Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of Recent Weather Variation on Agronomic Characteristics and Yield Components and Their Correlations of Winter Wheat in Jinju, South Korea” delivered a good finding. The research work used a good scientific approach. The study identified that grain yield was negatively correlated with average air temperature but positively associated with the number of days and the number of grains per spike. However, authors should improve the manuscript accordingly including grammar and punctuations throughout the text.

To sum up comments:

1) The title is too long and I suggest to rephrase it as much as possible.

2) Scientifically, the abstract session should include all sessions of the research chapters in a precise way. Here, the abstract session lacks introduction and M & M. I suggest authors should include introduction session to describe the statement of the problem initiating to conduct this research work so as to answer why and how the research work has been conducted.

3) Line 33 to 40 (the first paragraph of the introduction session): has no any relevance to the research. Why is this paragraph here? This paragraph is out of place and not related to the research work hence, I suggest to remove the paragraph.

4) Citations should appear in a similar way throughout the text according to the publisher guideline. Detailed comments are at the attached document.

5)  The plant materials (wheat varieties) used in the study lacks detail information. Why only these two wheat cultivars are selected? Source of these cultivars?, and other detailed information. 

6) There are some long statements which are difficult to understand by readers. Hence, authors should revise the manuscript in detail to ease to understand by readers.

Moreover, authors should improve the grammar and punctuation of the manuscript.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear editor,

The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of Recent Weather Variation on Agronomic Characteristics and Yield Components and Their Correlations of Winter Wheat in Jinju, South Korea” delivered a good finding. The research work used a good scientific approach. The study identified that grain yield was negatively correlated with average air temperature but positively associated with the number of days and the number of grains per spike. However, authors should improve the manuscript accordingly including grammar and punctuations throughout the text.

To sum up comments:

1) The title is too long and I suggest to rephrase it as much as possible.

2) Scientifically, the abstract session should include all sessions of the research chapters in a precise way. Here, the abstract session lacks introduction and M & M. I suggest authors should include introduction session to describe the statement of the problem initiating to conduct this research work so as to answer why and how the research work has been conducted.

3) Line 33 to 40 (the first paragraph of the introduction session): has no any relevance to the research. Why is this paragraph here? This paragraph is out of place and not related to the research work hence, I suggest to remove the paragraph.

4) Citations should appear in a similar way throughout the text according to the publisher guideline. Detailed comments are at the attached document.

5)  The plant materials (wheat varieties) used in the study lacks detail information. Why only these two wheat cultivars are selected? Source of these cultivars?, and other detailed information. 

6) There are some long statements which are difficult to understand by readers. Hence, authors should revise the manuscript in detail to ease to understand by readers.

Moreover, authors should improve the grammar and punctuation of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Response to the reviewers’ comments

 

The manuscript received English-editing from MDPI Author Services. I revised the manuscript in edited version.

 

I corrected typos in authors’ name: Sunhee Kim → Seonhui Kim; Eonjeong Rye → Eonjung Rye; Dae-Uk Kim → Dea-Wook Kim. I added Seong-Woo Cho as a corresponding author.

 

The reviewer #1.

1. The title is too long and I suggest to rephrase it as much as possible.

→ I changed it to “Evaluation of Recent Weather Variation on Winter Wheat Agronomic Characteristics, and Their Correlations in Jinju, South Korea”.

 

2. Scientifically, the abstract session should include all sessions of the research chapters in a precise way. Here, the abstract session lacks introduction and M & M. I suggest authors should include introduction session to describe the statement of the problem initiating to conduct this research work so as to answer why and how the research work has been conducted.

→ I added according to the reviewer’s comment “Wheat grain productivity is different from year to year because growing environments are highly seasonally variable under climate change”.

 

3. Line 33 to 40 (the first paragraph of the introduction session): has no any relevance to the research. Why is this paragraph here? This paragraph is out of place and not related to the research work hence, I suggest to remove the paragraph.

 

→ It’s my mistake. I removed it.

 

4. Citations should appear in a similar way throughout the text according to the publisher guideline. Detailed comments are at the attached document.

 

Line 43. Mg stands for what?

→ It stands million gram as a SI unit. I added the full form in the first time.

 

Line 43-44. Please rephrase this session.

→ I rephrased the sentence by means of English-editing.

 

Line 50-53. please rephrase this statement to clearly understand by readers.

→ I rephrased the sentence by means of English-editing.

 

Line 89. This citation is not correct.

→ I corrected it.

 

Line 92. Is this to mean "Genetic progress"?

→ I corrected it.

 

Line 98. Replace by: was

→ I corrected it.

 

Line 137. Replace by: were

→ I corrected it.

 

Line 151. Citations should be presented in a similar way throughout the text following the journal guideline.

→ Zadoks13-30 is not author name of cited reference, but growth stage number.

 

Line 159.

I removed “(2012)”.

 

Line 171.

I removed “(Anonymous, 2024)”.

 

5. The plant materials (wheat varieties) used in the study lacks detail information. Why only these two wheat cultivars are selected? Source of these cultivars?, and other detailed information. 

→ I added “The cvs. Geumgang (cv. Geuru sibling x Gwandong75) and Jokyong (Seri82 x cv. Geumgang) were registered new cultivars in 1 May 2000 and 18 April 2007, respectively, and supplied to growers as seeds certificated by the government”.

 

6. There are some long statements which are difficult to understand by readers. Hence, authors should revise the manuscript in detail to ease to understand by readers.

Moreover, authors should improve the grammar and punctuation of the manuscript.

→ We received English-editing services from MDPI Author Services.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzed the changes in weather conditions during the growing season from 2010 to 2023, and evaluated the crop development stages, yield related components, and variable correlations in the southern plains of South Korea. The results showed that after the lower winter temperatures, the winter dormancy period was prolonged, and the lower early spring temperatures led to an extension of the tillering period, delaying the growth rate and young ear development of aboveground plants, but increasing the number of ears and grains per ear, resulting in higher wheat yields under weather conditions in southern South Korea. Global warming has accelerated growth rates and often leads to high temperatures or frost stress, resulting in unstable wheat yields. The experimental data is abundant, and the results provide good guidance for production. However, there are still some minor issues that need to be addressed before the official publication.

 

1. Line 30: Whether the initial letters of keywords are capitalized should be consistent.

2. Line 43-52: The color of the font is inconsistent with other parts, please check it.

3. Line 40: This way of citing references is incorrect, and the references should be inserted into the corresponding content section.

4. Line 33-41: This part belongs to the outline and should not appear in the main text.

5. Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, These are two separate pictures, which cannot be distinguished by A and B.. You need to add captions separately.

6. There are two Figure 5 in the text.

7. Line 186, This title should not be indented at the beginning.

Author Response

Response to the reviewers’ comments

 

The manuscript received English-editing from MDPI Author Services. I revised the manuscript in edited version.

 

The reviewer #2.

1. Line 30: Whether the initial letters of keywords are capitalized should be consistent.

→ I corrected it.

 

2. Line 43-52: The color of the font is inconsistent with other parts, please check it.

→ I corrected it.

 

3. Line 40: This way of citing references is incorrect, and the references should be inserted into the corresponding content section.

→ I corrected it.

 

4. Line 33-41: This part belongs to the outline and should not appear in the main text.

→ I removed it.

 

5. Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, These are two separate pictures, which cannot be distinguished by A and B.. You need to add captions separately.

→ I revised them according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

6. There are two Figure 5 in the text.

→ I corrected it.

7. Line 186, This title should not be indented at the beginning.

→ I corrected it.

 

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report: Evaluation of Recent Weather Variation on Agronomic Characteristics
and Yield Components and Their Correlations of Winter Wheat in Jinju, South
Korea

Title: "The title is appropriate. However, considering that yield components are also integral to agronomic characteristics, that could be omitted from the title. This is merely a suggestion, and it is ultimately up to the author to decide whether to accept or not.

Abstract: The abstract is clear, concise, and informative, effectively presenting the outcomes of the research.

Line 32: Did can be replaced by showed.

Introduction: The introduction is clear and logically explains the necessity of the work, and the literature review is adequate. However, several sentences need modification to ensure a smooth flow of language.

Line 33-41: Delete all these lines in text.

Line 43-44: This sentence can be modified as “The total production was X million tons, with X tons allocated for feed and X tons designated for human consumption”.

Line 48: Delete known.

Line 69: Delete etc.

Line 71: Choose a different word to replace interested.

Line 78: Rewrite “which an important factor is contributing to yield reduction”.

Line 89: Delete  “]., 2009)”.

Line 90: No sense. “The effects of grain number per unit area”

Methodology:

The methodology is comprehensive and well-articulated. I commend the authors for the meticulous attention to detail, which will undoubtedly assist others in replicating this work.

Line 178: Please include information on the number of replicates used for each parameter evaluated.

Results and Discussion: The results and discussion section is comprehensive; however, there are several areas where text editing is necessary. Overall, it is clear that good work has been accomplished.

Line 185: Write Results and Discussion not only result.

Line 189: 1.2oC, 0.4oC. Ensure there is a space between the numeral and the degree Celsius symbol.

Line 227: Delete (CV).

Line 228: Delete did

Line 338: Replace did with another suitable word.

Line 358: Replace significantly by significant.

Line 359: Replace did with another suitable word.

Line 377: Replace significantly by significant.

Line 380: “significantly or insignificantly”: This is unclear. Clarify whether it is significant or non-significant in relation to the specific growth phase selected.

Line 381: Replace significantly by significant.

Line 402: Replace on by during.

Line 403: Ensure there is a space between the numeral and the degree Celsius symbol.

Line 431: Replace of by in.

Line 433: Delete on.

Line 433: “These results are considered”. Rewrite.

Line 442: “forets”. What is this?

Line 446: Write for after was.

Line 448: Replace decreased by decrease in.

Line 451: Replace is getting earlier by are advancing.

Line 466-469: Make two small sentences.

I suggest that the submission be accepted with only minor revisions required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing required. 

Author Response

Response to the reviewers’ comments

 

The manuscript received English-editing from MDPI Author Services. I revised the manuscript in edited version.

 

I corrected typos in authors’ name: Sunhee Kim → Seonhui Kim; Eonjeong Rye → Eonjung Rye; Dae-Uk Kim → Dea-Wook Kim. I added Seong-Woo Cho as a corresponding author.

The reviewer #3.

Title: "The title is appropriate. However, considering that yield components are also integral to agronomic characteristics, which could be omitted from the title. This is merely a suggestion, and it is ultimately up to the author to decide whether to accept or not.

→ I revised it according to the reviewer’s suggestion

 

Abstract: The abstract is clear, concise, and informative, effectively presenting the outcomes of the research.

 

Line 32: Did can be replaced by showed.

 

Introduction: The introduction is clear and logically explains the necessity of the work, and the literature review is adequate. However, several sentences need modification to ensure a smooth flow of language.

→ The manuscript was revised by English-editing services

 

Line 33-41: Delete all these lines in text.

→ I deleted them.

 

Line 43-44: This sentence can be modified as “The total production was X million tons, with X tons allocated for feed and X tons designated for human consumption”.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 48: Delete known.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 69: Delete etc.

→ I deleted it.

 

Line 71: Choose a different word to replace interested.

→ I changed it to “concerned”.

 

Line 78: Rewrite “which an important factor is contributing to yield reduction”.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 89: Delete  “]., 2009)”.

→ I deleted it.

 

Line 90: No sense. “The effects of grain number per unit area”

→ I changed “the effect” to “the role” by means of English-editing services.

 

Methodology:

The methodology is comprehensive and well-articulated. I commend the authors for the meticulous attention to detail, which will undoubtedly assist others in replicating this work.

Line 178: Please include information on the number of replicates used for each parameter evaluated.

→ The number of replications is mentioned in 2.2 Description of the Field Experiment.

Results and Discussion: The results and discussion section is comprehensive; however, there are several areas where text editing is necessary. Overall, it is clear that good work has been accomplished.

Line 185: Write Results and Discussion not only result.

→ I added it

 

Line 189: 1.2^oC, 0.4^oC. Ensure there is a space between the numeral and the degree Celsius symbol.

→ I corrected it according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Line 227: Delete (CV).

→ This abbreviation was added because it was mentioned for the first time.

 

Line 228: Delete did

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 338: Replace did with another suitable word.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 358: Replace significantly by significant.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 359: Replace did with another suitable word.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 377: Replace significantly by significant.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 380: “significantly or insignificantly”: This is unclear. Clarify whether it is significant or non-significant in relation to the specific growth phase selected.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 381: Replace significantly by significant.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 402: Replace on by during.

→ I corrected it according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Line 403: Ensure there is a space between the numeral and the degree Celsius symbol.

→ I corrected it according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Line 431: Replace of by in.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 433: Delete on.

→ I corrected it according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Line 433: “These results are considered”. Rewrite.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 442: “forets”. What is this?

→ It is defined as a small flower, especially one of the small flowers that is part of a larger flower.

 

Line 446: Write for after was.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 448: Replace decreased by decrease in.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 451: Replace is getting earlier by are advancing.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

Line 466-469: Make two small sentences.

→ I corrected it by means of English-editing services.

 

I suggest that the submission be accepted with only minor revisions required.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing required. 

→ The manuscript received English-editing from MDPI Author Services.

Thank you