Phenotyping and Validation of Root Morphological Traits in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
, Yongen Zhang 4, Yongchun Zhang 1, Yuchun Ai 1, Yupeng Feng 5,6, David Moody 7, Art Diggle 8, Paul Damon 2 and Zed Rengel 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This is an interesting and well written manuscript. I really enjoyed reading this research and the dataset is good. However, I do have some concerns as reported below:
Line 75: On title….(Hordeum vulgare) better write (Hordeum vulgare L.).
Line 75: Materials and Methods. Which year the experiments took place? If there is only one year of collected data this is a problem for the validation of the results! This part of the manuscript is a little confusing.
Line 84: What is the QTL! Please, explain on the text.
Line 306: A The fibrous root system of…check the letter A!
Author Response
This is an interesting and well written manuscript. I really enjoyed reading this research and the dataset is good. However, I do have some concerns as reported below:
Response: Many thanks Reviewer 1 for the positive comments on our manuscript, and for valuable comments for improvements. We have accepted all suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly.
Line 75: On title….(Hordeum vulgare) better write (Hordeum vulgare L.).
Response: The title has been changed as suggested.
Line 75: Materials and Methods. Which year the experiments took place? If there is only one year of collected data this is a problem for the validation of the results! This part of the manuscript is a little confusing.
Response: Information related to experimental year has been added in the M&M section. Both experiments were conducted in 2016 and were under controlled environments (glasshouse). Expt. 1 examined root trait variability in 189 barley genotypes with selected 8 genotypes with contrasted root systems validated in two different soils (Expt. 2).
Line 84: What is the QTL! Please, explain on the text.
Response: Full description of QTL (quantitative trait locus) was add.
Line 306: A The fibrous root system of…check the letter A!
Response: “A” was deleted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Phenotyping and Validation of Root Morphological Traits in 2 Barley (Hordeum vulgare)” describes a detailed characterization of several early-growth root and shoot traits under a semi-hydroponic system and the validation of this system in comparison with cultivation in two types of soil.
Overall, it is a concise work that addresses the study of root architecture and morphology as a mean to develop more efficient crops where authors provide information of 189 important lines of barley and how they are affected by the growth media.
Unfortunately, the manuscript lacked tables and figures (apart from the supplementary), which compromised my review of this work. This alone makes me unable to accept the manuscript for publication. I strongly recommend authors to correct it. In addition, I invite the authors to include a small paragraph in the introduction addressing the phenotypic plasticity as an important trait towards the selection of adapted genotypes. I also mention some minor corrections to improve the text’s clarity and some recommendations in terms of information that would be useful for the reader, which I include in the pdf file.
I would reconsider my decision if these conditions are met.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript entitled “Phenotyping and Validation of Root Morphological Traits in 2 Barley (Hordeum vulgare)” describes a detailed characterization of several early-growth root and shoot traits under a semi-hydroponic system and the validation of this system in comparison with cultivation in two types of soil.
Overall, it is a concise work that addresses the study of root architecture and morphology as a mean to develop more efficient crops where authors provide information of 189 important lines of barley and how they are affected by the growth media.
Unfortunately, the manuscript lacked tables and figures (apart from the supplementary), which compromised my review of this work. This alone makes me unable to accept the manuscript for publication. I strongly recommend authors to correct it. In addition, I invite the authors to include a small paragraph in the introduction addressing the phenotypic plasticity as an important trait towards the selection of adapted genotypes. I also mention some minor corrections to improve the text’s clarity and some recommendations in terms of information that would be useful for the reader, which I include in the pdf file.
I would reconsider my decision if these conditions are met.
Response: We apologize for this problem. All tables and figures were inserted in the end of the maintext at the submission. The missing of tables and figures in the review process might be something wrong during the submission. After receiving the notice from the editorial office, we uploaded the new manuscript with tables and figures inserted inside the maintext, but it would be too late for Reviewer as the review has been completed. We are really sorry for this inconvenience.
All corrections mentioned on the PDF documents are all carefully checked and revised. Major revisions include: added descriptions about root plasticity; provided more information about barley genotypes in both the text and Table S1; Modified Table S1 to include genotype origin and material types; and used Figure S1 as Figure 1 in the maintext (other figure renumbered accordingly.
I believe the revised manuscript has been largely improved following the valuable comments and suggestions from both reviewers.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript and have kindly followed all referees’ suggestions. However, I still found important issues in the manuscript. Overall, it is a concise work but, now that both tables and figures have been integrated in the main file, I still believe that the work has to undergo at least a new revision process by the authors. The discussion, except for minor suggestions which I have included in the pdf file, is well written and on point. Conversely, the results section needs more attention. I suggest authors to pay special attention to figures and tables and their numeration and citation in the text. Moreover, figures/tables should have more detail in the caption, it should bring more information to the reader. More importantly, mean values for the 3 different growth media for the 8 traits in the experiment 2 would provide a better picture. Only for a few traits these values are commented during results and discussion. All my other suggestions are included in the pdf file.
I would reconsider my decision if these conditions are met.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate Reviewer for the kind words, valuable comments and and encouragement! We thank Reviewer for the time and efforts to provide detailed suggestions for revision!
We have considered all suggestions and comments and incorporated them into the revised manuscript (R2). Major changes include:
- Results: Added a paragraph on the hierarchical cluster analysis based on the results of Fig. 4 under subtitle “3.3. Correlation among root traits of barley (Exp. 1)”; added more detailed results under subtitle “6. Barley root and shoot trait consistency in the two experiments (Exp. 1 & Exp. 2)”.
- Discussion: modified some sentences as kindly pointed out by the Reviewer; added discussions on the consistence of genotypes in traits among the three growth media/conditions.
- Tables and figures: provided more details in the caption; added a column for units in Table 2; combined correlation figures (Figures 3, 4 and 5) as new Figure 3, and re-numbered other figures accordingly; carefully checked and corrected numeration and citations in the text.
- Supplementary: re-ordered figures according to the citations in the text (not track changed).
- Corrections made in the text following Reviewer’s comments and suggestions are in track changes, except formats and figure re-arrangements (location in text, combination etc).
With the help from the both reviewers on both the original and R1 version, we believe the quality in this revised version (R2) has been improved.
