Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Grown across South Korean Farmlands with Different Temperature Distributions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Authors made significant improvements to their manuscript in the new version and are well thanked for that. The manuscript sounds now more and is more adequate. The presented parts are almost significant and well interpreted. The raised conclusions are well reformulated and further suggestions are proposed. The study covers better now its topic and all used references are appropriate. On the other hand, the study is correctly designed and sounds better technically.
Briefly, based on the overall evaluation, the manuscript needs minor adjustments and show now a high merit to be published in “Agronomy” journal. Below the authors can found all my suggestions and recommendations that will hopefully help them to improve their manuscript.
2. Materials and methods
1) 2.4. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 6, line 164: Kindly adjust as follow: “were added”.
3. Results and discussion
1) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 9, lines 258–262: “The panicle… numbers”: The scientific analysis is badly performed herein. Kindly perform it as you did in Page 10, lines 276–280.
4. Conclusions
1) Page 15, line 445: Kindly adjust as follow: “suitable for barley”.
2) Pages 15–16, lines 453–455: “Although… shrink”: The sentence is badly -written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.
Author Response
Authors made significant improvements to their manuscript in the new version and are well thanked for that. The manuscript sounds now more and is more adequate. The presented parts are almost significant and well interpreted. The raised conclusions are well reformulated and further suggestions are proposed. The study covers better now its topic and all used references are appropriate. On the other hand, the study is correctly designed and sounds better technically. Briefly, based on the overall evaluation, the manuscript needs minor adjustments and show now a high merit to be published in “Agronomy” journal. Below the authors can found all my suggestions and recommendations that will hopefully help them to improve their manuscript. 2. Materials and methods 1) 2.4. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 6, line 164: Kindly adjust as follow: “were added”. Response: Corrected. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 9, lines 258–262: “The panicle… numbers”: The scientific analysis is badly performed herein. Kindly perform it as you did in Page 10, lines 276–280. Response: Corrected. 4. Conclusions 1) Page 15, line 445: Kindly adjust as follow: “suitable for barley”. Response: Corrected. 2) Pages 15–16, lines 453–455: “Although… shrink”: The sentence is badly -written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it. Response: Corrected.Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors propose a manuscript titled “Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Grown across South Korean Farmlands with Different Temperature Distributions”.
I suggest the following changes:
Τhe summary only refers to the year 2020, it will have to change in order to include the year 2021.
In the section Materials and methods the authors should add data regarding the year 2021, i.e. sowing dates etc.
Data regarding the year 2021 should also be added to figure 2.
In the Results section, authors should add the ANOVA table.
Authors should also consider performing a combined analysis (years 2020 and 2021) and a multivariate analysis, in order to assess the possibility of interaction between genotype and environment.
The analyses and combined tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 referring only to year 2020 should also include the results of the year 2021.
Finally, conclusions should be rewritten in order to include the results of combined analysis.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 The authors propose a manuscript titled “Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Grown across South Korean Farmlands with Different Temperature Distributions”. I suggest the following changes: Τhe summary only refers to the year 2020, it will have to change in order to include the year 2021. Response: Addressed in Abstract and Conclusion. In the section Materials and methods the authors should add data regarding the year 2021, i.e. sowing dates etc. Response: Addressed in Materials and Methods. Data regarding the year 2021 should also be added to figure 2. Response: Although meteorological factors in different cultivation areas were not exactly same between 2020 and 2021, they were similar in both years. We added this clarification in the results section. The analyses and combined tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 referring only to year 2020 should also include the results of the year 2021. Response: We did not collect data regarding grain quality such as amino acid contents in our 2021 study. Only yield data was collected in both 2020 and 2021 studies. As such, this is the only data we can provide. Finally, conclusions should be rewritten in order to include the results of combined analysis. Response: We re-wrote parts of the conclusion and included data from both 2020 and 2021.Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Ιn abstract line 25 authors added the phrase:
L. 25: In 2021, yield levels were reconfirmed in crops grown in similar areas as the year prior (G1, G2, G3, and G4)
In Tables 4 and 5, the yield (kg/ha) reported are the following:
2020: G1=2784, G2=3601, G3=3363, G4=4420
2021: G1=2347, G2=2015, G3=3610, G4=3842
I don't see how the results of 2021 reconfirm yield levels of 2020, as authors state.
L140-141 Cultivation conditions such as cultivar and sowing dates were the same as those in the 2020 study, but the harvest time was few days earlier in 2021.
The authors should provide the harvest dates for both years.
L. 303-304: In both 2020 and 2021, meteorological factors across growth areas were similar.
The authors don't provide meteorological data regarding the year 2021, therefore this statement is not corroborated.
In my first review I suggested the following actions for the Results section:
In the Results section, authors should add the ANOVA table.
Authors should also consider performing a combined analysis (years 2020 and 2021) and a multivariate analysis, in order to assess the possibility of interaction between genotype and environment.
ANOVA tables have not been added, neither a multivariate analysis has been performed. The authors didn't provide an answer to the inquiry regarding the interaction between genotype and environment
In tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 headings authors should clarify that the data refer to year 2020
For the Conclusions section I suggested for authors to rewrite conclusions in order to include the results of combined analysis, however there's only the statement regarding reconfirmation of 2020 yield by 2021 results.
Finally, conclusions should be rewritten in order to include the results of combined analysis.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Ιn abstract line 25 authors added the phrase: L. 25: In 2021, yield levels were reconfirmed in crops grown in similar areas as the year prior (G1, G2, G3, and G4) In Tables 4 and 5, the yield (kg/ha) reported are the following: 2020: G1=2784, G2=3601, G3=3363, G4=4420 2021: G1=2347, G2=2015, G3=3610, G4=3842 I don't see how the results of 2021 reconfirm yield levels of 2020, as authors state. Response: It is correct that the yields from G4 areas were much higher than those in G1 areas. Additionally, the gap in yields from year to year (2020/2021) was virtually the same (37%/39%). We have added some statements throughout the MS to reflect this. L140-141 Cultivation conditions such as cultivar and sowing dates were the same as those in the 2020 study, but the harvest time was few days earlier in 2021. The authors should provide the harvest dates for both years. Response: Added in Materials and Methods. L. 303-304: In both 2020 and 2021, meteorological factors across growth areas were similar. The authors don't provide meteorological data regarding the year 2021, therefore this statement is not corroborated. Response: Provided in Figure 3. In my first review I suggested the following actions for the Results section: In the Results section, authors should add the ANOVA table. Authors should also consider performing a combined analysis (years 2020 and 2021) and a multivariate analysis, in order to assess the possibility of interaction between genotype and environment. ANOVA tables have not been added, neither a multivariate analysis has been performed. The authors didn't provide an answer to the inquiry regarding the interaction between genotype and environment Response: We agree 100% with the reviewer’s comments regarding ANOVA table and combined analysis (years 2020 and 2021). We also recognize that if we added data, this manuscript would be improved. However, it is not possible to provide these things with the data that we collected from our 2020 and 2021 studies. That being said, we have made several improvements to this MS to the best of our abilities and hope that you will find it fit for publication. In tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 headings authors should clarify that the data refer to year 2020 Response: Corrected.This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Timely important and informative research! However, I would like to suggest reanalyzing data without Sokcho1 because data (from Sokcho1) behaves as an outlier in most of the (result) tables. Also, I suggest using “Group” (replacing “Area”) for ANOVA and the Duncan test. Please see my comments for more details.
Comments:
Abstract:
Line 17 – we considered
Line 32 – G2 areas were higher than in the G3
Materials and Methods
References for seeding date
Line 131 to 133 – if you investigate plants at the same age, please use plant age (# days after seeding, etc.) to replace the season (before and after overwintering) or month (December or February). It improves the reproducibility of this experiment.
Please explain the experimental design and size of the experimental plot and how did you collect samples from the experimental plot. If it is one 1m2 plot for a given area, can expect a biased result.
Statistical analysis: according to the experimental design, areas (within the group) can be considered as replicates if you don’t have replicated 1m2 experimental plots in the given area. You have used areas for mean separation using the Duncan test. But, in results and discussion, the "Group" is used to compare growth and other parameters. Since “Group” is the main concern in this study, mean separation for groups is meaningful. Please consider reanalyzing the data.
Results and Discussion:
Table 1 – G1 Sokcho1 - Tiller number, plant height, and dried plant part. I would suggest adding data as NA (not applicable) as there are no plants to get measurements. 0 tiller number may have another meaning like no tillers, but there are plants or tillering did not start. 0 cm plant height – just germinated and no growth occurred.
Then take the average of two locations Sokcho2 and Chuncheon). It will give a reasonable measurement of the observed data. Even though there are no greater differences in temperature, humidity, and geographical location (Figure 1), Sokcho1 behaves as an outlier for growth measurements in table 1. Discuss Sokcho1 results (late germination and low vigor) separately, it is an important finding to show that climatic differences in close locations. Please consider changing other tables (1, 2, 3, G1 Sokcho1 growth measurements) accordingly.
Line 214, 215 – please cite figure 1.
Line 234 – “This means that these areas may not be suitable for growth.” Please consider rephrasing this sentence. In my opinion, one growth measurement (tiller number) is not enough to draw the above conclusion.
Line 347 – 349 – Please provide a reference for safe cultivation temperature recommendation.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current study reports an interesting topic that points out the growth, yield, and grain quality of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) grown across South Korean farmlands with different temperature distributions. The manuscript shows moderate originality and novelty, but needs major adjustments in its standard English. Therefore, I ask the authors to pass their manuscript to a native English speaker for editing and revision. The manuscript should be put on the journal’s template and guidelines. Some presented parts are not significant and badly interpreted. The raised conclusions should be reformulated and further suggestions are lacking. The study covers badly its topic but all used references are appropriate. On the other hand, the study is correctly designed but doesn’t sound well technically.
The Abstract part needs to be re-written in a more concise manner in order to suit the journal’s guidelines (in its current form it is exceeding the maximum word limit set by MDPI). Moreover, authors should avoid discussing their findings in the Abstract body along with the avoidance of mentioning non-significant results. On the other hand, all keywords fit. The Introduction part is well structured and aiming. It needs some adjustments in terms of linguistic mistakes and sentences reformulation in better language, less cumbersome manner and in the impersonal form rather than the first voice’s one. However, the study’s aims are very clear and interesting. The Materials and methods part is well structured and clear. All adopted methods and materials were appropriately described and mentioned and are well clear for further repetition by other researchers. Only avoid the use of the first voice form of the sentence within this part. The Results and discussion part needs major adjustments. Some adjustments are only needed in terms of sentences reformulation in a better standard language or in a less cumbersomeness manner or in the impersonal form rather than the first voice’s one. Other minor linguistic mistakes should be also adjusted. However, the scientific analysis of the findings in some sections should be performed again as it is very badly done. Moreover, large sections lacked a discussion of the obtained findings. These points are very critical in scientific papers. Also, some points are not very true. For instance, the variation of pH can induce different uptake levels of heavy metals from soil that can impact the yield and growth!! However, all mentioned sources are reliable and directly related to the study’s findings. The Conclusions part is a repetition of the same sentences mentioned in the Results and discussion part. Although summarizing the findings of the current study, it should be rewritten. Authors should suggest further related research based on the raised assumptions from the current study.
Briefly, based on the above and below detailed explanation, the manuscript needs serious and critical adjustments, but unfortunately doesn’t show a merit to be published in “Agronomy” journal. I regret to reject it. Below the authors can found all my suggestions and recommendations that will hopefully help them to improve their manuscript.
Abstract
1) Pages 1–2, lines 9–41: The Abstract part needs to be re-written in a more concise manner in order to suit the journal’s guidelines (in its current form it is exceeding the maximum word limit set by MDPI). Moreover, authors should avoid discussing their findings in the Abstract body along with the avoidance of mentioning non-significant results. On the other hand, all keywords fit.
2) Page 1, line 9: Kindly remove “our”.
3) Page 1, lines 10–11: Kindly adjust as follow: “the reduction”.
4) Page 1, line 12: Kindly adjust as follow: “areas in Korea”.
5) Page 1, lines 15–19: “We noted… areas”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of these sentences and adopt the impersonal form instead.
6) Page 1, line 23: Kindly remove “the” before “G2”.
7) Page 1, lines 23–25: “In addition… areas”: Kindly remove this sentence.
8) Page 1, lines 26–27: “The lower… weight”: Kindly remove this sentence.
9) Page 1, line 31: Kindly remove “in these areas”.
10) Pages 1–2, lines 32–34: “However… areas”: Kindly remove these sentences.
11) Page 2, lines 36–37: “but other… areas”: Kindly remove this sentence’s section.
12) Page 2, line 40: Kindly remove “in South Korea”.
13) Keywords: Page 2, line 42: All keywords fit well.
1. Introduction
1) Pages 2–4, lines 45–112: The Introduction part is well structured and aiming. It needs some adjustments in terms of linguistic mistakes and sentences reformulation in better language, less cumbersome manner and in the impersonal form rather than the first voice’s one. However, the study’s aims are very clear and interesting.
2) Page 2, lines 48–49: “This… [1–3]”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.
3) Page 2, lines 54–55: “The global… century”: This statement lacks reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly provide them.
4) Page 2, line 58: Kindly remove “our”.
5) Page 2, line 60: Kindly adjust as follow: “to the agricultural”.
6) Page 4, lines 95–97: “Therefore… [35]”: The sentence is cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it clearer and more aiming.
7) Page 4, lines 108–112: “We noted… areas”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of these sentences and adopt the impersonal form instead.
2. Materials and methods
1) Pages 4–7, lines 114–205: The Materials and methods part is well structured and clear. All adopted methods and materials were appropriately described and mentioned and are well clear for further repetition by other researchers. Only avoid the use of the first voice form of the sentence within this part.
2) 2.1. Experimental Area: Page 4, lines 115–116: “For this… barley”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
3) 2.1. Experimental Area: Page 4, lines 117–119: Kindly replace “was” by “in”.
4) 2.2. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 5, lines 135–137: “In addition… Japan”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
5) 2.2. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 5, lines 139–142: “At harvest… 7th”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.
6) 2.3. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Pages 5–6, lines 151–152: “We used… group”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.
7) 2.4. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 6, lines 160–162: “We used… lipids”: Same recommendation as in the previous comments.
8) 2.4. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 6, lines 168–169: “We then… filter”: Same recommendation as in the previous comments.
9) 2.5. Chemical Composition of the Soils and Mineral Content of the Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 6, lines 173–174: “We collected… stage”: Same recommendation as in the previous comments.
3. Results and discussion
1) Pages 7–15, lines 209–439: The Results and discussion part needs major adjustments. Some adjustments are only needed in terms of sentences reformulation in a better standard language or in a less cumbersomeness manner or in the impersonal form rather than the first voice’s one. Other minor linguistic mistakes should be also adjusted. However, the scientific analysis of the findings in some sections should be performed again as it is very badly done. Moreover, large sections lacked a discussion of the obtained findings. These points are very critical in scientific papers. Also, some points are not very true. For instance, the variation of pH can induce different uptake levels of heavy metals from soil that can impact the yield and growth!! However, all mentioned sources are reliable and directly related to the study’s findings.
2) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 8, lines 210–211: “Recently… change”: Kindly remove this sentence.
3) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 8, lines 211–213: “To confirm… (Table 1)”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
4) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 8, line 223: Kindly replace “taller” by “higher”.
5) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 8, lines 225–226: Kindly remove “the” before “G3” and “G1” and before “G2” and “G4” all over the manuscript.
6) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 8, lines 227–228: “After… (Table 2)”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
7) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 8, lines 232–233: “Compared… (February)”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.
8) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 9, lines 250–251: Kindly adjust as follow: “plant height was”.
9) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 9, line 256: Kindly adjust as follow: “length” and “was”.
10) 3.1. Growth and Yield of Barley in Various Areas with Different Temperature Distributions: Page 9, lines 259–264: “The panicle… numbers”: These sentences are badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate them.
11) Pages 8–10, lines 210–279: Kindly rewrite the whole paragraph for the following reason. A correct scientific analysis of the findings is lacking. No mention of significant differences was reported. It is a huge gap!! The whole scientific analysis should be adjusted. Furthermore, no discussion of the obtained findings was performed!! This is a serious and critical point that should be taken into consideration.
12) 3.2. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 10, lines 281–282: “During… (Table 5)”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
13) 3.2. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 10, lines 285–287: “Additionally… (Figure 2)”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.
14) 3.2. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 11, lines 311–313: “Notably… areas”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.
15) 3.2. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 11, lines 322–323: “The reproductive… [54–56]”: Kindly remove this sentence as you outlined this idea in an earlier sentence.
16) 3.2. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 12, lines 347–349: “Based on… January”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.
17) 3.2. Meteorological Factors in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 12, line 355: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to”.
18) 3.3. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Harvested in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 13, lines 366–367: “We analyzed… (Table 6)”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
19) 3.3. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Harvested in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 13, line 368: Kindly replace “to the next” by “to the other”.
20) 3.3. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Harvested in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 13, lines 376–378: “In this… areas”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.
21) 3.3. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Harvested in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 13, line 380: Kindly remove “of” after “contents”.
22) 3.3. Main Constituents and Amino Acid Composition in Barley Seeds Harvested in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 13, lines 382–383: “We also… (Table 7)”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
23) 3.4. Chemical Composition in Soils and Mineral Contents in Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 14, lines 396–398: “To confirm… (Tables 8 and 9)”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.
24) 3.4. Chemical Composition in Soils and Mineral Contents in Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 14, lines 404–405: “Thus… areas”: It is not necessary!! The variation of pH can induce different uptake levels of heavy metals from soil that can impact the yield and growth!!
25) 3.4. Chemical Composition in Soils and Mineral Contents in Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 14, line 409: “a finding… pH”: Kindly remove this sentence’s section.
26) 3.4. Chemical Composition in Soils and Mineral Contents in Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 14, line 418: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to”.
27) 3.4. Chemical Composition in Soils and Mineral Contents in Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Page 15, line 428: “We measured… (Table 8)”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.
28) 3.4. Chemical Composition in Soils and Mineral Contents in Plants Grown in Different Cultivation Areas: Pages 14–15, lines 410–439: This section is badly scientifically written; accordingly, it should be rewritten in a more appropriate manner. The scientific analysis should be well performed. Moreover, this whole section lacks a discussion of the obtained findings!! This point is extremely critical and should be taken into consideration.
4. Conclusions
1) Pages 15–16, lines 441–460: The Conclusions part is a repetition of the same sentences mentioned in the Results and discussion part. Although summarizing the findings of the current study, it should be rewritten. Authors should suggest further related research based on the raised assumptions from the current study.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting work, where experimentation in different areas was conducted and the authors measured several parameters. However, this paper reports one-year experimentation and in my opinion it is crucial for the experiment to be repeated before publishing results and drawing conclusions.
