Effect of Short-Term Water Deficit on Some Physiological Properties of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with Different Spike Morphotypes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: agronomy-2652341

Title: Effect of short-term water deficit on selected physiological properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants

Authors: Hnilicka Frantisek, Lysytskyi Semen, Rygl Tomas, Hnilickova Helena and Pecka Jan.

The topic: “Effect of short-term water deficit on selected physiological properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants” is very interesting and informative. In the current study, the authors explored the impact of short-term water deficit on wheat (cv. ´Bohemia´) with (genotypes ´284-17´[long chaff] and genotype ´29-17´[multirowed ear]) plants. The manuscript contains novel information which can further strengthen the existing knowledge of the field, particularly crop productivity as influenced by water deficit. Scientists planned their study according to need of time. Moreover, the research area seems well motivated but unfortunately the experiment was not conducted technically.

Abstract

Abstract is not technically managed. Treatment plan is not included. Findings are not quantified.

“Due to the fact that cv. ´Bohemia´, increases 26 during such periods of transpiration, so for this reason it is not suitable for dry 27 areas”?

Organized the keywords alphabetically.

Introduction

This section is well managed.

Material and methods

The materials and methods section looks poor.

Line 98-99: Winter wheat plants were grown in 11 x 11 cm pots in a greenhouse experiment. What do you mean by 11 × 11 cm pots; dimensions are not clear, either height, diameter, width etc.?

Line 100: Remove space between temperature values and unit.

Line 112-113: 10 d?

Line 127: Add the name of scientist(s) before reference.

Line 128: Following were extracted, targets were taken? What language is it?

Line 142: 8-13 h CET?

 

At what stage the data were collected? Before moving to physiological or other parameters, emergence attributes are more important to explore the impact of water deficit.

Result

Regarding the result section, improve the reporting language and avoid jargon. Directly state the results. Authors must quantitatively report their results. Make the results section concise and specific. The figures’ quality is very poor.

Discussion

The discussion section may be improved with citations of recent studies. Try to discuss results with recent literature with logical reasoning. It looks more like the result section. Improve this section with a logical and scientific approach. Rewriting of previous studies/results deteriorates the quality of manuscript.

Conclusion

Conclusion may be short, specific, and quantified.

Reference

The authors need to work on the reference list according to the journal style and cross matching.

Figures

Figure quality may be improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for your comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions.

Abstract

Abstract is not technically managed. Treatment plan is not included. Findings are not quantified. “Due to the fact that cv. ´Bohemia´, increases 26 during such periods of transpiration, so for this reason it is not suitable for dry 27 areas”?

Organized the keywords alphabetically.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Introduction

This section is well managed.

Material and methods

The materials and methods section looks poor.

Line 98-99: Winter wheat plants were grown in 11 x 11 cm pots in a greenhouse experiment. What do you mean by 11 × 11 cm pots; dimensions are not clear, either height, diameter, width etc.?

Line 100: Remove space between temperature values and unit.

Line 112-113: 10 d?

Line 127: Add the name of scientist(s) before reference.

Line 128: Following were extracted, targets were taken? What language is it?

Line 142: 8-13 h CET?

At what stage the data were collected? Before moving to physiological or other parameters, emergence attributes are more important to explore the impact of water deficit.

Response: The Material and Methods have been supplemented and expanded. Data on developmental stages and germination parameters have been added.

Result

Regarding the result section, improve the reporting language and avoid jargon. Directly state the results. Authors must quantitatively report their results. Make the results section concise and specific. The figures’ quality is very poor.

Response: The results section has been revised. The results have been quantified and the figure graphics have been modified.

Discussion

The discussion section may be improved with citations of recent studies. Try to discuss results with recent literature with logical reasoning. It looks more like the result section. Improve this section with a logical and scientific approach. Rewriting of previous studies/results deteriorates the quality of manuscript.

Response: The discussion section has been edited and supplemented with additional citations of literature sources

Conclusion

Conclusion may be short, specific, and quantified.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Reference

The authors need to work on the reference list according to the journal style and cross matching.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Figures

Figure quality may be improved.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Again, thanks for your great comments. Your comments helped us a lot to improve our manuscript and we appreciate your careful attention. We hope that the edited manuscript is now suitable for publication in Agronomy.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented research is relevant and has practical significance for the development of varieties and lines of agricultural crops that are more resistant to water stress. Since the lack of water still remains one of the most important stress factors affecting not only productivity, but also the quality of grain products. It is believed that wheat genotypes with changes in morphotype should be more drought-resistant.

The authors of the article studied changes in the physiological parameters of wheat (variety “Bohemia”) with a modified morphotype (genotypes “284-17” [long hymen] and genotype “29-17” [multi-rowed ear]) in relation to susceptibility to drought. The study found that water deficiency has a statistically significant effect on transpiration rate, photosynthesis rate, water potential and total chlorophyll content.

There are questions and comments:

1. In the “materials and methods” section, it is advisable to add the location of the experiment.

2. What determines the choice of variety for testing? Maybe this Variety “Bohemia” occupies significant production areas? Is it characterized by increased yield or disease resistance? Or has other important characteristics? This can be added in the variety description, in the “materials and methods” section.

3. What was the number of plants in each replication?

4. In the results in Figures 1 - 3, it is desirable to enlarge the axes labels; now they are difficult to read.

There are no comments on the results and statistical processing. The discussion also provides sufficient arguments to explain the results obtained. I recommend the article for publication

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for your comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions.

1. In the “materials and methods” section, it is advisable to add the location of the experiment.

Response: added in revised version.

2. What determines the choice of variety for testing? Maybe this Variety “Bohemia” occupies significant production areas? Is it characterized by increased yield or disease resistance? Or has other important characteristics? This can be added in the variety description, in the “materials and methods” section.

Response: The Bohemia variety was bred at the breeding station in Úhřetice, Selgen Plc. Czech Republic. It is an early to semi-early variety for food use, characterised by high hardiness and disease resistance. The variety is most abundant in the breeding plots. Added in revised version.

3. What was the number of plants in each replication?

Response: In each repetition there were 6 plants. Added in revised version.

4. In the results in Figures 1 - 3, it is desirable to enlarge the axes labels; now they are difficult to read.

Response: Figures 1-3 have been revised.

Again, thanks for your great comments. Your comments helped us a lot to improve our manuscript and we appreciate your careful attention. We hope that the edited manuscript is now suitable for publication in Agronomy.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some comments. Kindly find the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for your comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions.

Title: I suggest changing “selected” to some

Response: amended in revised version.

Abstract

# L 11- 13: Change “Water deficit (drought) is still one of the most important stress factors affecting not only yields, but also production quality. Breeders are focusing on breeding cultivars and crop lines that are more resistant to water shortages.” to “Water deficit (drought) is still one of the most important stress factors affecting yields and production quality. Breeders are focusing on breeding cultivars and wheat crop lines that are more resistant to water shortages. “

Response: added in revised version.

#L14 -16: “In addition to breeding, for example, for the size of the roots and changes in the color of the leaves, focus on changing the morphotype i.e. long chaff, multirowed ear. It is predicted that wheat genotypes with a morphotype change should be more drought tolerant.” These sentences should be rewritten. I suggest changing to” “In addition to the significance of changes in the size of the roots and the color of the leaves in breeding, morphological changes in wheat genotypes with a morphotype, such as long chaff and multirowed ears, play a crucial role in drought tolerance.”

Response: added in revised version.

#L 17- 20: Why Do you study the effect of water shortage on the physiological parameters of two different genotypes? Clarify the primary aim of the research in the abstract? I suggested adding the following sentence “to determine the physiological responses of each genotype and their ability/potential to resist drought.” after “to exposure to drought” (L 20)

Response: Wheat genotypes with morphotype changes are expected to be more drought tolerant. The study of their physiological state is of practical importance for the development of crop varieties and lines that are more resistant to water stress. Amended in revised version.

Introduction

Why did you select only “the Pigment content, photosynthesis and transpiration rate, water potential” to be measured in stressed plants? What about the morphological parameters, especially you test different genotypes? Identify each parameter and make theoretical notes about them in the introduction section. 

Response: The experiment was carried out in the early developmental stages (see methodology) and focused only on monitoring physiological parameters. Amended in revised version.

Materials and methods:

# L 96- 97: Head of “Materials and methods” should be at the beginning of the next page.

Response: amended in revised version.

#L 117 I suggest changing “Table 1. Scheme of the experiment” to : Table 1 Scheme of the experiment showing the intervals of irrigation.

Response: amended in revised version.

L 168: The work studies two factors; the effect of drought stress and the effect of genotype. The statistical analysis should be two-way ANOVA. It should take a representative sample for each treatments.

Response: added in revised version.

Results:

#L 205-206: “Table 2. Effect of variation on the content of photosynthetically active pigments (nM cm-2), total chlorophylls (Chltot) and carotenoids (Car), depending on wheat genotypes. Statistically significant differences at the  = 0.05 significance level are indicated by letters.” It should be shown the treatments in the table title “the effect of water deficit and the genotypes".

As the following for example:

“Table 2. Effect of water deficit on the content of photosynthetically active pigments (nM cm-2), total chlorophylls (Chltot) and carotenoids (Car), depending on wheat genotypes. Statistically significant differences at the  = 0.05 significance level are indicated by letters.”

Response: amended in revised version.

#In Table 2: Why is there some data in Table 1 with letters and others without?

# Why “a” letter is used for higher values and other times it is used for lower values. Please

illustrate this point.

# Data on all figures should be clear I suggest using the bold font.

# Clarify the treatments, Please, change “days” in all figures to “intervals irrigation (days)”.

Response: Errors and incomplete data have been corrected.

Discussion

#In discussion section: The results should be presented briefly and then discuss each obtained result.

Response: The discussion has been modified and supplemented to better present the results obtained and to support the conclusions of the other authors.

# L 448 : Rewrite “One of the important parameters that can be used to determine the level of resistance/sensitivity to stresses are fluorescence parameters.”

Response: amended in revised version.

Conclusion

#Correct ´Bohemia´the lowest. To ´Bohemia´is the lowest.

Response: amended in revised version.

References

#In the text there are 89 references while missing reference number 88.

#The reference list contains only 82 references

Response: amended in revised version.

#Delete the repeated word in L 354: compared to”, L364: “of”, and L 365: “in”

Response: amended in revised version.

Again, thanks for your great comments. Your comments helped us a lot to improve our manuscript and we appreciate your careful attention. We hope that the edited manuscript is now suitable for publication in Agronomy.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, firstly format the manuscript on the agronomy journal style template on https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy/instructions  and kindly check the English sentence structure and grammar errors throughout the manuscript, also suggest modified changes as per comments given below to enhance the clarity coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript.

·        Line 2-4: The title is concise and informative, but I suggest making it a bit more specific, perhaps by including the terms ‘Drought’, ‘morphological changes’ or ‘genotypic differences’ to reflect the focus on the different genotypes of wheat.

·        Line 11, Water deficit/ stress is not “drought” so the author should delete the word “drought” so change the statement in the light of the manuscript objective. Because drought is a period of below average precipitation in a given region result in prolonged shortage of water supply and water deficit is the amount of available water removed from the soil within the vegetation's active rooting depth or the amount of water required to bring the soil to the field capacity.

·        Line 21; It would be helpful to specify the method of inducing water deficit in the plants.

·        Line 27; Consider being more explicit about how genotype ‘29-17’ is promising regarding drought resistance, and possibly provide a brief explanation or a key result supporting this statement.

·        Line 23-25; It would be helpful to quantify the changes in transpiration rate, photosynthetic rate, water potential, and total chlorophyll content due to water deficit, even if briefly.

·        Line 28-29; The selected keywords are relevant. Consider adding “morphotype,” “genotype,” and “physiological parameters” to the keywords to enhance the searchability of the paper.

·        Line 41-46: The mechanisms mentioned here are vital; thus, consider providing a little more detail or examples about how these mechanisms work in response to drought, especially in the context of wheat crop yield.

·        Line 51: The phrase “is observed phenomenon is observed in maize” seems to be repeated and needs correction.

·        Line 60-65: authors consider to provide more specifics about the consequences of the mentioned physiological changes on wheat productivity or survival.

·        Line 87-95: the hypothesis is clearly stated in manuscript, but author suggested should mention and brief how this study fills a gap in the existing literature or advances our understanding of wheat’s response to drought.

·        Author should add the coordinates of and Map of experimental location in the manuscript.

·        Please specify the number of replicates for each treatment and the sample sizes for each measurement more explicitly.

·        Line 98-99; Please provide more details about the greenhouse conditions such as humidity levels, and specify the number of wheat plants grown per pot.

·        Line 102-109; The substrate’s description is detailed and valuable. However, the inclusion of the substrate composition would be helpful in replicating the study.

·        Line 110-115; author suggested to provide more information about the duration of each stage and the conditions maintained. Specifically, clarify the duration of the “end of the experiment” for D2.

·        Line 127-135; The methodology for determining pigment content is generally clear, but consider specifying the wavelengths at which the samples were analyzed and how the pigment contents were calculated from the absorbance values.

·        Line 155-160; author should specify whether the leaves used for fluorescence measurements were the same as those used for pigment and gas exchange measurements and provide any calculations used to derive the ratios mentioned.

·        Authors recommended to consider including tables summarizing the experimental design and conditions and figures or diagrams illustrating the experimental setup and workflow.

·        Line 181-185; consider providing more contextual information regarding whether these differences in pigment content were statistically significant and how they relate to the physiological performance of the plants.

·        Line 199-223; Consider simplifying this section to avoid repetition and enhance clarity. Providing a succinct summary of the most crucial points and referring to the table for detailed information can help maintain reader interest, moreover from this part the format of Agronomy journal is started.

·        Line 225-249; The section is somewhat repetitive, especially the part discussing stomatal conductance. Consider rephrasing for conciseness and clarity.

·        Line 259-271; The variations in the rate of photosynthesis are well-explained. It would be beneficial to relate these changes to the overall plant response to water deficit and provide interpretations wherever possible.

·        Line 272; author should revise the Figure 1 quality and improve the graph with some advance graphing package.

·        Line 333-336; author elaborating a bit on how these changes in water potential values may influence the plant’s physiological state or response to water deficit would be helpful.

·        Line 490-494: the conclusion section seems to go into much detail about the findings. Consider being more concise and focusing on the broader implications of these specific findings, leaving the detailed results to the Results section.

 

·      Line 505-507; The conclusion rightly identifies genotype '29-17' as promising regarding drought resistance and it would be beneficial to briefly discuss the implications of this finding for wheat cultivation in drought-prone areas and any recommendations for future research or practical applications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·        Line 32-34; revised the statement as “Drought, resulting from lower water availability [1], represents a significant constraint on agricultural productivity, with a substantial impact on crop yield [2,3]’’.

·        Line 47-49; for more clear readability the statement revised as “The structural changes associated with a decrease in water potential include a reduction in leaf area associated with lower availability of assimilates [12,13]”.

·        Line 127-129; This sentence is unclear due to its structure. Consider rephrasing.”

 

·        Line 111-115; The sentence is quite long and contains several ideas. Consider splitting it into multiple sentences for clarity.”

Moreover, author kindly check the English sentence structure, Grammar errors throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and for your comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions.

Line 2-4: The title is concise and informative, but I suggest making it a bit more specific, perhaps by including the terms ‘Drought’, ‘morphological changes’ or ‘genotypic differences’ to reflect the focus on the different genotypes of wheat.

Response: amended in revised version.

 Line 11, Water deficit/ stress is not “drought” so the author should delete the word “drought” so change the statement in the light of the manuscript objective. Because drought is a period of below average precipitation in a given region result in prolonged shortage of water supply and water deficit is the amount of available water removed from the soil within the vegetation's active rooting depth or the amount of water required to bring the soil to the field capacity.

Response: amended in revised version.

Line 21; It would be helpful to specify the method of inducing water deficit in the plants.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 27; Consider being more explicit about how genotype ‘29-17’ is promising regarding drought resistance, and possibly provide a brief explanation or a key result supporting this statement.

Response: The available information has been completed.

Line 23-25; It would be helpful to quantify the changes in transpiration rate, photosynthetic rate, water potential, and total chlorophyll content due to water deficit, even if briefly.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 28-29; The selected keywords are relevant. Consider adding “morphotype,” “genotype,” and “physiological parameters” to the keywords to enhance the searchability of the paper.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 41-46: The mechanisms mentioned here are vital; thus, consider providing a little more detail or examples about how these mechanisms work in response to drought, especially in the context of wheat crop yield.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 51: The phrase “is observed phenomenon is observed in maize” seems to be repeated and needs correction.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 60-65: authors consider to provide more specifics about the consequences of the mentioned physiological changes on wheat productivity or survival.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 87-95: the hypothesis is clearly stated in manuscript, but author suggested should mention and brief how this study fills a gap in the existing literature or advances our understanding of wheat’s response to drought.

Response: added in revised version.

Author should add the coordinates of and Map of experimental location in the manuscript. Response: added in revised version.

Please specify the number of replicates for each treatment and the sample sizes for each measurement more explicitly.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 98-99; Please provide more details about the greenhouse conditions such as humidity levels, and specify the number of wheat plants grown per pot.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 102-109; The substrate’s description is detailed and valuable. However, the inclusion of the substrate composition would be helpful in replicating the study.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 110-115; author suggested to provide more information about the duration of each stage and the conditions maintained. Specifically, clarify the duration of the “end of the experiment” for D2.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 127-135; The methodology for determining pigment content is generally clear, but consider specifying the wavelengths at which the samples were analyzed and how the pigment contents were calculated from the absorbance values.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 155-160; author should specify whether the leaves used for fluorescence measurements were the same as those used for pigment and gas exchange measurements and provide any calculations used to derive the ratios mentioned.

Response: added in revised version.

Authors recommended to consider including tables summarizing the experimental design and conditions and figures or diagrams illustrating the experimental setup and workflow.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 181-185; consider providing more contextual information regarding whether these differences in pigment content were statistically significant and how they relate to the physiological performance of the plants.

Response: added in revised version.

Line 199-223; Consider simplifying this section to avoid repetition and enhance clarity. Providing a succinct summary of the most crucial points and referring to the table for detailed information can help maintain reader interest, moreover from this part the format of Agronomy journal is started.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 225-249; The section is somewhat repetitive, especially the part discussing stomatal conductance. Consider rephrasing for conciseness and clarity.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 259-271; The variations in the rate of photosynthesis are well-explained. It would be beneficial to relate these changes to the overall plant response to water deficit and provide interpretations wherever possible.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 272; author should revise the Figure 1 quality and improve the graph with some advance graphing package.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 333-336; author elaborating a bit on how these changes in water potential values may influence the plant’s physiological state or response to water deficit would be helpful.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 490-494: the conclusion section seems to go into much detail about the findings. Consider being more concise and focusing on the broader implications of these specific findings, leaving the detailed results to the Results section.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Line 505-507; The conclusion rightly identifies genotype '29-17' as promising regarding drought resistance and it would be beneficial to briefly discuss the implications of this finding for wheat cultivation in drought-prone areas and any recommendations for future research or practical applications.

Response: amended in revised version.    

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 32-34; revised the statement as “Drought, resulting from lower water availability [1], represents a significant constraint on agricultural productivity, with a substantial impact on crop yield [2,3]’’.

Line 47-49; for more clear readability the statement revised as “The structural changes associated with a decrease in water potential include a reduction in leaf area associated with lower availability of assimilates [12,13]”.

Line 127-129; This sentence is unclear due to its structure. Consider rephrasing.”

Line 111-115; The sentence is quite long and contains several ideas. Consider splitting it into multiple sentences for clarity.”

Response: amended in revised version.    

Again, thanks for your great comments. Your comments helped us a lot to improve our manuscript and we appreciate your careful attention. We hope that the edited manuscript is now suitable for publication in Agronomy.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

N/A

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your diligent efforts in addressing and revising the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions provided during the first round of review. Your responsiveness and commitment to enhancing the quality of your work have not gone unnoticed. Thank you for valuing the peer-review process and for ensuring the highest standards for your research work.

 

Warm regards,

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.