Screening of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes for Drought Tolerance through Agronomic and Physiological Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

I have read the manuscript (agronomy -1420956). Entitle: Screening of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for drought tolerance through agronomic and physiological responses under drought-stressed and well-watered conditions written by Ali Ahmad et al., for publication in agronomy MDPI. In this study, the author investigates the drought tolerance of wheat genotypes again the drought stress condition by using the physiological and agronomical traits including the yield. The agronomical traits included tillers per plant, spikelet’s per spike, grain per spike, grain weight, in physiological characteristics included chlorophyll content, leaf water content, membrane stability index and biochemical traits included leaf nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content. Author found all the measurement traits showed the negative effect that cause reduction of biological and economic yield. Moreover, among the wheat cultivar Galaxy-2013 had lower biological and economic yield as compared to the others cultivars.

Overall research is well conducted and which is obvious application potential because it helps to quantify the drought resistance wheat cultivars and select for the specific area for production. In this sense, the manuscript is much valuable. However, I found some points especially the flow of the text is not smooth and sometimes I found the shallow writing and lack of potential references, and lack of connection of story in different paragraphs especially introduction and discussion sections. In discussion section author should deal about the ‘hydraulic failure’ and reduction of yield in sequential flow of writing by citing the appropriate references. I also found the lack of potential and appropriate references to support the findings. The author should provide enough examples and their interpretation of different traits of physiological and biochemical responses. Overall after I evaluate this manuscript, I request the author for the “MAJOR REVISION” and also I request to authors for revision according to the rules of the journal and correct the bibliography.

 Major suggestions

1) Abstract Issue: Abstract is appropriate volume and good start of writing. However, the main findings are missing especially quantification of drought resistance of wheat cultivar, author should categories of these cultivar in strong resistance, medium resistance and susceptible. In abstract author mentions all the cultivars names but this is meaningless which is not needed instead while quantifying the cultivars that time cultivars name will automatically come. Author should focus the novelty of the finding but this is poor presentation in abstract. In abstract author focus the introduction and method section comparatively more than the results and research nobility which is main drawback in this abstract. Please modify and rephrasing the text again will appropriate volume by concise the text. Please remember that the abstract should more logical, short, concise, and informative. Your abstract should reflect your study and major findings while shortly observed by readers. Please make the necessary corrections.

2) Introduction

Author did the good starting the introduction by including the global production scenario. After this author should deal the negative consequences of drought stress to the plant biology in the second paragraph of the introduction section. Actually, drought causes reduction of morphological, physiological, anatomical and biochemical responses of the plant and consequently its shows the negative effect to the plant. Please read and cite this articles which are the good references to express the negative effect of drought entitle: Entitle “Response of drought stress in prunus sargentii and larix kaempferii ...https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118099” Please mentioned that “drought reduced the morphological and physiological traits, reduce the leaf water potential and sap movement due to alternation of xylem anatomical features in the plants”. Then only author should jump on the effect of drought stress in the cereals crops specially wheat and its effect and global scenario and negative effect for the wheat productivity especially arid and semi-arid regions.

 

3) Hypothesis of the study: Author should mention the clear hypothesis in last few line in the introduction sections. I saw author presentation seems likes mainly concentration to refer other authors work in the objective and hypothesis section in the last part of introduction. If author only more focus on others work in this section then strength of the work automatically reduce. Therefore, please change the presentation and sharply mention the objection and research hypothesis in the last few lines by changing the tone of presentation in 110-120 Ln. To mention the research hypothesis is very important and it give the another strength for the introduction. Please remember the research hypothesis should be very clear because without appropriate literature, questions, or in the hypothesis the entire introduction section is unclear. The author should give special attention and the sequential presentation in this part in introduction section.

Some others suggestions

4) Line no. 38-39: I not see the significant importance of these line therefore author should try to reduce the text related to the wheat cultivars in the abstract because which should be worthy to mention while category the cultivars again the drought resistance. Please make the necessary corrections in abstract with appropriate volume.

5) Line no. 51-53: “All the traits found high in the cultivar Faisalabad 2008” please rephrase because this is is not clear. Author should quantify the drought resistance of wheat by develop the index and provide the enough prove then only tell the cultivar Faisalabad 2008 strong drought resistance not only by mentioning the text of minimum losing the morphological and physiological traits” but what about others cultivars??

6)  Materials and methods: This research main theme is “drought resistant of wheat cultivars” but I not see that how author manage the water stress while quantifying the drought resistance of wheat? This is very big question and author should clearly mention that how to regulate the water in control and deficit treatment and comparing the cultivars.

7) Line no. 132 (Materials and methods, in your original submition before withdraw): “Irrigation water analysis” What is the practical implication of this and why author decide to check the soil nutrient analysis while quantifying the drought resistance of the wheat cultivars? Author should give justification in the manuscript in the sequential flow and author should answer to me in the response letter.

8) Line no. 138 (Materials and methods, refer the manuscript before withdraw): “It is not appropriate space to write the “Remark and related information, please see the footnote of table 2. Please shift this “Remark” information somewhere else but not in there.

9) Line no. 139 (Materials and method, before withdraw, see the original submitions): “Meteorological data” Author mention in MM section conducted this experiment in the wire house a pot trial, is not there any possibility of natural precipitation in the potted trial. How author manage this issue, is wire house is the rain protected plastic or polethene house or something else ?

10) Line no. 155 and 158 Materials and method, before withdraw, see the original submitions): Author should combine the related subtitle each other to make more concise the text which must be applied and very common in scientific writing. Please combine the 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 together and make the single title and mention their related information.

11) Line no. 161 and 165 Materials and method, before withdraw, see the original submition): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine these two subsection together and its related information.

12) Line no. 196 and 206 Materials and method, before withdraw, see the original submition): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine the information of Chlorophyll content and leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) information together.

13) Table 3 (Materials and methods, see original submitted manuscript): Please mention the abbreviation of of DD in somewhere in the table. I think its means “well-watered” please mention this in the foot note or somewhere in the title of the table 3. Please remember that each table is independent and full information should include in each table. Please accordingly follow this information in other tables too if have.

14) Result section: Please combine the related subtitle in the result section similar like to the materials and method section. Generally, many subtitle are not acceptable in the result section specially in the research articles.

15) Discussion Section:

16) Line no. 93 (see the original one): Author should to clearly mention the text that related to the mechanism of the drought resistances in the initial section of discussion section. Author should to be include the information specially “escape, avoidance, and tolerance” without these terminologies the mechanism of drought tolerance is incomplete. So please the starting of the discussion by these mechanisms shortly.

 

17) Line no. 122-129 (see the original manuscript, before withdraw). Author include a good traits and its interpretation more effectively. However, the possible reason for reduction of yield and productivity is not well connected. Please improve the line no. 122-129 more logically by properly covering all the necessary components. Author should connect this section with the main terminology of “Hydraulic Failure” because of reduction of hydraulic failure (reduction of plant water, sap flow and leaf water potential) the morphological, physiological and agronomical characteristics are reduction that ultimately may causes for reduction of yield and yield components. Generally, drought stress cause to reduction to the vitality of the plant therefore author should connect this terminology some more detail by connect the drought stress. Please refer and cite this article for the references. entitle: Impact of drought stress on photosynthesis responses, leaf water and sap flow…... “DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.021 Author should mention “drought reduced hydraulic failure of the plant under the drought stress condition and reduction the plant water status by reducing the leaf water potential and sap movement that causes the negative effect in agronomical, physiological, metabolic performance are reduce of the plant productivity under drought stress.

 

18) Discussion (Line no. 131-132), see the original manuscript

Author should deal “why drought stress reduction the yield and less grain quality of wheat cultivar. Author should deal this text near to 131-132-line number and should justify the reason as well as mention the remedy and control measure scientifically which is the main theme of your research as well. please read these two articles and cited these articles in the reference (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146466 (2) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55889 and mention that “abiotic stress specially drought stress plant produces the ROS when these plant exposed to the stress condition and plant produce antioxidant, flavonoids, and secondary metabolites play to role for protect the plant for detoxify ROS and protect the plant to protect the abnormal condition (i.e. stress) and protein and amino acid stabilization”.

19) Conclusion section (Line no. 187, in original before withdraw)

1. Author should not repeat the result parts in the conclusion and it should have more concise and good flow of writing without repetition the text. Your conclusion is impressive but please little modify the tone of presentation specially focusing the future insight of the research based on your current finding and strength of your results for the future research guideline. I think the suggestions and recommendation sections should not have needed but if author is interested to include some text in this section author can include those text in the conclusion section.

 

20) Line no. 220 (in original before with-drawl)

Reference: please double-check the citations, their style, and spell check, and other grammatical errors. moreover, I request to authors for revision throughout the manuscript according to the journal rules.

 

Good Luck!

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (response to comment)

Overall research is well conducted and which is obvious application potential because it helps to quantify the drought resistance wheat cultivars and select for the specific area for production. In this sense, the manuscript is much valuable. However, I found some points especially the flow of the text is not smooth and sometimes I found the shallow writing and lack of potential references, and lack of connection of story in different paragraphs especially introduction and discussion sections. In discussion section author should deal about the ‘hydraulic failure’ and reduction of yield in sequential flow of writing by citing the appropriate references. I also found the lack of potential and appropriate references to support the findings. The author should provide enough examples and their interpretation of different traits of physiological and biochemical responses. Overall after I evaluate this manuscript, I request the author for the “MAJOR REVISION” and also I request to authors for revision according to the rules of the journal and correct the bibliography.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The whole manuscript is revised now to clarify the problems. Introduction and discussion section is revised now with providing some recent studies.  

Major suggestions

1) Abstract Issue: Abstract is appropriate volume and good start of writing. However, the main findings are missing especially quantification of drought resistance of wheat cultivar, author should categories of these cultivar in strong resistance, medium resistance and susceptible. In abstract author mentions all the cultivars names but this is meaningless which is not needed instead while quantifying the cultivars that time cultivars name will automatically come. Author should focus the novelty of the finding but this is poor presentation in abstract. In abstract author focus the introduction and method section comparatively more than the results and research nobility which is main drawback in this abstract. Please modify and rephrasing the text again will appropriate volume by concise the text. Please remember that the abstract should more logical, short, concise, and informative. Your abstract should reflect your study and major findings while shortly observed by readers. Please make the necessary corrections.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Abstract is revised now for clarity.

2) Introduction

1. Author did the good starting the introduction by including the global production scenario. After this author should deal the negative consequences of drought stress to the plant biology in the second paragraph of the introduction section. Actually, drought causes reduction of morphological, physiological, anatomical and biochemical responses of the plant and consequently its shows the negative effect to the plant. Please read and cite this articles which are the good references to express the negative effect of drought entitle: Entitle “Response of drought stress in prunus sargentii and larix kaempferii ...https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118099” Please mentioned that “drought reduced the morphological and physiological traits, reduce the leaf water potential and sap movement due to alternation of xylem anatomical features in the plants”. Then only author should jump on the effect of drought stress in the cereals crops specially wheat and its effect and global scenario and negative effect for the wheat productivity especially arid and semi-arid regions. 3) Hypothesis of the study: Author should mention the clear hypothesis in last few line in the introduction sections. I saw author presentation seems likes mainly concentration to refer other authors work in the objective and hypothesis section in the last part of introduction. If author only more focus on others work in this section then strength of the work automatically reduce. Therefore, please change the presentation and sharply mention the objection and research hypothesis in the last few lines by changing the tone of presentation in 110-113 Ln. To mention the research hypothesis is very important and it give the another strength for the introduction. Please remember the research hypothesis should be very clear because without appropriate literature, questions, or in the hypothesis the entire introduction section is unclear. The author should give special attention and the sequential presentation in this part in introduction section.

 

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Introduction is revised now as whole. The hypothesis statement is now provided in the revised file. We hypothesized that there is no genotype-dependent variation of morpho-physiological and biochemical parameters among tested genotypes. We also hypothesized that there is no difference in yield and yield-related traits of tested varieties.

Some others suggestions

4) Line no. 37-38: I not see the significant importance of these line therefore author should try to reduce the text related to the wheat cultivars in the abstract because which should be worthy to mention while category the cultivars again the drought resistance. Please make the necessary corrections in abstract with appropriate volume. 5) Line no. 47-48: “All the traits found high in the cultivar Faisalabad 2008” please rephrase because this is is not clear. Author should quantify the drought resistance of wheat by develop the index and provide the enough prove then only tell the cultivar Faisalabad 2008 strong drought resistance not only by mentioning the text of minimum losing the morphological and physiological traits” but what about others cultivars ??

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The abstract section is now revised for more clarity.

6) Line no. 116 (Materials and methods): This research main theme is “drought resistant of wheat cultivars” but I not see that how author manage the water stress while quantifying the drought resistance of wheat? This is very big question and author should clearly mention that how to regulate the water in control and deficit treatment and comparing the cultivars.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. This study was conducted to screening drought tolerant varieties under drought stress. Therefore, we imposed drought stress by maintaining 35% field capacity and a control with 75% field capacity was kept as control.

7) Line no. 132 (Materials and methods): “Irrigation water analysis” What is the practical implication of this and why author decide to check the soil nutrient analysis while quantifying the drought resistance of the wheat cultivars? Author should give justification in the manuscript in the sequential flow and author should answer to me in the response letter.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. In this study, irrigation was applied from canal water not used distilled water. So, we analyzed the irrigation water, and essential gradients provided to proof that applied water was fit as irrigation purpose.

8) Line no. 138 (Materials and methods): “It is not appropriate space to write the “Remark and related information, please see the footnote of table 2. Please shift this “Remark” information somewhere else but not in there.

Response: Thanks. We are sorry for this mistake. We have deleted this information.

9) Line no. 139 (Materials and methods): “Meteorological data” Author mention in MM section conducted this experiment in the wire house a pot trial, is not there any possibility of natural precipitation in the potted trial. How author manage this issue, is wire house is the rain protected plastic or polethene house or something else ?

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The experiment was conducted in water-shelter wire house. However, meteorological data around the wire house is provided in the article.

10) Line no. 155 and 158 (Materials and methods): Author should combine the related subtitle eachother to make more concise the text which must be applied and very common in scientific writing. Please combine the 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 together and make the single title and mention their related information. 11) Line no. 161 and 165 (Materials and methods): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine these two subsection together and its related information. 12) Line no. 196 and 206 (Materials and methods): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine the information of Chlorophyll content and leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) information together.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Materials and methods section is now revised, and subheadings are now combined into a main head. 

13) Table 3 (Materials and methods): Please mention the abbreviation of of DD in somewhere in the table. I think its means “well-watered” please mention this in the foot note or somewhere in the title of the table 3. Please rember that each table is independent and full information should include in each table. Please accordingly follow this information in other tables too if have.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Title of table is now revised as

‘Number of tillers, number of spikelets per spike, number of grains per spike, 100-grain weight, economic yield, biological yield, and leaf nitrogen contents of different wheat varieties under well-watered (WW) and water deficit stress (DD) conditions.’

14) Result section: Please combine the related subtitle in the result section similar like to the materials and method section. Generally, many subtitle are not acceptable in the result section specially in the research articles.

Response: Done as suggested.

15) Discussion Section:

16) Line no. 93: Author should to clearly mention the text that related to the mechanism of the drought resistances in the initial section of discussion section. Author should to be include the information specially “escape, avoidance, and tolerance” without these terminologies the mechanism of drought tolerance is incomplete. So please the starting of the discussion by these mechanisms shortly. 17) Line no. 122-129. Author include a good traits and its interpretation more effectively. However, the possible reason for reduction of yield and productivity is not well connected. Please improve the line no. 122-129 more logically by properly covering all the necessary components. Author should connect this section with the main terminology of “Hydraulic Failure” because of reduction of hydraulic failure (reduction of plant water, sap flow and leaf water potential) the morphological, physiological and agronomical characteristics are reduction that ultimately may causes for reduction of yield and yield components. Generally, drought stress cause to reduction to the vitality of the plant therefore author should connect this terminology some more detail by connect the drought stress. Please refer and cite this article for the references. entitle: Impact of drought stress on photosynthesis responses, leaf water and sap flow…... “DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.021 Author should mention “drought reduced hydraulic failure of the plant under the drought stress condition and reduction the plant water status by reducing the leaf water potential and sap movement that causes the negative effect in agronomical, physiological, metabolic performance are reduce of the plant productivity under drought stress. 18) Discussion (Line no. 131-132) Author should deal “why drought stress reduction the yield and less grain quality of wheat cultivar. Author should deal this text near to 131-132-line number and should justify the reason as well as mention the remedy and control measure scientifically which is the main theme of your research as well. please read these two articles and cited these articles in the reference (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146466 (2) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55889 and mention that “abiotic stress specially drought stress plant produces the ROS when these plant exposed to the stress condition and plant produce antioxidant, flavonoids, and secondary metabolites play to role for protect the plant for detoxify ROS and protect the plant to protect the abnormal condition (i.e. stress) and protein and amino acid stabilization”.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Discussion section is revised now to clarify the problems. 

19) Conclusion section (Line no. 187)

1. Author should not repeat the result parts in the conclusion and it should have more concise and good flow of writing without repetition the text. Your conclusion is impressive but please little modify the tone of presentation specially focusing the future insight of the research based on your current finding and strength of your results for the future research guideline. I think the suggestions and recommendation sections should not have needed but if author is interested to include some text in this section author can include those text in the conclusion section.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Conclusion section is revised now to clarify the problems. 

20) Line no. 220

Reference: please double-check the citations, their style, and spell check, and other grammatical errors. moreover, I request to authors for revision throughout the manuscript according to the journal rules.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. All references are now revised according to journal’s instructions to authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The material and methods part need to be revised. See the comments mentioned on attached pdf for revision. Discussion should also be rewritten.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The material and methods part need to be revised. See the comments mentioned on attached pdf for revision. Discussion should also be rewritten.

Response: Many thanks for your favorable comments. The material and methods are revised now to clarify the problems. Discussion section is revised now for more clarity. All changes suggested in PDF file are also incorporated in the revised file.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this regard, there are some concerns:

There is not enough innovation in this research.

The title is long and can be changed to “Screening of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes for Drought Tolerance through Agronomic and Physiological Response".

Ideally, wheat cultivar research and evaluation should take place in the field, and field trials should be conducted over more than one growing season. By doing so, any variability caused by environmental factors can be accounted for and the results can be reproduced.  Materials and Methods and the results indicate that the study was conducted in only one season, which is not sufficient.

Page 1-line 44: Why did you use DD as an abbreviation? The standard abbreviation for Water Stress is WS.

In title and line 41, 50 …: Genotypes, cultivars, or varieties? Should be written uniformly.

Page 2-line 56: Why varieties are only referred to as V names in the abstract?

Novelty is questionable. Justify novelty in Introduction.

Page 3-line 130: The size of the pot (height and diameter) should be mentioned.

Page 3-line 143: Is not 15 plants in each pot (5 liters) too much?

Line 137 during normal irrigation and water stress treatment, what device controlled moisture content?

Line 169 and 201: How long after planting? How long after water stress?

Line 236: Move to the next line after the spike.

In the Results section, Table 3 and 4, you can slice results by stress level.

Please replace economic yield with seed yield.

Page 9-line6: table 5 or 4? The number of tables in the material and methods, results, and discussion sections should be checked.

Please remove the units from each subtitle in the results section.

Page 1, line 64: Principal Component Analysis or Principle Component Analysis? Make sure the spelling is correct.

Page 13. Section 3.13: What is the most suitable trait for evaluating drought tolerance of cultivars according to Principal Component Analysis?

Under stress and normal irrigation conditions, it is recommended to include cluster analysis in the results section of the manuscript.

The style of writing references in the text and references section is not uniform.

Authors are kindly requested to review the manuscript as there are some errors related to punctuation and lack of consistency in the manuscript (e.g., space between number and unit). Minor revisions to the English are suggested.

Author Response

The title is long and can be changed to “Screening of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes for Drought Tolerance through Agronomic and Physiological Response".

Response: Many thanks for your comments. As per suggestion, we have revised the title

Page 1-line 44: Why did you use DD as an abbreviation? The standard abbreviation for Water Stress is WS.

Response: Many thanks for highlighting this mistake. We have changed ‘DD’ to ‘WS’ throughout the manuscript.

In title and line 41, 50 …: Genotypes, cultivars, or varieties? Should be written uniformly.

Response: Many thanks for highlighting this mistake. We have corrected this mistake throughout the manuscript.

Page 2-line 56: Why varieties are only referred to as V names in the abstract?

Response: Many thanks for your comment. We have abbreviated the varieties names to use next in the manuscript.

Novelty is questionable. Justify novelty in Introduction.

Response: Many thanks for your comment. Novelty statement is now disused in the revised file.

Page 3-line 130: The size of the pot (height and diameter) should be mentioned.

Response: Many thanks for your comment. Pot size is now mentioned in the revised file.

Page 3-line 143: Is not 15 plants in each pot (5 liters) too much?

Response: Many thanks for your comment. In this study, 15 seeds were sown initially, then 10 were maintained in each pot.

Line 137 during normal irrigation and water stress treatment, what device controlled moisture content?

Response: Many thanks for your comment. Soil moisture was determined on a daily basis with the help of soil moisture meter (TZS-W), and water losses were remunerated by adding water to achieve described level of field capacity in respective treatments.

Line 169 and 201: How long after planting? How long after water stress?

Response: Chlorophyll contents were measures at 60 DAS, and Yield and yield related traits were at maturity stage.

Line 236: Move to the next line after the spike.

Response: Done as suggested.

In the Results section, Table 3 and 4, you can slice results by stress level.

Please replace economic yield with seed yield.

Response: Done as suggested

Page 9-line6: table 5 or 4? The number of tables in the material and methods, results, and discussion sections should be checked.

Response: Thanks. Checked and corrected now

Please remove the units from each subtitle in the results section.

Response: Done as suggested

Page 1, line 64: Principal Component Analysis or Principle Component Analysis? Make sure the spelling is correct.

Response: Thanks for highlighting this mistake. We have corrected this typo error.

Page 13. Section 3.13: What is the most suitable trait for evaluating drought tolerance of cultivars according to Principal Component Analysis? Under stress and normal irrigation conditions, it is recommended to include cluster analysis in the results section of the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your comment. In this study, Principal Component Analysis was  performed for all studied traits.

The style of writing references in the text and references section is not uniform.

Response: Thanks for your comment. All references are now according to journal style.

Authors are kindly requested to review the manuscript as there are some errors related to punctuation and lack of consistency in the manuscript (e.g., space between number and unit). Minor revisions to the English are suggested.

Response: Thanks for your comment. A through revision was made throughout the manuscript

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

I have thoroughly read the revised manuscript (agronomy-1480102). Entitle: Screening of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes for Drought Tolerance through Agronomic and Physiological Re-sponse under Drought-Stressed and Well-Watered Conditions for publication of agronomy MDPI. I raise many issues for the manuscript specially introduction and discussion section and request to author to address those comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not much improved. Author revised this manuscript very careless. I not see the answer of my comments in the response letter. Is response letter without any indication not response not line no?? where author improved the related comment and suggestion, manuscript have line number but author not mention any indicate by line number after they revised not indicated by color of their revision, it’s very difficult to recognized the revised part. In response letter author try to combine the questions of the reviewers all together and answer by 1 line. For me it’s very careless revision made by the author. I read all of my comment and suggestion and recommend references but I not see major change in manuscript. Therefore, for further improve I request this manuscript again in “Major revision” Please address all the comments inside the revised manuscript or response them justifiable way. Thank you.

 

Author Response

Overall research is well conducted and which is obvious application potential because it helps to quantify the drought resistance wheat cultivars and select for the specific area for production. In this sense, the manuscript is much valuable. However, I found some points especially the flow of the text is not smooth and sometimes I found the shallow writing and lack of potential references, and lack of connection of story in different paragraphs especially introduction and discussion sections. In discussion section author should deal about the ‘hydraulic failure’ and reduction of yield in sequential flow of writing by citing the appropriate references. I also found the lack of potential and appropriate references to support the findings. The author should provide enough examples and their interpretation of different traits of physiological and biochemical responses. Overall after I evaluate this manuscript, I request the author for the “MAJOR REVISION” and also I request to authors for revision according to the rules of the journal and correct the bibliography.

Response: Esteemed Reviewer, many thanks for your valuable and worthy comments. The whole manuscript is revised now to clarify the problems. Introduction and discussion section is revised now with providing some recent studies.  

 Major suggestions

1) Abstract Issue: Abstract is appropriate volume and good start of writing. However, the main findings are missing especially quantification of drought resistance of wheat cultivar, author should categories of these cultivar in strong resistance, medium resistance and susceptible. In abstract author mentions all the cultivars names but this is meaningless which is not needed instead while quantifying the cultivars that time cultivars name will automatically come. Author should focus the novelty of the finding but this is poor presentation in abstract. In abstract author focus the introduction and method section comparatively more than the results and research nobility which is main drawback in this abstract. Please modify and rephrasing the text again will appropriate volume by concise the text. Please remember that the abstract should more logical, short, concise, and informative. Your abstract should reflect your study and major findings while shortly observed by readers. Please make the necessary corrections.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Abstract is revised now for clarity. We have categorized all genotypes based on biological and grain yield as under;

“During past few years, different agronomic, physiological and molecular approaches are used to overcome the problems related to drought stress. Breeding approaches, including conventional and modern breeding, are one of the most efficient options to overcome drought stress through the development of new varieties adapted to drought.’

‘Among genotypes, all traits were found significantly (p<0.05) higher in wheat genotype Faisalabad-2008, including biological yield (9.50 g plant-1) and seed yield (3.39 g plant-1), and proved a drought-tolerant genotype than other tested genotypes. The higher biological and grain yield of genotype Faisalabad-2008 was mainly attributed to more number of tillers/plant and number of spikelets/spike than other tested genotypes. The wheat genotype Galaxy-2013 had significantly lower biological (7.43 g plant^-1) and seed yield (2.11 g plant^-1) than all other tested genotypes, and it was classified as a drought sensitive genotype. For genotypes, under drought stress, biological and grain yield decreased in the order V₁₀ > V₂ > V₁ > V₄ > V₇ > V₁₁ > V₉ > V₈ > V₃ > V₆.’

2) Introduction

1. Author did the good starting the introduction by including the global production scenario. After this author should deal the negative consequences of drought stress to the plant biology in the second paragraph of the introduction section. Actually, drought causes reduction of morphological, physiological, anatomical and biochemical responses of the plant and consequently its shows the negative effect to the plant. Please read and cite this articles which are the good references to express the negative effect of drought entitle: Entitle “Response of drought stress in prunus sargentii and larix kaempferii ...https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118099” Please mentioned that “drought reduced the morphological and physiological traits, reduce the leaf water potential and sap movement due to alternation of xylem anatomical features in the plants”. Then only author should jump on the effect of drought stress in the cereals crops specially wheat and its effect and global scenario and negative effect for the wheat productivity especially arid and semi-arid regions. 3) Hypothesis of the study: Author should mention the clear hypothesis in last few line in the introduction sections. I saw author presentation seems likes mainly concentration to refer other authors work in the objective and hypothesis section in the last part of introduction. If author only more focus on others work in this section then strength of the work automatically reduce. Therefore, please change the presentation and sharply mention the objection and research hypothesis in the last few lines by changing the tone of presentation in 110-113 Ln. To mention the research hypothesis is very important and it give the another strength for the introduction. Please remember the research hypothesis should be very clear because without appropriate literature, questions, or in the hypothesis the entire introduction section is unclear. The author should give special attention and the sequential presentation in this part in introduction section.

 

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Introduction is revised now as whole. The hypothesis statement is now provided in the revised file. “We hypothesized that there is no genotype-dependent variation of morpho-physiological and biochemical parameters among tested genotypes. We also hypothesized that there is no difference in yield and yield-related traits of tested varieties.” (Lines 51-57).”

Moreover, the effects of drought stress on wheat crop are also discussed in revised file;

“Under field condition, wheat crop is often faces to various biotic and abiotic stresses that negatively affect its growth and development [6]. Among abiotic stresses, drought is known to have injurious effects on the growth, development as well as qualitative traits in wheat [7, 8-11]. Abiotic stresses, including drought, cause many physiological and molecular disorders in plants through excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). According to Raza et al. [12], drought negatively influenced the morpho-physiological traits, including plant height, leaf area, relative water content, stomatal oscillation, chlorophyll contents, osmotic potential and leaf water potential, in wheat crop [12].”

Some others suggestions

4) Line no. 37-38: I not see the significant importance of these line therefore author should try to reduce the text related to the wheat cultivars in the abstract because which should be worthy to mention while category the cultivars again the drought resistance. Please make the necessary corrections in abstract with appropriate volume. 5) Line no. 47-48: “All the traits found high in the cultivar Faisalabad 2008” please rephrase because this is is not clear. Author should quantify the drought resistance of wheat by develop the index and provide the enough prove then only tell the cultivar Faisalabad 2008 strong drought resistance not only by mentioning the text of minimum losing the morphological and physiological traits” but what about others cultivars ??

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The abstract section is now revised for more clarity. ‘Among genotypes, all traits were found significantly (p<0.05) higher in wheat genotype Faisalabad-2008, including biological yield (9.50 g plant-1) and seed yield (3.39 g plant-1), and proved a drought-tolerant genotype than other tested genotypes. The higher biological and grain yield of genotype Faisalabad-2008 was mainly attributed to more number of tillers/plant and number of spikelets/spike than other tested genotypes. The wheat genotype Galaxy-2013 had significantly lower biological (7.43 g plant^-1) and seed yield (2.11 g plant^-1) than all other tested genotypes, and it was classified as a drought sensitive genotype. For genotypes, under drought stress, biological and grain yield decreased in the order V₁₀ > V₂ > V₁ > V₄ > V₇ > V₁₁ > V₉ > V₈ > V₃ > V₆.’

6) Line no. 116 (Materials and methods): This research main theme is “drought resistant of wheat cultivars” but I not see that how author manage the water stress while quantifying the drought resistance of wheat? This is very big question and author should clearly mention that how to regulate the water in control and deficit treatment and comparing the cultivars.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. This study was conducted to screening drought tolerant varieties under drought stress. Therefore, we imposed drought stress by maintaining 35% field capacity and a control with 75% field capacity was kept as control.

7) Line no. 132 (Materials and methods): “Irrigation water analysis” What is the practical implication of this and why author decide to check the soil nutrient analysis while quantifying the drought resistance of the wheat cultivars? Author should give justification in the manuscript in the sequential flow and author should answer to me in the response letter.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. In this study, irrigation was applied from canal water not used distilled water. So, we analyzed the irrigation water, and essential gradients provided to proof that applied water was fit as irrigation purpose.

8) Line no. 138 (Materials and methods): “It is not appropriate space to write the “Remark and related information, please see the footnote of table 2. Please shift this “Remark” information somewhere else but not in there.

Response: Thanks. We are sorry for this mistake. We have deleted this information.

9) Line no. 139 (Materials and methods): “Meteorological data” Author mention in MM section conducted this experiment in the wire house a pot trial, is not there any possibility of natural precipitation in the potted trial. How author manage this issue, is wire house is the rain protected plastic or polethene house or something else ?

Response: Many thanks for your comments. The experiment was conducted in water-shelter wire house. However, meteorological data around the wire house is provided in the article.

10) Line no. 155 and 158 (Materials and methods): Author should combine the related subtitle eachother to make more concise the text which must be applied and very common in scientific writing. Please combine the 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 together and make the single title and mention their related information. 11) Line no. 161 and 165 (Materials and methods): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine these two subsection together and its related information. 12) Line no. 196 and 206 (Materials and methods): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine the information of Chlorophyll content and leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) information together.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Materials and methods section is now revised, and subheadings are now combined into a main head. 

13) Table 3 (Materials and methods): Please mention the abbreviation of of DD in somewhere in the table. I think its means “well-watered” please mention this in the foot note or somewhere in the title of the table 3. Please rember that each table is independent and full information should include in each table. Please accordingly follow this information in other tables too if have.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Title of table is now revised as

“Number of tillers, number of spikelets per spike, number of grains per spike, 100-grain weight, economic yield, biological yield, and leaf nitrogen contents of different wheat varieties under well-watered (WW) and water deficit stress (DD) conditions.”

14) Result section: Please combine the related subtitle in the result section similar like to the materials and method section. Generally, many subtitle are not acceptable in the result section specially in the research articles.

Response: Done as suggested.

15) Discussion Section:

16) Line no. 93: Author should to clearly mention the text that related to the mechanism of the drought resistances in the initial section of discussion section. Author should to be include the information specially “escape, avoidance, and tolerance” without these terminologies the mechanism of drought tolerance is incomplete. So please the starting of the discussion by these mechanisms shortly. 17) Line no. 122-129. Author include a good traits and its interpretation more effectively. However, the possible reason for reduction of yield and productivity is not well connected. Please improve the line no. 122-129 more logically by properly covering all the necessary components. Author should connect this section with the main terminology of “Hydraulic Failure” because of reduction of hydraulic failure (reduction of plant water, sap flow and leaf water potential) the morphological, physiological and agronomical characteristics are reduction that ultimately may causes for reduction of yield and yield components. Generally, drought stress cause to reduction to the vitality of the plant therefore author should connect this terminology some more detail by connect the drought stress. Please refer and cite this article for the references. entitle: Impact of drought stress on photosynthesis responses, leaf water and sap flow…... “DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.021 Author should mention “drought reduced hydraulic failure of the plant under the drought stress condition and reduction the plant water status by reducing the leaf water potential and sap movement that causes the negative effect in agronomical, physiological, metabolic performance are reduce of the plant productivity under drought stress. 18) Discussion (Line no. 131-132) Author should deal “why drought stress reduction the yield and less grain quality of wheat cultivar. Author should deal this text near to 131-132-line number and should justify the reason as well as mention the remedy and control measure scientifically which is the main theme of your research as well. please read these two articles and cited these articles in the reference (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146466 (2) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55889 and mention that “abiotic stress specially drought stress plant produces the ROS when these plant exposed to the stress condition and plant produce antioxidant, flavonoids, and secondary metabolites play to role for protect the plant for detoxify ROS and protect the plant to protect the abnormal condition (i.e. stress) and protein and amino acid stabilization”.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Discussion section is revised now to clarify the problems.

“Drought is one of the major abiotic stresses which limits crops’ production and yield. Crops demonstrate various morpho-physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses to tackle drought stress. tolerance has a complex character that is difficult to solve and involves different approaches and methods. Breeding is one of the most efficient options to overcome drought stress through the development of new varieties adapted to drought. Therefore, selection of wheat genotypes should be adapted to drought stress. In addition, drought tolerance mechanism should be identified during the development of new cultivars in order to increase the productivity.”

“Drought stress generally results in sugar accumulation and a decrease in leaf N content, leading to C/N imbalance, which is reflected in the increased C:N ratio in plant leaves. The availability of carbon (C), especially in its carbohydrate form, and nitrogen (N) are important factors in the regulation of plant metabolism and development. Phosphorus (P) is a major element present in plant tissues and its low mobility in soil causes its deficiency there; consequently, various changes in physiology, morphology and biochemistry of plants can occur depending on P availability. It is commonly known that plants decrease P uptake under water deficit conditions. Drought can hinder P uptake by decreasing P distribution to roots, and other factors related with water relations in the affected plant. In this study, better performance of Faislabad-2008 under drought stress might be attributed to higher N and P contents than other tested genotypes (Table 3).”

19) Conclusion section (Line no. 187)

 

Author should not repeat the result parts in the conclusion and it should have more concise and good flow of writing without repetition the text. Your conclusion is impressive but please little modify the tone of presentation specially focusing the future insight of the research based on your current finding and strength of your results for the future research guideline. I think the suggestions and recommendation sections should not have needed but if author is interested to include some text in this section author can include those text in the conclusion section.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. Conclusion section is revised now to clarify the problems. 

20) Line no. 220

Reference: please double-check the citations, their style, and spell check, and other grammatical errors. moreover, I request to authors for revision throughout the manuscript according to the journal rules.

Response: Many thanks for your comments. All references are now revised according to journal’s instructions to authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I only invite the authors to check some errors and/or do some small adjustments through the text:

Please remove the units from each subtitle in the material and methods section.

Please check spelling and punctuation in the whole manuscript.

Author Response

I only invite the authors to check some errors and/or do some small adjustments through the text:

Please remove the units from each subtitle in the material and methods section.

Please check spelling and punctuation in the whole manuscript.

Response: Esteemed reviewer, many thanks for your favorable comments. The manuscript is revised now. Units from each subtitle have been deleted. The whole manuscript has been checked for spelling mistakes.

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

General comments

I have read the manuscript (agronomy -1420956). Entitle: Screening of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for drought tolerance through agronomic and physiological responses under drought-stressed and well-watered conditions written by Ali Ahmad et al., for publication in agronomy MDPI. In this study, the author investigates the drought tolerance of wheat genotypes again the drought stress condition by using the physiological and agronomical traits including the yield. The agronomical traits included tillers per plant, spikelet’s per spike, grain per spike, grain weight, in physiological characteristics included chlorophyll content, leaf water content, membrane stability index and biochemical traits included leaf nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content. Author found all the measurement traits showed the negative effect that cause reduction of biological and economic yield. Moreover, among the wheat cultivar Galaxy-2013 had lower biological and economic yield as compared to the others cultivars.

Overall research is well conducted and which is obvious application potential because it helps to quantify the drought resistance wheat cultivars and select for the specific area for production. In this sense, the manuscript is much valuable. However, I found some points especially the flow of the text is not smooth and sometimes I found the shallow writing and lack of potential references, and lack of connection of story in different paragraphs especially introduction and discussion sections. In discussion section author should deal about the ‘hydraulic failure’ and reduction of yield in sequential flow of writing by citing the appropriate references. I also found the lack of potential and appropriate references to support the findings. The author should provide enough examples and their interpretation of different traits of physiological and biochemical responses. Overall after I evaluate this manuscript, I request the author for the “MAJOR REVISION” and also I request to authors for revision according to the rules of the journal and correct the bibliography.

 Major suggestions

1) Abstract Issue: Abstract is appropriate volume and good start of writing. However, the main findings are missing especially quantification of drought resistance of wheat cultivar, author should categories of these cultivar in strong resistance, medium resistance and susceptible. In abstract author mentions all the cultivars names but this is meaningless which is not needed instead while quantifying the cultivars that time cultivars name will automatically come. Author should focus the novelty of the finding but this is poor presentation in abstract. In abstract author focus the introduction and method section comparatively more than the results and research nobility which is main drawback in this abstract. Please modify and rephrasing the text again will appropriate volume by concise the text. Please remember that the abstract should more logical, short, concise, and informative. Your abstract should reflect your study and major findings while shortly observed by readers. Please make the necessary corrections.

2) Introduction

1. Author did the good starting the introduction by including the global production scenario. After this author should deal the negative consequences of drought stress to the plant biology in the second paragraph of the introduction section. Actually, drought causes reduction of morphological, physiological, anatomical and biochemical responses of the plant and consequently its shows the negative effect to the plant. Please read and cite this articles which are the good references to express the negative effect of drought entitle: Entitle “Response of drought stress in prunus sargentii and larix kaempferii ...https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118099” Please mentioned that “drought reduced the morphological and physiological traits, reduce the leaf water potential and sap movement due to alternation of xylem anatomical features in the plants”. Then only author should jump on the effect of drought stress in the cereals crops specially wheat and its effect and global scenario and negative effect for the wheat productivity especially arid and semi-arid regions.

 

 

3) Hypothesis of the study: Author should mention the clear hypothesis in last few line in the introduction sections. I saw author presentation seems likes mainly concentration to refer other authors work in the objective and hypothesis section in the last part of introduction. If author only more focus on others work in this section then strength of the work automatically reduce. Therefore, please change the presentation and sharply mention the objection and research hypothesis in the last few lines by changing the tone of presentation in 110-113 Ln. To mention the research hypothesis is very important and it give the another strength for the introduction. Please remember the research hypothesis should be very clear because without appropriate literature, questions, or in the hypothesis the entire introduction section is unclear. The author should give special attention and the sequential presentation in this part in introduction section.

Some others suggestions

4) Line no. 37-38: I not see the significant importance of these line therefore author should try to reduce the text related to the wheat cultivars in the abstract because which should be worthy to mention while category the cultivars again the drought resistance. Please make the necessary corrections in abstract with appropriate volume.

5) Line no. 47-48: “All the traits found high in the cultivar Faisalabad 2008” please rephrase because this is is not clear. Author should quantify the drought resistance of wheat by develop the index and provide the enough prove then only tell the cultivar Faisalabad 2008 strong drought resistance not only by mentioning the text of minimum losing the morphological and physiological traits” but what about others cultivars ??

6) Line no. 116 (Materials and methods): This research main theme is “drought resistant of wheat cultivars” but I not see that how author manage the water stress while quantifying the drought resistance of wheat? This is very big question and author should clearly mention that how to regulate the water in control and deficit treatment and comparing the cultivars.

7) Line no. 132 (Materials and methods): “Irrigation water analysis” What is the practical implication of this and why author decide to check the soil nutrient analysis while quantifying the drought resistance of the wheat cultivars? Author should give justification in the manuscript in the sequential flow and author should answer to me in the response letter.

8) Line no. 138 (Materials and methods): “It is not appropriate space to write the “Remark and related information, please see the footnote of table 2. Please shift this “Remark” information somewhere else but not in there.

9) Line no. 139 (Materials and methods): “Meteorological data” Author mention in MM section conducted this experiment in the wire house a pot trial, is not there any possibility of natural precipitation in the potted trial. How author manage this issue, is wire house is the rain protected plastic or polethene house or something else ?

10) Line no. 155 and 158 (Materials and methods): Author should combine the related subtitle eachother to make more concise the text which must be applied and very common in scientific writing. Please combine the 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 together and make the single title and mention their related information.

11) Line no. 161 and 165 (Materials and methods): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine these two subsection together and its related information.

12) Line no. 196 and 206 (Materials and methods): Please see the above comment, here is also similar problem. Please combine the information of Chlorophyll content and leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) information together.

13) Table 3 (Materials and methods): Please mention the abbreviation of of DD in somewhere in the table. I think its means “well-watered” please mention this in the foot note or somewhere in the title of the table 3. Please rember that each table is independent and full information should include in each table. Please accordingly follow this information in other tables too if have.

14) Result section: Please combine the related subtitle in the result section similar like to the materials and method section. Generally, many subtitle are not acceptable in the result section specially in the research articles.

15) Discussion Section:

16) Line no. 93: Author should to clearly mention the text that related to the mechanism of the drought resistances in the initial section of discussion section. Author should to be include the information specially “escape, avoidance, and tolerance” without these terminologies the mechanism of drought tolerance is incomplete. So please the starting of the discussion by these mechanisms shortly.

 

17) Line no. 122-129. Author include a good traits and its interpretation more effectively. However, the possible reason for reduction of yield and productivity is not well connected. Please improve the line no. 122-129 more logically by properly covering all the necessary components. Author should connect this section with the main terminology of “Hydraulic Failure” because of reduction of hydraulic failure (reduction of plant water, sap flow and leaf water potential) the morphological, physiological and agronomical characteristics are reduction that ultimately may causes for reduction of yield and yield components. Generally, drought stress cause to reduction to the vitality of the plant therefore author should connect this terminology some more detail by connect the drought stress. Please refer and cite this article for the references. entitle: Impact of drought stress on photosynthesis responses, leaf water and sap flow…... “DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.021 Author should mention “drought reduced hydraulic failure of the plant under the drought stress condition and reduction the plant water status by reducing the leaf water potential and sap movement that causes the negative effect in agronomical, physiological, metabolic performance are reduce of the plant productivity under drought stress.

 

18) Discussion (Line no. 131-132)

Author should deal “why drought stress reduction the yield and less grain quality of wheat cultivar. Author should deal this text near to 131-132-line number and should justify the reason as well as mention the remedy and control measure scientifically which is the main theme of your research as well. please read these two articles and cited these articles in the reference (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146466 (2) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55889 and mention that “abiotic stress specially drought stress plant produces the ROS when these plant exposed to the stress condition and plant produce antioxidant, flavonoids, and secondary metabolites play to role for protect the plant for detoxify ROS and protect the plant to protect the abnormal condition (i.e. stress) and protein and amino acid stabilization”.

2.  

19) Conclusion section (Line no. 187)

3. Author should not repeat the result parts in the conclusion and it should have more concise and good flow of writing without repetition the text. Your conclusion is impressive but please little modify the tone of presentation specially focusing the future insight of the research based on your current finding and strength of your results for the future research guideline. I think the suggestions and recommendation sections should not have needed but if author is interested to include some text in this section author can include those text in the conclusion section.

 

20) Line no. 220

Reference: please double-check the citations, their style, and spell check, and other grammatical errors. moreover, I request to authors for revision throughout the manuscript according to the journal rules.

 

Good Luck!

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors screening of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for drought tolerance through agronomic and physiological response under drought-stressed and well-watered conditions.

I do have several suggestions that need to be addressed by major revision. Below are some specific comments to be taken into consideration by the authors:

General comments

-Investigation presents interesting and innovative data.

-The manuscript falls into the scope of the journal.

-The manuscript data are technically sound and support its conclusions.

-The introduction needs to be improved.  It should be improved by re-writing proper mechanistic background and justification of the study with relevant references according to the title. 

-The whole methodology must be written in the past tense and passive voice.

-The methodology of the experiment is very poorly written. The authors must rewrite adequately the whole methodology to allow reproduction of the estimated methods properly.

-Mention, the layout and design of the experiment in this chapter.

-Describe the detailed procedure of the experiment, such as seedlings/seeds per pot, spacing (row to row and plant to plant), time of sowing, time of sample collection/harvesting, fertilizer, pest management, irrigation, other cultural management, mention the start time of the imposition of drought, etc.

-Describe detailed imposition of drought to crop, such as measurement procedure of field capacity, the quantity of water was applied at how many days intervals, how they maintained drought stress levels? How they maintained uniformity of drought levels throughout cropping periods in pot soil?  Mention the number of levels of the factor drought.

- Several grammatical and typos errors were observed throughout the MS. The whole MS should be checked properly by an English expert.  

-The language of the results chapter is too poor.

-The whole results must be written in the past tense.

-Conclusion must be rewritten with major findings, conclusive remarks, and recommendations according to the title and objectives of the study.

Specific comments

Abstract

Line 36: Change “---aimed to separate ---” to “----aimed to screen --”.

Line 37-40: Add a space before the symbol of “=”

Line 39-40: Delete the space before the symbol of “%”

Line 41: Delete the space after the symbol of “/”

Line 41: Change “---various morphologies ---” to “----various morphological --”.

Line 42: Change “---economically ---” to “----economic --”.

Line 45: As there is replication, hence, change the design name “---Completely-Randomized-Design (CRD) ---” to “----completely randomized block design (RCBD) --”.

Introduction

-The introduction needs to be improved.  It should be improved by re-writing proper mechanistic background and justification of the study with relevant references according to the title. 

Line 69: Add the supporting sentences “Abiotic stresses such as drought and salinity cause many physiological and molecular changes, such as the creation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). just before the sentence “Under moisture deficit conditions, surplus electrons ----.”  

Line 85: At the end of the paragraph add the sentences to explain and review the non-enzymatic antioxidants that have trimendous effects to ameliorate of adverse effect of abiotic stresses “In addition to antioxidant enzymes, numerous non-enzymatic antioxidants, such as flavonoids like flavanols (doi.10.1186/s12870-020-02780-y). Nonetheless, for homeostasis of abiotic stress, stress-induced plant progressed mechanisms to augment the concentration of non-enzymatic antioxidants (doi.10.1080/09064710.2017.1367029; doi.10.1038/s41598-018-30897-6) and detoxify the ROS.". Just after the sentence “-------------consequences of drought [15, 19, 20].”

Line 98: There are no resistant cultivars to drought in the globe. In fact, these are tolerant to drought. Hence, Change “-- drought resistant-cultivars--” to “---drought-tolerant cultivars---”. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists. Example line 101-102,  

Line 99: --mesic conditions--. Did the authors want to write field conditions? Check it.

Line 99-100: Change “--- So varietal screening---” to “--- So, varietal screening---”

Line 101: Change “--- stress tolerant-cultivar ---” to “--- stress-tolerant cultivar ---”

Line 105: Change “--- Drought tolerant-varieties---” to “--- Drought-tolerant varieties---”. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists. Example lines 106, 107.  

Line 114: Change “--- resistance---” to “--- tolerance---”. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists.

Materials and Methods

The whole methodology must be written in the past tense and passive voice.

The methodology of the experiment is very poorly written. The authors must rewrite adequately the whole methodology to allow reproduction of the estimated methods properly.

Mention, the layout and design of the experiment in this chapter.

Describe the detailed procedure of the experiment, such as seedlings/seeds per pot, spacing (row to row and plant to plant), time of sowing, time of sample collection/harvesting, fertilizer, pest management, irrigation, other cultural management, mention the start time of the imposition of drought, etc.

Describe detailed imposition of drought to crop, such as measurement procedure of field capacity, the quantity of water was applied at how many days intervals, how they maintained drought stress levels? How they maintained uniformity of drought levels throughout cropping periods in pot soil?  Mention the number of levels of the factor drought.

Do the authors think that a single dose of drought level is enough to study the drought effects?

Line 119: Change “--- 2019-20---” to “--- 2019-2020---”. Also, in line 143,

Line 131: Table 1: --- dS cm^-1---. Check properly whether dS m^-1 or cS/cm^-1 or other unit.

Line 147:: Change “--- 2.4. Observations ---” to “--- 2.4. Morphological and Yield Parameter --”

Line 168:: Change “--- 2.4.7. ---” to “--- 2.5. ---”

Line 170:: Change “--- Sulphuric acid ---” to “--- sulphuric acid ---”

Line 172:: Change “--- 30 minutes ---” to “--- 30 min ---”. Also, in line 226,

Line 174:: Change “--- 1 ml ---” to “--- 1 mL ---”. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists. Example line 192.  

Line 179:: Change “--- 2.4.8. ---” to “--- 2.6. ---”

Line 186:: Change “--- 2.4.9. ---” to “--- 2.7. ---”

Line 190:: Change “--- 350°C ---” to “--- 350 °C  ---”

Line 196:: Change “--- 2.4.10. ---” to “--- 2.8. ---”

Line 198:: Change “--- at 0-4°C in 80% acetone. At 10,000 x g ---” to the symbol of the cross “--- at 0-4 °C in 80% acetone. At 10,000 × g ---”. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists. Example lines 202, 203.  

Line 204:: Change “--- Wherem---” to “--- Where---”

Line 206:: Change “--- 2.4.11. ---” to “--- 2.9. ---”

Line 209:: Change “--- 2.4.12. ---” to “--- 2.10. ---”

Line 215:: Change “--- (24 hours).---” to “--- (24 h).---”. Also, in line 218.  

Line 221:: Change “--- * ---” to “--- ×---”

Line 222:: Change “--- 2.4.13. ---” to “--- 2.11. ---”

Line 229:: Change “--- MSI= 1-(C1/C2) x100 ---” to “--- MSI = [1-(C1/C2)] × 100  ---”

Results

The language of the results chapter is too poor.

The whole results must be written in the past tense.

Parameter names in Tables 3 and 4 should be consistent with the text.

Table 3 and 4: last row of column 1: Change “--- DD(Drought) ---” to “--- Drought (DD) ---”. Change “--- V (Variety) ---” to “--- Variety (V) ---”. Change “--- DDxV---” to “--- DD × V---”. Change “--- LSD @ 0.05 ---” to “--- LSD ≤ 0.05 ---”. Caption: add spaces before and after the symbol “=”. In Table values: Delete space between number and lettering.

Line 237: Delete the word “total”.

Line 243:  Delete (. The results are elucidated in). Also, in line 250, 257, 5-6, 11-12, 17-18, 24-25, 31-32, 38-39, 54-55, 59-60, 65-66, 72-73.   

Line 245: Change “--- showed maximum --- in case of---” to “--- showed the maximum --- in the case of---”. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists.

Line 253: Change “--- On contrary ---” to “--- On the contrary, ---”

Line 1: Change “--- In contrast ---” to “--- In contrast, ---”

Line 2-17: Add a space between number and g.

Line 45: water stress (mention the Table number).

 Discussion

The discussion should be rewritten with more interpretation of the results chronologically and a mechanistic explanation of the reason adequately.

-Delete the citations of figures and tables from the discussion.

Line 96: Change “--- drought resistance ---” to “--- drought tolerance ---”

Line 124: The our study---. It is better to avoid personal pronouns like we, our, us, etc in the MS. Follow this style throughout the whole MS where it exists.

Line 131: Change “--- [4950,51]---” to “--- (49, 50, 51)---”

Line 155: Change “--- Chl content ---” to “--- chlorophyll content ---”. Also, in line 157, 160, 164,  

Conclusion

Rewrite the conclusion with major findings, conclusive remarks, and recommendations of the study.

Line 189-190: Change “--- (tillers/ plant, spikelets/ spike, grains/  spike, ---” to “--- (tillers/plant, spikelets/spike, grains/spike, ---”

Line 193: Change “--- is drought tolerant whereas Galaxy-2013 is ---” to “--- was drought-tolerant, whereas Galaxy-2013 was ---”

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf