Screening and Physiological Responses of Maize Inbred Lines to Drought Stress in South China
, Haiyu Zhou 2, Weidong Cheng 2, Hexia Xie 2, Lanqiu Qin 2, Xiang Yang 2, Yufeng Jiang 2,* and Xunbo Zhou 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGENERAL COMMENTS
-The manuscript entitled "Screening and physiological responses of maize inbred lines to drought stress in South China" is important and interesting as it provides insights on drought tolerance indicators of maize varieties which are crucial for selection and breeding of these varieties and also key for adapting to changing climate.
-The findings of the research study will be beneficial to farmers, researchers, policymakers, extension and advisory services, agro-industries, students and other readers.
-The manuscript is within the scope and aims of this Journal. There are shortcomings that require attention of the Authors as indicated under Specific Comments below:
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. The Authors need to provide summary of methods applied in the Abstract.
2. The main aim of the study is not clearly stated towards the end of Introduction and the Authors need to attend to this.
3. The Authors need to provide detailed explanation of type of experiments conducted e.g. whether field experiment was conducted under controlled environment e.g. greenhouse or the field experiment was conducted under natural environment.
4. The experimental designs must be stated clearly e.g. whether randomized complete block design (RCBD) or completely randomized design (CRD) experiments.
5. The Authors must note that Point 3 and Point 4 above are important for other readers to replicate and build on the results of this study after publication and therefore it is important for Authors to attend and address these.
6. Authors must write PCA and SPSS in full under sentence starting from Line 221 to Line 222.
7. Under Statistical Analysis sub-section, Authors must indicate which test was used to compare the treatment means e.g. whether Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) or Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test, etc.
8. Tables under the Results section: The Authors must write the following at the bottom of the Table where there are letter(s) next to the Mean: "Means within each row followed by different letter are significantly different according to DMRT". This is important for clear interpretation and understanding of the Table by the readers.
9. The Author must indicate future research towards the end of the Discussion section.
10. The Author must state the Limitations of this study under Conclusion section.
11. The following are missing in the manuscript and Authors need to attend and correct this: Author Contributions; Data Availability Statement; Conflicts of Interest
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of the English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.
Author Response
Comments 1: The Authors need to provide summary of methods applied in the Abstract.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. The authors revised and improved the abstract as suggested. Please see lines 13-14.
Comments 2: The main aim of the study is not clearly stated towards the end of Introduction and the Authors need to attend to this.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions. The authors improved the introduction section and made changes in suggested lines. Please see lines 101-130.
Comments 3: The Authors need to provide detailed explanation of type of experiments conducted e.g. whether field experiment was conducted under controlled environment e.g. greenhouse or the field experiment was conducted under natural environment.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. Please see lines 138-139.
Comments 4: The experimental designs must be stated clearly e.g. whether randomized complete block design (RCBD) or completely randomized design (CRD) experiments.
Response 4: In lines 140-142,160-162 to add the relevant experimental design.
Comments 5: The Authors must note that Point 3 and Point 4 above are important for other readers to replicate and build on the results of this study after publication and therefore it is important for Authors to attend and address these.
Response 5: I will make detailed changes to points 3 and points 4.
Comments 6: Authors must write PCA and SPSS in full under sentence starting from Line 221 to Line 222.
Response 6: In lines 280-282 with the addition.
Comments 7: Under Statistical Analysis sub-section, Authors must indicate which test was used to compare the treatment means e.g. whether Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) or Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test, etc.
Response 7: In lines 280-281 with the addition of the Least Significant Difference test (LSD) method
Comments 8: Tables under the Results section: The Authors must write the following at the bottom of the Table where there are letter(s) next to the Mean: "Means within each row followed by different letter are significantly different according to DMRT". This is important for clear interpretation and understanding of the Table by the readers.
Response 8: Add "Means followed by different letters in each row are significantly different according to LSD" to the partial table in rows 309-310 and in the results section in row 500, respectively.
Comments 9: The Author must indicate future research towards the end of the Discussion section.
Response 9: In lines 710-712, 436 with the addition of future research towards the end of the discussion section.
Comments 10: The Author must state the Limitations of this study under Conclusion section.
Response 10: In lines 732-735 with the addition of limitations of this study.
Comments 11: The following are missing in the manuscript and Authors need to attend and correct this: Author Contributions; Data Availability Statement; Conflicts of Interest
Response 11: In lines 745-764 with the addition of Author Contributions; Data Availability Statement; Conflicts of Interest.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript provides a scientific basis for understanding the physiological response of maize under drought conditions and is an important guide for breeding drought-resistant maize varieties. I have just a few comments:
1.The abstract suggests additional data to support the conclusions.
2.In "2. Materials and Methods", the location, time and temperature of the experiments should be indicated.
3.The line numbers overlap with Table 2 and Figure 3.
4.In line 369, there is no Figure 4 in the text.
5.It was suggested that the discussion be illustrated in different sub-points to make it easier to read and understand.
6. The limitations of the study and future work should be added to the discussion.
7.The serial numbers of the references are repeated.
8. Reduce similarity (Percent match: 24%).
Author Response
Comments 1: The abstract suggests additional data to support the conclusions.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. The abstract section has been revised completely, and changes have been made as suggested.
Comments 2: In "2. Materials and Methods", the location, time and temperature of the experiments should be indicated
Response 2: The materials and methods section has been revised according to suggestions. Please see lines 139-142, 155-156, and 160-161, with the addition of the location, time, and temperature of the experiments.
Comments 3: The line numbers overlap with Table 2 and Figure 3.
Response 3: Put the principal component analysis plot as an attachment in the attachment message.
Comments 4: In line 369, there is no Figure 4 in the text.
Response 4: Thanks for your comments. The section has been revised,. Please see lines 446-469 with the addition of Figure 4.
Comments 5: It was suggested that the discussion be illustrated in different sub-points to make it easier to read and understand.
Response 5: Thanks for your time to improve the manuscript. The discussion section has been revised and improved according to the comments.
Comments 6: The study's limitations and future work should be added to the discussion.
Response 6: In lines 101-130, 732-735 ith the addition of the limitations of the study and future work.
Comments 7: The serial numbers of the references are repeated.
Response 7: Thanks for yous suggestions. The serial number of the references have been revised and incorporated.
Comments 8: Reduce similarity (Percent match: 24%)
Response 8: Thanks for taking the time to check the similarity index. The authors have reduced the similarity index of the manuscript to keep it below 18%.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. How to ensure the scientific validity of this experiment?
2. Line 168, will using a ruler to measure leaf area cause significant errors? It is recommended to use a leaf area analyzer to obtain relevant data, which may provide more accurate and comprehensive data.
3. When conducting drought stress experiments, the uniformity of watering can affect the absorption of water by plants. In the experiment, only the amount of watering was determined. How to ensure the uniformity of watering.
4. The formulas on lines 172 and 182 do not have labels, please pay attention to the format of the formulas, and the font size in the formulas also does not comply with the specifications.
5. The formula format in lines 216/217/218/219 also needs to be modified.
6. The line 'which indicates 232 that driving promotes the increase of RL and RCR increase' is missing punctuation marks after the text.
7. The font overlap in Figure 2 is severe, and the meaning of the vertical axis cannot be determined.
8. Many numbers in Figure 3 contain a small dot, such as -0.070, 0.447, 0.230, and so on.
9. There are too many references cited in the discussion section. It is recommended to focus more on the scientific nature and progress of the experiments, and reduce the direct use of other people's work.
10. There are many formatting errors in the article, and we hope the author can make serious revisions.
11. The English expression of the entire article is poor and the tense expression is not clear. We hope the author can further polish and modify the English of the entire article to ensure that it meets the requirements of the journal.
Author Response
Comments 1: How to ensure the scientific validity of this experiment?
Response 1: Thanks for your question. The authors ensured the quality of the study and scientific rigour of the experiment is ensured by precisely selecting treatments and measurement indices with strong statistical significance. Furthermore, replicating the treatments enables authors to make inferences about the selected inbred lines. The study consisted of two experiments which employed a comprehensive approach involving multivariate analysis to investigate the morphological performance of 285 maize inbred lines under drought stress.
Comments 2: Line 168, will using a ruler to measure leaf area cause significant errors? It is recommended to use a leaf area analyzer to obtain relevant data, which may provide more accurate and comprehensive data.
Response 2: Thanks for your kind suggestions. Due to the unavailability of the leaf analyzer in the lab, we used a ruler to measure the leaf area of the samples. However, to reduce the significant errors in the measurement. We ensured to be consistent with the uniformity of the measurement and introduced the correction coefficient in the leaf area formula. Please see lines 185-186.
Comments 3: When conducting drought stress experiments, the uniformity of watering can affect the absorption of water by plants. In the experiment, only the amount of watering was determined. How to ensure the uniformity of watering.
Response 3: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. The amount uniformity of the watering and drought stress is controlled by the weighing method. Each pot (60 cm × 36 cm) was filled with 16 kg of soil. Each pot was planted with 9 materials, and each material had 20 seeds. Soil water content was controlled by the weighing method, and water control was started at the three-leaf stage to control the target soil water content to 40%–45% of the field water content and drought stress for a total of 5 d. The soil water content was controlled by the weighing method, and water control was started at the three-leaf stage. The pots were then re-watered to a field moisture content of 75%–80%. Please see the Materials and Methods section Lines 119-122.
Comments 4: The formulas on lines 172 and 182 do not have labels, please pay attention to the format of the formulas, and the font size in the formulas also does not comply with the specifications.
Response 4: Thanks for your valuable suggestions and comments. The authors completely revised the advised section and incorporated all suggestions. Please see lines 228/238/271/272/273/274the labelling and formatting of the corresponding formulas and the font size have been modified.
Comments 5: The formula format in lines 216/217/218/219 also needs to be modified.
Response 5: The labelling and formatting of the corresponding formulas and the font size have been modified. Please see lines 270-274.
Comments 6: The line 'which indicates 232 that driving promotes the increase of RL and RCR increase' is missing punctuation marks after the text.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestions. The changes have been made in the advised section. Please see line 294.
Comments 7: The font overlap in Figure 2 is severe, and the meaning of the vertical axis cannot be determined.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions. The figure 2 have been revised and incorporated the suggestions. Figure 2 is included as Annex Figure 1 in the annexed information.
Comments 8: Many numbers in Figure 3 contain a small dot, such as -0.070, 0.447, 0.230, and so on.
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestions. The changes have been made in the advised section. Please see line 266-267.
Comments 9: There are too many references cited in the discussion section. It is recommended to focus more on the scientific nature and progress of the experiments, and reduce the direct use of other people's work.
Response 9: Thanks for your suggestions. We have omitted the unnecessary references and only kept updated and to the point references.
Comments 10: There are many formatting errors in the article, and we hope the author can make serious revisions.
Response 10: Thank you for your suggestions. The reviewer's comment, and suggestions enabled the authors to improve the quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Thank you for your time to improve the manuscript.
Comments 11: The English expression of the entire article is poor and the tense expression is not clear. We hope the author can further polish and modify the English of the entire article to ensure that it meets the requirements of the journal.
Response 11: Thanks for your comments. The manuscript is revised by the reviewer with native English language and expert in the field.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Some of the comments and suggestions have been addressed.
2. The Authors indicated that LSD test was used for comparison of data. The standard rule is that letters are not used after the means when LSD test is used. The letters are used if Duncan's Multiple Range test (DMRT) is used. I suggest that Authors must use Asterisk (*) symbol after the means and indicate level of significance. The Authors must address this.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.
Author Response
Comments 1: Some of the comments and suggestions have been addressed.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions.
Comments 2: The Authors indicated that LSD test was used for comparison of data. The standard rule is that letters are not used after the means when LSD test is used. The letters are used if Duncan's Multiple Range test (DMRT) is used. I suggest that Authors must use Asterisk (*) symbol after the means and indicate level of significance. The Authors must address this.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions. I rechecked the method of analysing the experimental data using the Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT), and I changed the test again. Please see lines 318-319, 526.
Comments 3: Comments on the Quality of English Language. The English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions. I have again carefully revised the English quality of the manuscript. Please see lines 132-133, 242-243, 250-252, 305-307, 347-348, 486-490.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made detailed revisions to the issues pointed out. Overall meeting the publication requirements. But the format and language in the text need further optimization and modification. Suggest further modifications before hiring.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSuggest further modifications to English expressions and professional terminology.
Author Response
Comments 1: The author has made detailed revisions to the issues pointed out. Overall meeting the publication requirements. But the format and language in the text need further optimization and modification. Suggest further modifications before hiring.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. I carefully optimised and revised the formatting and language in the manuscript again.
Comments 2: Comments on the Quality of English Language. Suggest further modifications to English expressions and professional terminology.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestions. I have again carefully revised the English quality of the manuscript. Please see lines 132-133, 242-243, 250-252 ,305-307,347-348, 486-490.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
