Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Analysis of the MAPK and MAPKK Gene Families in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Next Article in Special Issue
Difference in Starch Structure and Physicochemical Properties between Waxy Wheat and Non-Waxy Wheat Subjected to Temporary Heat Stress during Grain Filling
Previous Article in Journal
Sediment-Based Growing Media Provides a Window Opportunity for Environmentally Friendly Production of Ornamental Shrubs
Previous Article in Special Issue
One-Time Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Using Controlled-Release Urea Ensured the Yield, Nitrogen Use Efficiencies, and Profits of Winter Wheat
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Physiological and Agronomic Mechanisms Involved in ‘Source–Sink’ Relationship in the High-Yield Population of Weak-Gluten Wheat

by Jingyu Wei 1,2, Qi Yu 1,2, Jinfeng Ding 1,2,3, Chunyan Li 1,2,3, Xinkai Zhu 1,2,3, Wenshan Guo 1,2,3,* and Min Zhu 1,2,3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Submission received: 5 December 2022 / Revised: 22 December 2022 / Accepted: 24 December 2022 / Published: 28 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, author identified physiological and agronomic mechanisms involved in  ‘source-sink’ relationship by setting different basic seedlings for the construction of the different wheat populations. The characteristics of different yield populations of new wheat varieties after rice harvest were studied, and the transport and distribution characteristics of C and N substances were explored by isotope tracer method, which provided theoretical basis for the construction of high yield populations of new wheat varieties.

 

Why does authors choose Ningmai 29 in this study?

335…. had a certain compensation effect after losing the functional leaves, and also..What does author indicate by compensation effect?

I would like to suggest the author to provide more detail about sucrose synthase activity and sucrose content analysis in material method section.

What is the significance of pot experiment?

The Lacking quality in respect to language needs to be improved in Abstract, Introduction and Discussion section.

 

Regards

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. Here are the responses:

1  Why does authors choose Ningmai 29 in this study?

The reason why Ningmai 29 is chosen in this study is that it is a new large-spike wheat variety and is suitable for the local area (the middle and lower reaches of Yangtaze River), which is feasible to construct the different yielding groups for the research.

335…. had a certain compensation effect after losing the functional leaves, and also What does author indicate by compensation effect

Here the compensation effect is that the removal of the top three leaves will facilitate the photo-assimilate transportation from the stem into the wheat grain; nonetheless, the thousand-grain weight of the spike was much lower than that of CK due to the reduced source (the top three leaves). Refer to this reference: WU Xiao-li, LIU Miao, LI Chao-su, Allen David (Jack) MCHUGH, LI Ming, XIONG Tao, LIU Yu-bin, TANG Yong-lu, Source–sink relations and responses to sink–source manipulations during grain filling in wheat,Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 21,2022,Pages 1593-1605.

What is the significance of pot experiment?

Due to the 2019-convirus, we didn’t manage to set up the ‘source’ and ‘sink’ removal test in the field. Hence a pot experiment with the same variety and nitrogen application was carried out for the eluviation of source and sink relationship.

we revised abstract, Introduction and Discussion section carefully.

The abstract was re-write, please refer to line 14-32    

The discussion and conclusion parts have been revised carefully as well, here are the details:

Discussion part: Line 353-362, line 375-379, line 401-404, line 408-432

Conclusion part: Line 434-451

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

A significant revision is required.

1. Please re-write the abstract. The current version is not reading well.

2. Significant improvement is required in the discussion and conclusion part. Please revise and write clearly.

I recommend a minor revision. 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments.

The abstract was re-write, please refer to line 14-32    

The discussion and conclusion parts have been revised carefully as well, here are the details:

Discussion part: Line 353-362, line 375-379, line 401-404, line 408-432

Conclusion part: Line 434-451

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

-This manuscript correspond for scope of journal.

-Content of article appropriate to the title of article.

-Key words are appropriate.

- Methods of investigation are adequate, reliable, and precise and proprely applied

-Results are clerly presented and discussed in chapter of discussion. 

- Table, figure and pictures are clear.

-Conclusions are based on obtainned results.

Recommendation: Authors could make tables in a more compact and smaller format. It is technically possible to edit it because there is a lot of space inside the table, between the columns.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments!

The formats of the tables have been revise in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop