Effects of Shading on the Internode Critical for Soybean (Glycine Max) Lodging
, Kexin Sun 1, Shengdan Gong 1, Chang Wang 1, Chunmei Ma 1, Rui Zhang 2,* and Chao Yan 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper the authors analyzed the effect of shading on the internode critical for soybean lodging. In my opinion, this represents a very interesting topic, the manuscript however shows some weaknesses which require a further review and a careful revision of the language through the text.
Abstract: I would suggest listing only some of the most important results to justify the implications and conclusions of the study.
- Line 13: is there just one tall cultivar? If not, please replace “the” with “a” tall cultivar.
-Line 14: It would be easier to understand if here you can specify in brackets how much (on average) is this difference
-Line 19: the first time GA appears please write it in full
-Lines 22-29: I would suggest reducing the listing of results and add a couple of rows more on the possible meaning (discussions) of these results
Please remove from keywords word which already appear in the title (e.g. soybean, shading and so on..)
Introduction:
-Line 37: the term destroyed it is maybe a little strong. Please change it with "negatively affects" or others
-Line 42: during the growth process is redundant with grown, please remove it
- Line 46: Please add “et al.” after Liu
- Lines 47-52: this sentence is too long and difficult to understand thus I would suggest splitting it into more sentences. Plus, it is not clear if these are all results from reference [6] or [7].
-Line 52: please add "et al." after Hussain
-Line 62: please add "et al." please check throughout the text (e.g. lines 69, 71 and more)
-Line 63: is there a full stop before reference 14?? If so, please also add the name of reference 14 who studied the Pisum sativum seedlings; otherwise it seems still referred to reference 13.
-Line 65: was it found in the same study?
- Line 79: systematically?? maybe you would say thoroughly or fully
-Line 81: please report this different on average as indicated also in the abstract
-Line 83: please divide this sentence after “treatments”
Material and Methods: Some information about the experimental design and measurements are missing in this paragraph
-lines 106-107: It is not necessary to repeat where the experiment took place. You can just specify that it was the year after.
-Lines 110-111: I do not understand what the authors mean by “prepared”, can you be more specific?
-Line 118: measured how?
-Line 122: the word experiment is redundant, please change. Plus, wasn’t it the same experiment conducted in 2020 explained before? Or these plants were different? Please clarify
-Lines 140-141: how much of these solutions and for how long? please re-write this part better or add a reference
-Line 155: calculated how?
-Lines 166-168 (statistical analyses): it is clear which software did you use, but which statistical analysis did you performe to compare treatments with a significative level of p < 0.05??
Results:
Table 2: Please report in the description of the table or in the footnote the meaning of D10-40 otherwise it is difficult to read
-Line 196: 5% level or p < 0.05?
-Line 199: continuously what?
-Figures 1(a and b): Please change the letters between the two cultivars, otherwise it is impossibile to understand which one is the real figure a. Please do the same for the other figure as well
-Lines 279-282: you can move this to the discussion section
Figures 4(a and b): please add letters or at least asterisks to indicate significative differences
Discussion:
-Lines 334-339: please rewrite this part. since the English is not correct it is very difficult to read
-Line 349: why? it seems odd, can you add more explainantion
- Line 414: why you used while if both were upregulated??
-Line 416: same as above
Conclusions: i would repeat or move some of the conclusions you put before at the end of discussion to highlight the main significance of this study.
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We have improved the English of the writing, and the details of the article were checked. The paper was optimized according to the comments.
We appreciate for reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. I'll send you a detailed reply to comments at the bottom of the text.
Point 1:Line 13: is there just one tall cultivar? If not, please replace “the” with “a” tall cultivar.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 2: Line 14: It would be easier to understand if here you can specify in brackets how much (on average) is this difference
Response 2: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 3: Lines 22-29: I would suggest reducing the listing of results and add a couple of rows more on the possible meaning (discussions) of these results
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 4: Please remove from keywords word which already appear in the title (e.g. soybean, shading and so on..)
Response 4: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 5: Line 37: the term destroyed it is maybe a little strong. Please change it with "negatively affects" or others
Response 5: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 6: Line 42: during the growth process is redundant with grown, please remove it
Response 6: We have re-written this part according to Reviewer’s suggestion.
Point 7: Line 46: Please add “et al.” after Liu
Response 7: We are very sorry for our negligence of the details. We have made detailed corrections to the details of the full paper.
Point 8: Lines 47-52: this sentence is too long and difficult to understand thus I would suggest splitting it into more sentences. Plus, it is not clear if these are all results from reference [6] or [7].
Response 8: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We confirm these are all results from reference [6] or [7].
Point 9: Line 52: please add "et al." after Hussain
Response 9: We are very sorry for our negligence of the details. We have made detailed corrections to the details of the full paper.
Point 10: Line 62: please add "et al." please check throughout the text (e.g. lines 69, 71 and more)
Response 10: We are very sorry for our negligence of the details. We have made detailed corrections to the details of the full paper.
Point 11: Line 63: is there a full stop before reference 14?? If so, please also add the name of reference 14 who studied the Pisum sativum seedlings; otherwise it seems still referred to reference 13.
Response 11: Thank you for your comments. We have made correction .
Point 12: Line 65: was it found in the same study
Response 12: I reviewed the literature to ensure that the quote came from those studies.And this section is an overview of the research results of the three literatures.
Point 13: Line 79:systematically?? maybe you would say thoroughly or fully
Response 13: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 14: Line 81: please report this different on average as indicated also in the abstract
Response 14: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 15: Line 83: please divide this sentence after “treatments”
Response 15: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 16: lines 106-107: It is not necessary to repeat where the experiment took place. You can just specify that it was the year after.
Response 16: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 17: Lines 110-111: I do not understand what the authors mean by “prepared”, can you be more specific?
Response 17: We have made corrections according to the Reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the following for more detailed procedures.
Zhang, R.; Shan, F.X.; Wang, C.; Yan, C.; Dong, S.K.; Xu, Y.; Gong, Z.P.; Ma, C.M. Internode elongation pattern, internode diameter and hormone changes in soybean (Glycine max) under different shading conditions. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2020, 7, 679–688, doi:10.1071/CP20071.
Point 18: Line 118: measured how?
Response 18: Thank you for your comments. “Measured” refers to the morphological index measurement of soybean plants, and the measurement method is detailed in Section 2.2.
Point 19: Line 122: the word experiment is redundant, please change. Plus, wasn’t it the same experiment conducted in 2020 explained before? Or these plants were different? Please clarify
Response 19: Thank you for your comments. This part of the experiment and the processing method in 2.1.2 is the same, but the control variable for shade time, namely, the short-term shade for processing after processing from the fifth internode growing to the seventh trifoliolate leaf emergence and long shade processing from the true leaves emergence to the seventh trifoliolate leaf emergence, was intended to explain the influence of shading time on plant growth.
Point 20: Lines 140-141: how much of these solutions and for how long? please re-write this part better or add a reference
Response 20: Thank you for your comments. References have been added
Point 21: Line 155: calculated how?
Response 21: The specific calculation method is described in detail in the kit application instructions, which can be summarized as follows: The corresponding standard curve can be obtained by measuring the standard sample, and then the GA3 value can be obtained by placing the OD value onto the standard curve
Point 22: Lines 166-168 (statistical analyses): it is clear which software did you use, but which statistical analysis did you performe to compare treatments with a significative level of p < 0.05??
Response 22: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments and corrected the corresponding content to a level of p < 0.05.
Point 23: Table 2: Please report in the description of the table or in the footnote the meaning of D10-40 otherwise it is difficult to read
Response 23: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 24: Line 196: 5% level or p < 0.05?
Response 24: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 25: Line 199: continuously what?
Response 25: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 26: Figures 1(a and b): Please change the letters between the two cultivars, otherwise it is impossibile to understand which one is the real figure a. Please do the same for the other figure as well
Response 26: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 27: Lines 279-282: you can move this to the discussion section
Response 27: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 28: Figures 4(a and b): please add letters or at least asterisks to indicate significative differences
Response 28: Thank you for your comments. Figures 4(a and b) only show the comparison between single soybean varieties, with the aim of illustrating the changing trend in gibberellin-related enzyme activities under different shading treatments, i.e., upregulation or downregulation, but there was no comparison between varieties. However, considering your opinion, we have split and reassembled this part of the bar chart. I hope you are satisfied.
Point 29: Lines 334-339: please rewrite this part. since the English is not correct it is very difficult to read
Response 29: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 30: Line 349: why? it seems odd, can you add more explainantion
Response 30: The study by our team found that changes or stimuli in the external environment would not lead to internodes that had stopped elongating elongate again. For more information, you can refer to the following two studies, both of which involved our team.
Zhang, R.; Shan, F.X.; Wang, C.; Yan, C.; Dong, S.K.; Xu, Y.; Gong, Z.P.; Ma, C.M. Internode elongation pattern, internode diameter and hormone changes in soybean (Glycine max) under different shading conditions. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2020, 7, 679–688, doi:10.1071/CP20071.
Shan FX, Zhang R,Zhang J, et al.Study on the Regulatory Effects of GA(3) on Soybean Internode Elongation[J]. Plants-basel, 2020, 10(8).
Point 31: Line 414: why you used while if both were upregulated??Line 416: same as above
Response 31: GmGA2ox4, GmGA3ox6 and GmGA20ox1-D are representative key enzymes in the metabolic pathway of gibberellin in soybean plants. Therefore, in this study, we chose to measure their expression levels and observe their changing trends. The balance of gibberellin activity levels in plants is achieved by changing the gibberellin synthesis reaction or the gibberellin inactivation reaction. However, the effect of an increased GA3 content on the expression of key enzyme genes in the gibberellin metabolism pathway is still controversial. Our study found that GmGA2ox4, GmGA3ox6 and GmGA20ox1-D were all upregulated under shading conditions, so we believed that the upregulation of gibberellin synthesis genes GmGA3ox6 and GmGA20ox1-D under shading conditions directly led to the increase in GA3 content in plants. In addition, the expression of the GA-degrading enzyme gene GmGA2ox4 was increased by feed-forward regulation. This part focuses on the effects of shading conditions on key enzyme genes of the gibberellin metabolism pathway.
Point 32: Conclusions: i would repeat or move some of the conclusions you put before at the end of discussion to highlight the main significance of this study.
Response 32: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
My suggestions to the authors of this article:
Title reflect the content and emphasize the paper's interest and significance.
The abstract should be supplemented with the results obtained from the research (please add the practical significance of the chosen method for soybean cultivation).
Materials and Methods: 2.1.1. Please specify the physical and chemical properties of the test soil in detail. How was nitrogen (and PK) fertilization dosed? in how many doses? Are plant protection where have been use (herbicides, insecticides, or other) ?
The field research were conducted in 2019. Why the research was not repeated in the same locations in the following years? Usually, the results are given of a minimum of 2 year studies located in the same places are given to compare, for example, the impact of the years of research (weather conditions, significant year effect).
Results and Discussion: The figure 4ab in the manuscript are not clear enough.
In the Abstract and Conclusions section, the authors also did not elaborate on the significance of the study. Which soybean density is recommended for the farmer, higher lodging of soybean occurs with which soybean sowing density?
The statistical calculations were done correctly.
References: Please, prepare a literature record according to the requirements of the Agronomy
Kind regards
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript . Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We have improved the English of the writing, and the details of the article were checked.
We appreciate for reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Point 1: The abstract should be supplemented with the results obtained from the research (please add the practical significance of the chosen method for soybean cultivation).

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have added the research significance of the experiment to the abstract and conclusion.
Point 2: Materials and Methods: 2.1.1. Please specify the physical and chemical properties of the test soil in detail. How was nitrogen (and PK) fertilization dosed? in how many doses? Are plant protection where have been use (herbicides, insecticides, or other) ?
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We added the specific planting methods and fertilizer application. To make the test results more universal, we did not apply special herbicides and insecticides and adopted standard agronomic practices for soybean production.
Point 3: The field research were conducted in 2019. Why the research was not repeated in the same locations in the following years? Usually, the results are given of a minimum of 2 year studies located in the same places are given to compare, for example, the impact of the years of research (weather conditions, significant year effect).
Response 3: We used only the soybean internode under the different density data in 2019, but the trial began in 2015. First, the morphological indexes and lodging resistance of soybean plants with different planting densities were measured, and in the subsequent experiments on soybean plants, internode measurements were used to infer the internode length change with the change in the light environment (shade) link. Further analysis will be conducted through pot experiments in the future. The preliminary experimental data have been published for reference:
Xu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Hou, Z.F.; Yan, C.; Xia, X.; Ma, C.M.; Dong, S.K.; Gong, Z.P. Mechanical properties of soybean plants under various plant densities. Crop Pasture Sci. 2020, 7, 249–259, doi:10.1071/CP19133.
Point 4: Results and Discussion: The figure 4ab in the manuscript are not clear enough.
Response 4: We have optimized and modified the figure4ab, and we hope they are satisfactory
Point 5: In the Abstract and Conclusions section, the authors also did not elaborate on the significance of the study. Which soybean density is recommended for the farmer, higher lodging of soybean occurs with which soybean sowing density?
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. For this purpose, we give the planting density commonly used in field production for your reference in experimental design 2.1.1.
Point 6: References: Please, prepare a literature record according to the requirements of the Agronomy.
Response 6: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Once again, thank you very much for Reviewers’ comments and kind helps.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your revision I do not have any further request.
