The Choice of Soybean Cultivar Alters the Underyielding of Protein and Oil under Drought Conditions in Central Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript title: The choice of soybean cultivar alters the underyielding of protein and oil under drought conditions in central Poland
Manuscript id: applsci-1839782
Authors: W. Anna and A. Krystian
The manuscript regarding the topic and results presented is of interest to food/agricultural scientific community and revisions based on the comments below are recommended before considering for publication.
Major comments
· Line numbers and page numbers are missing! It hard to review without line numbers
· Insufficient abstract: In the abstract, the main aim and background of the manuscript is missing, the current version it only highlights the result. In addition, it would be even better to have a sentence as future perspective.
· The aim or hypothesis of the study is clear, however the approach is missing ….
· Lake of scientific literature to support the statements and finings throughout the manuscript…... I have made some suggestions for that and more need it….
· More information needed for ALL TABLE captions and define the abbreviation and units that used. And adjust the significant figures for the table and manuscript.
· Grammar and punctuation issuers are need to be addressed. I have selected/mentioned some as example.
· I am not sure whether the ‘’drought’’ term is well discussed in the abstract and manuscript, to reflect on the title. Please consider discuss it or rephase it.
· I have a major concern about the results and discussion section. The authors describe results and compare the results with previous studies, however, insight mechanisms are still not sufficient.
· This section is repeating information already presented and explaining things in an unnecessarily complicate way. The quality of the manuscript would benefit from the whole section being condensed.
· There are mixed term used in the text, sometime ‘’ tillage and no-tillage’’ used while in some places ‘’ till and no-till were used. Please consider harmonize in the text.
Minor comments:
Abstract
Place ‘’(K)’’ after ‘ hydrothermal coefficients’
Put VPD between brackets
Replace ‘’while in the seasons’’ with ‘’compare to’’
Introduction:
Page 1, Paragraph 1 line 4: with ‘’unique chemical composition’’ you meant ‘’nutritional values’’
Page 2, paragraph 1, line 3-7: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar
Page 2, Paragraph 2, line 1-2: the sentence is not clear, it seems broken.
Page 2, Paragraph 2, line 6-8: its not clear did you meant in soybean or in soybean by products.
What is ‘’ha’’ define the abbreviation
Page 2, Paragraph 3, line 2-4: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar
Page 2, Paragraph 4, line 1-3: A reference needed here, for example https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01477
Page 2, Paragraph 4, line 6: A reference needed here, for example
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.849896
or
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33160
Page 2, Paragraph 4, line 7-9: A complicated sentence, please revise
Page 3, Paragraph 1, line 5: please check the grammar
Page 3, the link between Paragraph 1 and 2 is weak.
In MM section
Literature references are missing for all sub-section. It would be better to cite the references that the procedure adapted.
In addition, detail on the protein and oil content analysis is missing in the MM section.
Page 5, Paragraph 1, line 1-5: please check the grammar
Table 1: please give the full name of the origin locations
Table 4: is the precipitation in sum of monthly or yearly? In addition, the abbreviation of the month is not clear please define…
Page 9, Statistical methods.
Why did you used to testes for significance differences: The HSD and Student’s t-test.
R&D section
Page 9, Paragraph 1, line 5-9: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar
Fig 2: The numbers of on the ax-s is not clear, consider to remove the shad.
Page 13, Paragraph 1, line 5-9: A complicated sentence, please revise
Fig 3: Why the data in 2020 for some of the cultivar is missing?
Figure 6: In the right panel; why there is a and c? how this comparison was made? Should not be a and b?
Page 20, Paragraph 2, line 5-9: this statement belongs to result, please consider to move it to the result section or rephrase it…..
Page 21, Paragraph 1, line 7-9: what is those impacts? The image is not clear, please discuss it more….
Page 21, Paragraph 2, line 12: this statement belongs to result, please consider to move it to the result section or rephrase it…..
Page 22, Paragraph 2, line 1-5: A complicated sentence, please revise
Conclusion
I believe there are other a lot nice conclusions could be made from this study…. And the future perspectives for following research highly crucial here
Nice conclusions! However, the future perspectives for following research highly crucial here …..
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your report. I appreciate a lot your affort on my manuscript correction.
Please see the attachment with my responses
Regards
Anna Wenda-Piesik
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is devoted to the urgent problem of promoting one of the most economically profitable crops – soybeans - to new regions. Based on a comprehensive study of 20 varieties in 6 locations in Poland, agrometeorological patterns of crop formation, protein and oil content were identified, and the most promising varieties were identified, including for till and no-till cultivation. The material is logically presented, read with pleasure. However, there are several points in the text that need clarification.
There are no line numbers – it is inconvenient to comment.
Abstract: “the yield of soybean constantly increased with increasing K (32.3% and 22.4%)”, - what do these values refer to?
Page 4, line 6 "Witrogosz" - are two letters from "Witrogoszcz" missing?
“The classification for Poland's temperature climate is K<1.0 dry season; 1.1–1.2 relatively dry seasons; 1.3–1.6 optimal humid; and K>1.7 humid season" - We see, that the optimum for soybean yields lies higher in humid conditions. And it is unclear what the name “optimal" refers to.
Fig. 1 - we see that Group 4 has no significant excess of yield over group 3 at any point and in any year. The question arises whether linear regression from VPD is justified. Perhaps there is a tendency to non-linearity in the zone of high VPD values. For example, the presence of maximum in oil and minimum in the protein in soybean seeds, depending on the duration of vegetation and the hydrothermal coefficient, is shown in Novikova L. Yu., Seferova I. V., Nekrasov A. Yu., Perchuk I. N., Shelenga T. V., Samsonova M. G., Vishnyakova M. A. Impact of weather and climate on seed protein and oil content of soybean in the North Caucasus // Vavilov Journal of genetics and breeding. 2018. 22(6). P.708 – 715 DOI 10.18699/VJ18.414.
“Fig. 2. The relationship between vegetation period in days (VPD) and hydrothermal coefficient (K)…” – the title is incorrect as the dependence of yield on K and VPD is shown. The designations of the axes are unsuccessful (X1-K; X2-VPD); the numbers of the axes are not readable. The signatures of the axes should be meaningful, and not tied to the regression equation, i.e. "hydrothermal coefficient" and "vegetation duration". It would be more interesting to see real points in the figure since the figure simply duplicates a linear equation.
Fig. 5 –design suggestions similar to Fig. 3.
“Significantly higher seed yield and higher oil content provided the cultivars with an average VPD of 143 ± 2 d. (Abelina, Aligator, Aurelina, Bohemians, Comandor, Favorit, Galice, Merlin, Obelix, Sirelia and Silesia), than the cultivars grouped around VPD 132 ± 3 d (Abaca, Amarok, Annushka, Answer, Augusta, Erica, Mavka, Mayrika, Violeta).” – a dubious conclusion. The Mavka cultivar in Table 2 has a VPD of 140 – 148 days. It turns out, according to VPD, it is impossible to predict the reaction to the farming system. We need an explanation for this contradiction.
"Table 8. Soybean cultivars were grouped in terms of vegetation period in terms of days seed yield, oil and protein content for till and no till cultivation" – is "in terms of days" repetition? In general, not a very good title, it would be more logical to call "Clusters ...".
It is better to show the regressions equations on a separate lines and number them in brackets, such as (1), (2).
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Many thanks you for your report. I appreciate a lot your suggestions and comments.
Please see the attachment with my responses
Regards
Anna Wenda-Piesik
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
your manuscript entitled The choice of soybean cultivar alters the underyielding of protein and oil under drought conditions in central Poland deals with an interesting topic because legumes introduction in EU cropping systems could be a promising and effective eco-friendly technique to help sustainability of crop production and food security worldwide.
The paper is properly organized and could be published after minor revision.
Legends of tables and figures need amendments to be self-explicative and able to stand alone without having to refer to the main text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your report. I have revised all the graphs and tables according to your suggestion. The native speaker also improved the English text.
sincerely yours
Anna Wenda-Piesik
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
manuscript has improved compared to the original version. The Authors tried to address my questions as much as possible. I recommend the manuscript to be published!
