analysed, is not mentioned in statistical analyses. Even authors, did not mentioned, how these factors were analysed i.e. fully factorial or in a split plot? How figure were made? PCA of what? authors should explain the statistical analyses in a clear way, so that it could be reproducible.

Comments on data and results

16- Captions of tables and figures should be self-explanatory. For example, in table 1, authors provided only a minor information about the table. Authors should describes about the statistics used in the table, i.e. either it is complete factorial or split plot? if split plot what are the main effects etc?

17-Significance of treatments and interactions should be presented on the figure bars in the form of lettering

18- In some figures (like figure 3) right side column, treatment labeling is missing

19-Authors does not provide any information about correlation analyses in statistical section. table of correlation analyses is confusing. number of variable on upper row and left column are not same. even author does not provide any information in the caption. author should clarify about the correlation analyses.

20-Presentation of results especially (tables and figures) need a lot of improvement for better readability.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

21-First paragraph of the discussion is not necessary, it is a introductory paragraph. Discussion section should include interpretation and justification of the results.

22-Although results are well interpreted, but discussion section also contains a lot of introductory information which should be removed

23-Conclusion section is well supported by the literature discussed and data.

24- Overall This is a well planned study, but presentation of methods and results need improvement.

25-It is an important confirmation of previous findings.