Improving Rice Yield by Promoting Pre-anathesis Growth in Subtropical Environments
D.M.S.B. Dissanayaka
Prakash Jha
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to authors
Title of the paper: Rice yield gap caused by lower pre-anthesis biomass production resulted from climatic factors between two subtropical environments
Methodology:
L108-117: I recommend to include basic soil properties of two locations in a table as given below. That will be more visible to readership. Some soil properties of two locations are greatly different. For example, soil pH and available P. This difference in soil parameters could also make a difference of rice growth and yield in two locations.
|
Soil parameter |
Deyang |
Luzhou |
|
pH |
7.1 |
5.5 |
|
Organic matter (g/kg) |
||
|
Total N (g/kg) |
L130-134: Water management between two locations are also different. What is the reason for using two different water management methods for two locations? There is a huge possibility that water management influence crop growth and yield.
L 149-150: “Grain yield was determined from a 5-m2 area in the middle of each plot and adjusted to a moisture content of 13.5%. How did you make this adjustment? Is it based on a calculation?
Table 1: Indicate the unit of the growth duration (days)
Table 2. Tables and figures of a manuscript should self-explanatory/ stand alone. Simple letters (a, b, …) given after each value seems representing the statistical difference between cultivar in each location. If so, you need to mention that in the Table footnote. This comment applies to several other tables in this manuscript
In Table 2, what is the unit of Grain weight? Is it mg/plant or mg/m2?
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments, which greatly helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. All changes are marked in red in the manuscript, and our point-by-point responses are listed below.
Question1: L108-117: I recommend to include basic soil properties of two locations in a table as given below. That will be more visible to readership. Some soil properties of two locations are greatly different. For example, soil pH and available P. This difference in soil parameters could also make a difference of rice growth and yield in two locations.
Response: The properties of the two experimental fields are presented in Table 1.
Question2: L130-134: Water management between two locations are also different. What is the reason for using two different water management methods for two locations? There is a huge possibility that water management influence crop growth and yield.
Response: The fields in the mountainous region of Luzhou for rice production are characterized by constantly water-logging paddy fields, and the fields can not be drained during rice growing season due to the inadequate irrigation infrastructure and drought conditions. So the paddy fields were keeping water all round year. Although the water management practice was same in pot experiments between two locations, there was a large difference in grain yield between two locations. Thus, the climatic conditions are responsible for the difference in grain yield between the two locations, and the effect of water management on grain yield between two locations is ignore.
Question3: L 149-150: “Grain yield was determined from a 5-m2 area in the middle of each plot and adjusted to a moisture content of 13.5%. How did you make this adjustment? Is it based on a calculation?
Response: Firstly, the fresh weight of filled grain of each plot was weighed, secondly, three subsamples of 50 g filled grains were taken to determine the moisture content of filled grains, thirdly, grain yield was adjusted to a moisture content of 13.5%.
Question4 : Table 1: Indicate the unit of the growth duration (days)
Response: We have been added the unit of the growth duration (days) according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Table 2)
Question5 : Table 2. Tables and figures of a manuscript should self-explanatory/ stand alone. Simple letters (a, b, …) given after each value seems representing the statistical difference between cultivar in each location. If so, you need to mention that in the Table footnote. This comment applies to several other tables in this manuscript.
Response: We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion, and the Table footnotes have been revised. (Table 3, 5-8)
Question6 : In Table 2, what is the unit of Grain weight? Is it mg/plant or mg/m2?
Response: We have been changed the “grain weight” to “thousand grain weight”, it is the g/thousand grains. (Table 3)
The revised manuscript has been submitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive responses. Thank you very much and best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Peng jiang
Rice and Sorghum Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Deyang 618000, China
FuXian Xu
Rice and Sorghum Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Deyang 618000, China
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a good investigation include a lot of information’s, only some point need to improve. For example, the soil properties of the two locations can be presented in table better, some tables need to re-arrange. Some data better to present in histograms.
Comments
Materials
1- Soil and site characteristic (row 108- row 116) it is better to be in table to see the difference.
2- Also very important to add the weather data, Minimum, Maximum, average temperature and humidity for the two locations – in the two years for filed and put experiments.
3- References for the measurements for all agronomy and physiological traits should be added in materials and methods.
Results
1- Row 189, Sentence start with, but plants grown at need to write again? Also no need to put a privation (d) for day (d), it better to write day, you can replace it in the manuscript.
2- Table 2, should be rearranged and better to be in one page.
3- Figure 1, need to improved and data on the vertical axes, on Figure (1-b, 1,-c, 1-d, 1-e).
4- In table 6, grain weight (mg), this should be 1000 grain weight (g). Also grain filling I think this is the spikelet fertility%.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments, which greatly helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. All changes are marked in red in the manuscript, and our point-by-point responses are listed below.
Question1: This is a good investigation include a lot of information’s, only some point need to improve. For example, the soil properties of the two locations can be presented in table better, some tables need to re-arrange. Some data better to present in histograms.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The properties of the two experimental fields are presented in Table 1. There were a large number of data in each table, it is difficult to change the table to figure, and the self-explanability of the figures will be low.
Question2 : Soil and site characteristic (row 108- row 116) it is better to be in table to see the difference.
Response: The properties of the two experimental fields are presented in Table 1.
Question3: Also very important to add the weather data, Minimum, Maximum, average temperature and humidity for the two locations – in the two years for filed and put experiments.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! The weather data was obtained from the local meteorological bureaus. We did not collect the weather data of the rice plants canopy for field experiments and pot experiments. We will collect the weather data of the rice plants canopy in the future field experiments.
Question4: References for the measurements for all agronomy and physiological traits should be added in materials and methods.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been added the references. (P4, L140; L156)
Results
Question1: Row 189, Sentence start with, but plants grown at need to write again? Also no need to put a privation (d) for day (d), it better to write day, you can replace it in the manuscript.
Response: We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (P5, L1193- L195)
Question2: Table 2, should be rearranged and better to be in one page.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion, and all the Tables in the present study have been rearranged in one page.
Question 3: Figure 1, need to improved and data on the vertical axes, on Figure (1-b, 1,-c, 1-d, 1-e).
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! The data on the vertical axes of figure 1 is the same, so we do not think it is need to add the data on the vertical axes for Figure (1-b, 1,-c, 1-e, 1-f)
Question 4: In table 6, grain weight (mg), this should be 1000 grain weight (g). Also grain filling I think this is the spikelet fertility %.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. We have been changed the “grain weight” to “thousand grain weight”, and replaced the “ grain filling” with “percentage of grain filling”.
The revised manuscript has been submitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive responses. Thank you very much and best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Peng jiang
Rice and Sorghum Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Deyang 618000, China
FuXian Xu
Rice and Sorghum Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Deyang 618000, China
Reviewer 3 Report
General:
This paper is nicely drafted and easy to read.
Abstract:
Line 16: The problem statement should be clearly mentioned in the beginning.
Line 18: Please clearly mention the hypothesis and objectives in 2-3 lines before the experiment details and results.
Line 16: Please conclude with the future implications of this study.
Introduction:
Line 76: Please mention the scientific name of rice on its first use.
Line 99: Please clearly mention the hypothesis before the objectives
The introduction needs more recent literature support.
M&M:
Line 121: A map of the location would be better for the reader to Understand.
Discussion:
I would suggest the authors have a more supported discussion with references considering the main point: The limitations of the method and considerations when to apply the studied methodology and then the potential next steps or further investigation to address these limitations.
Conclusion: Please highlight about future implications and challenges of this study.
References: Please double-check the style of references and if missing one
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments, which greatly helped to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. All changes are marked in red in the manuscript, and our point-by-point responses are listed below.
Abstract:
Question1 : Line 16: The problem statement should be clearly mentioned in the beginning.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (P1, L17-L19)
Question2 : Line 18: Please clearly mention the hypothesis and objectives in 2-3 lines before the experiment details and results.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (P1, L19-L21)
Question3 : Line 16: Please conclude with the future implications of this study.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion.(P1, L32-L35)
Introduction:
Question1 : Line 76: Please mention the scientific name of rice on its first use.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been checked Line 76, where is not mention the scientific name of rice. We have been added the the scientific name of rice on its first use in P3 L125-L127.
Question2 : Line 99: Please clearly mention the hypothesis before the objectives
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (P3, L101-L105)
Question3 : The introduction needs more recent literature support.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been added three new references in introduction section. (reference 1 and 7-8)
M&M:
Question1 : Line 121: A map of the location would be better for the reader to Understand.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been added a map of the experiment site according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (Fig. 1)
Discussion:
Question1 : I would suggest the authors have a more supported discussion with references considering the main point: The limitations of the method and considerations when to apply the studied methodology and then the potential next steps or further investigation to address these limitations.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (P17, L425-426; L432-433; L449; P18, L499-502; P19, L546-L547; P20, L571-L573)
Conclusion:
Question1 : Please highlight about future implications and challenges of this study.
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. (P20, L591-L594)
References:
Question1 : Please double-check the style of references and if missing one
Response: Thank you for reviewer’s suggestion! We have been check reference according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
The revised manuscript has been submitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive responses. Thank you very much and best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Peng jiang
Rice and Sorghum Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Deyang 618000, China
FuXian Xu
Rice and Sorghum Research Institute, Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Deyang 618000, China
