The Effect of Temperature and Water Stresses on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript entitled: "The effect of temperature and water stresses on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)" (number: sustainability-1622374), Authors described about abiotic conditions which have a strong influence to initiate seed germination and development of a seedling. However, the manuscript has low significance, because authors are testing obvious conditions for seed germinations.
The manuscript contains some errors and inaccuracies, some of them a listed below.
The section Introduction:
Line 97: “The antioxidant system highly affected wheat seed germination.” – in this sentence it is not known who is the author of this research/statement (please add the citation).
Line 104: “…a percentage of TKW.” – please explain this abbreviation.
Line 115: "Do the number of seeds and the density of seedlings have affect the germination percentage and viability of seedlings under the same water quantity?" – this question is trivial, because we can answer this question in the affirmative way, without any experiments.
The section Materials and Methods:
Line 169: “…and normal seedling„ – please explain „a normal”.
The Results chapter:
The term "Plumule" is not correct. The plumule is the apical bud, i.e. the apical part of the embryo's epicotylic. The first proper leaves of the seedling, which the authors probably observed, develop from it (from plumule). Therefore, it is not known what the Authors actually measured.
There is no Discussion chapter in the manuscript, and only short conclusion is provided which is not satisfactory at all.
In my opinion, the presented research is very descriptive, technical and adds little to the scientific knowledge.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Khaeim et al assessed the germination and growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum) seeds under various abiotic stressors. The novelty of the paper is low.
Data regarding thermal and hydric stress in Triticum aestivum should be added in the introduction
Missing reference citation [28]
The general approach in materials and methods is very simplistic, lacking any biochemical assay.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
you have presented an article that thematically corresponds to agricultural science. You have described a simple experiment on the study of the effect of abiotic factors on the germination of wheat seeds. The research presented is very basic, and in my opinion the paper has little scientific value. The strength of the manuscript is the illustration of the research results and the detailed statistical analysis. The work should be enriched with a decent discussion of the results. Please respond to the comments below:
In the abstract, please indicate where the research was conducted.
In the introduction section, please briefly describe which international standards are used for the practical assessment of seed germination.
Material and Methods.
Please describe in detail the experimental conditions- laboratory, greenhouse, vegetation hall. How light was controlled, how the microclimate was controlled, in what region of the world such experiments were conducted. What germination capacity is determined by the breeder.
Please describe what variety of wheat it is, what conditions it is suitable for, etc.
I think you should improve the discussion part of the results. Please additionally cite 10 papers from the last 10 years that deal with evaluating seedling germination of various agricultural species.
What is the cognitive value of these studies? How will they be continued?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this manuscript, Khaeim et al. are investigating the role of temperature, water availability and seed density on the germination and growth of wheat seeds. The questions raised are interesting and of economic and nutritional importance, but the manuscript bears some weak points which I am listing below.
First, the text is not flowing and the language is generally poor. I started proposing some ideas for corrections (see below) but I stopped at the Materials Section. I would advise the authors to ask for the help of an experienced English speaker/writer.
My second major concern is structural. I find the Introduction to be quite long and since there is no separate Discussion (I guess the Results section should contain the Discussion term), I would expect a deeper and more scrutinized presentation of the results.
Third, although data and evidence are interesting, the analysis and presentation feel obsolete. The authors do not use the advantage of having richly replicated experiments and do not show the variation of their results. This is the case for regression plots, growth curves, as well as for polynomial plots (i.e. they could show SDs and ribbons, respectively). They could also employ multiple regression and linear modeling (since they use JMP, especially for the temperature experiments) and - for instance - statistically compare coefficient estimates among treatments (levels of temperature).
Other comments:
L. 11: Pls, replace "ranges" with something more appropriate, i.e. "levels, points, etc".
L. 14-17: Not well expressed, pls rephrase both sentences. Also, avoid expressions with the indefinite article "a" as in [... and a temperature of 20 °C was observed to be....] or [... seed germinated at a water amount...].
L. 43-47: Passage not clear when contextualized with the aforementioned of the same paragraph. Pls, rephrase and clarify.
L. 88: "resulted in": Different tense used. Correct to match the rest of the text.
L.100: "and an optimal number": Pls, rephrase for better English.
L. 102-104: Same as above. Pls, rephrase for better English.
L. 105-109: I cannot follow how these hypotheses are tested in the Results section. Pls, explain.
L. 116: Please remove "have" or rephrase for better English.
L. 100-117: This whole passage is badly written.
L. 121: Pls, rephrase for better English.
L. 129: Pls, remove "been".
L. 145: 1% of what? Pls, be clear.
L. 145: Reference [39] (and [40], further on in the manuscript) are probably theses (?) or reports but are not available. Pls, replace.
L. 170. Citation [38] does not contain anything about aggregated value. Pls, explain its concept and correct reference.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
OK, I am satisfied with the authors' answers.
Reviewer 3 Report
I accept
