The Influence of Flag Leaf Removal and Its Characteristics on Main Yield Components and Yield Quality Indices on Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is important for understanding the response of wheat to flag leaf removal, either in physiological parameters or yield traits. I have some concerns and suggestions as followed.

 

 

Abstract

Abstract should be more concise, and focus on the main results, as the results were not clearly presented. Therefore, the Abstract is unclear and the Justification for the research is unclear.

 

Introduction

 Authors should be more fluent and authors should focus on the works in the response of crop physiological parameters to flag leaf removal and their application in screening to the drought condition, and the effects on yield traits and the methods. The objectives of the manuscript have not been well defined

 

Materials and methods. 

The materials and methods are very poorly written. There are many major concerns regarding this section.

Plant materials should include the application of these selected varieties, why choose the varieties Ciprian, Andrada, and Codru? Are these varieties widespread? Authors should specify their role in Romanina wheat production.

There is no information about trials. Plot size, seeding rate, sowing rate? Pesticide application? Fertilizer application?....

Also, information about flag leaf removal methodology is missing. How many flag leaves have been removed per sampling? Also information about grain yield and grain yield components sampling and determination are missing.

There is no information about statistical analysis. ANOVA, regression analysis, correlation?

 

Results

The results have not been represented in an adequate way.

The current graphs have limited potential

Authors should focus more on the difference between cultivars and their interaction regarding flag leaf removal. The ANOVA has not been applied. 

Authors should use graphical representation based on the correlation or regression analysis. Also, the appropriate test should be applied to identify significant differences between cultivars and treatments

 

Page 3, 109-110 The reaction of the wheat plants was different in the two experimental years (figure 1 - A; B) caused by  climatic condition which amplified the stress caused by flag leaf removal.

There is no information about the climate conditions in the M&M section, and it is impossible to conclude how the difference in wheater conditions led to different plants' reactions.

Discussion

Should be written according to the new results section.

 

Therefore, I suggest that this manuscript should be rejected. If the authors rewrite and improve the manuscript according to suggestions, it could be resubjected as a new MS.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review this manuscript. We truly appreciate your objective review which indeed helped us to improve the quality of the paper. As required, the text of the manuscript has been amended to address the points raised (see a submission with changes highlighted). Regarding the graphics, the reason why I chose to present the data in this form was determined by the possibility of having a unique and complete picture of the dynamics of the three photosynthetic pigments, but if you consider that they are still difficult to follow, I will change them. We hope that the revision is satisfactory and the paper would now be found suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author must follow the following comments:

Ø  Line 15,   conditions

Ø  Line 16,   under field conditions

Ø  Line 22,   conditions

Ø  Line 23,   what does it mean?

Ø  Lines 33,41,43 change ; to ,

Ø  Line 55,  What is the relation between Reference No 27 and wheat plants

Ø  Line 55,  change ; to ,

Ø  Line 73, change ; to ,

Ø  Line 84, Where is the aim of your research?

Ø  Line 86, Under field conditions

Ø  Lin 99, you must add details about chlorophyll, protein and gluten content determination (samples and equipment)

Ø  Line 100,  the used samples was dried or fresh?

Ø  Line 110, Figure

Ø  Line 124, In Figure 1, It is better to express about the two characters by columns

Ø  Line 124, In Figure 1, you must specify whether it is chlorophyll a or b

Ø  Line 135, delete the line

Ø  Lines 141,146, 153 Figure

Ø  Line 156, In Figure 2, It is better to express about the two characters by columns

Ø  Lines 159,169, 174 Figure

Ø  Line 188, In Figure 3, It is better to express about the two characters by columns

Ø  Lines 226,229 Figure

Ø  Line 285, reducing of grains number

Ø  Line 299, Fokar et al. [51] and Liu et al. [52] have registered

Ø  Line 301, Fan et al. [53] has observed

Ø  Lin 310, Ommen et al. [55] and Manivannan et al. [56]

Ø  Line 390,  conclusion must be improved with some results

Ø  Please see the Pdf version

Best regards

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review this manuscript. We truly appreciate your objective review which indeed helped us to improve the quality of the paper. As required, the text of the manuscript has been amended to address the points raised (see a submission with changes ). Regarding the graphics, the reason why I chose to present the data in this form was determined by the possibility of having a unique and complete picture of the dynamics of the three photosynthetic pigments, but if you consider that they are still difficult to follow, I will change them. We hope that the revision is satisfactory and the paper would now be found suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors showed the negative effects of removal of flag leaf on different components and yield quality indices of three different winter wheat. Their results were based on data from two different seasons. Flag leaves were removed at different physiological states and analyzed. This study examined different photosynthetic pigments and yield parameters and concluded that there were significant differences based on stage and climatic conditions. The authors' efforts in this study were appreciated. However, this data still needs to be improved in many ways before being considered for review.

1.    There was no significance test performed.

2.    No replicates information.

3.    Graphs seem difficult to understand for readers.

4.    In the manuscript, authors should include some pictures of plants.

5.    There are no very interesting data coming out of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your time and efforts to review this manuscript. We truly appreciate your objective review which indeed helped us to improve the quality of the paper. As required, the text of the manuscript has been amended to address the points raised (see a submission with changes highlighted). Regarding the graphics, the reason why I chose to present the data in this form was determined by the possibility of having a unique and complete picture of the dynamics of the three photosynthetic pigments, but if you consider that they are still difficult to follow, I will change them. We hope that the revision is satisfactory and the paper would now be found suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction

Previously the major suggestion was that authors should be more fluent and authors should focus on the works in the response of crop physiological parameters to flag leaf removal and their application in screening to the drought condition, and the effects on yield traits and the methods. The authors’ did not answer the previous suggestion. 

Therefore, I suggest adapting the INTRODUCTION section, according to previous comments

 

The objectives of the manuscript have not been well defined.

Authors adjusted objectives.

 

Materials and methods.

The materials and methods are very poorly written. There are many significant concerns regarding this section.

Plant materials should include the application of these selected varieties, why choose the varieties Ciprian, Andrada, and Codru? Are these varieties widespread? Authors should There is no information about trials. Plot size, seeding rate, sowing rate? Pesticide application? Fertilizer application?....

Also, information about flag leaf removal methodology is missing. How many flag leaves have been removed per sampling? Also information about grain yield and grain yield components sampling and determination are missing.

There is no information about statistical analysis. ANOVA, regression analysis, correlation?

The authors answered the comments.

 

Results

The results have not been represented in a good way.

The current graphs have limited potential

Authors should use some tests for the presence of significant differences between traits for the FIGURES.

 

Authors should use graphical representation based on the correlation or regression analysis. Also, the appropriate test should be applied to identify significant differences between cultivars and treatments

 

 

Discussion

Discussion should be rewritten

The authors slightly changed the discussion, not enough

510-530 the new part about correlation looks like results, not a real discussion. They did not compare their results with other authors

Author Response

I modified most of the suggestions, but in the case of the graphic representation of the correlations I don't have a specialized program. Thank you again for the specific suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I suggest the publication after minor revision.

Ø  Line 60, What is the relation between Reference No 27 and flag leaf (Please delete)

Ø  Lin 150, you must add details about the determination of chlorophyll, protein and gluten content (samples and equipment and references)

Ø  In Figures 2 and 3, It is better to express about the two characters by columns

Best regards

 

 

Author Response

Thank you again for the specific suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Now with the revision, the manuscript can be accepted. The authors did the required revision in the manuscript and now the manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you again for the specific suggestions.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved the manuscript according to the reviewer comments. Minor changes recommended

 

Results

Since you compared results with control plants for example „In the first experimental year for the Ciprian variety, the removal of flag leaf starting to booting stage till 21 days after anthesis determined a decreasing number of grains per spike between 10.4 to 14 % compared with the control plants, unfavorable climatic conditions emphasizing this decrease (Figure 2- A1).“

 

Please, define control plants on the graph in the MS

Author Response

I added Ct. to the graphs. Thank you once again for your time and objective suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf