Responses of Total Biomass, Shoot Dry Weight, Yield and Yield Components of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Varieties under Different Terminal Drought Duration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors use yield potential and yield reduction terms throughout the paper – they need to define these and explain how they are different

23-24 … under a long drought in a tropical region. A split-plot design field experiment with 4 replications was repeated for two years.
26-27 Overall parameters – too vague. Perhaps “Crop parameters”
28-32 I find these three sentences very confusing and can’t figure them out
37 what is “functional”?
38-39 incomplete sentence, should be combined with previous sentence
44 do not use the citations numbers to work the same as author names. Better stated as Without drought… high tuber quality (8,9).
47 “At” terminal growth stages?
50 The tuberization…..tropical area (11).
53 production, especially in the tropical regions where drought…
54 In most areas
55 with two peaks, either in mid- or late October.
56 delete this sentence
57 Duration of …largely depends..
58-59 increasing evaporation brought on by global warming.
60 ...growth stages with water shortages as the limiting factor for crop growth and yield of JA.
62 Many empirical studies of potted plants …droughts reduced yields by more than 86%...
64-66 either omit or rewrite this sentence.
67 improved
68 conducted under terminal…(14)
68-71 Do not start with “Reference (14) determined…” Write the summary sentence, then attribute the citation (14).
72 I don’t get the difference between high yield potential and low yield reduction. You need to do a better job with these terms (in the abstract, too).
79 Experimental design – you don’t mention if the location was the for each year
83 and were assigned…
84-86 …JA125) that were selected based on different responses of biomass and tuber yield to long periods of drought …..
86, 88 change had to have – these are crop characteristics so use the present tense
91 include the latitude and longitude.
92 Crop management – well written and nicely explained
111 seedlings
115-118 Need sprayer type.
116 litters – L
120-122 decimals from 2 to 1. Never that much precision in water content.
129 delete following recommend of.
136 soil sample – upper 6”, plow layer? How sampled – grid, etc. more details needed. Need more details on sample methods – not a lot, just some standard procedures that everyone will recognize.
141 were
160 border
165 might be better to repeat Harvest Index (HI) instead of just HI
166 Average tuber weight (not tuber size which refers to dimensions)
173 MSTAT AT-C – needs company, city, state in parentheses
180 over the two years.
185-186 Figure 1 should be omitted – I don’t think the daily data really adds that much to the results. Plus, it’s impossible to read.
191 – good idea to remind reader that withholding water began at 45 DAT.
Figure 3 – impossible to read and see which treatment is which by the colors of the bars.
199 you should write about Year first, since that is how it appears in your table, Then do SD.
201 not tuber size but average tuber weight, “most” – not true. 4 were ns and only 3 were significant.
212, 214 average tuber weight not size
213-218 You need to explain these interactions and why you think they occurred in some traits and not in others
231 average tuber weight not size
230-340 – needs to shortened and tightened up. Focus on just the most important results.
344 delete under this area.
344-348 You’ve already reported all these values – no need to do it again.
348 – do you mean the difference between the two years?
349-350, rewrite and shorten this sentence. Very run-on.
352-358 Basically saying the same thing over and over, reduce the redundancy
359-368 a lot of repeat info. This might be a good reason to fold the discussion into the results section so you don’t have to repeat the data again here.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COVER LETTER FOR RESUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

 

Subject: RESUBMISSION OF A REVISED MANUSCRIPT FOR EVALUATION

 

Dear Editor,

 

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript “Responses of total biomass, shoot dry weight, yield and yield components of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) genotypes under different terminal drought duration” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-794523) has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. The details of the revision are given to all reviewers to explain more in-depth by point-by-point. Lastly, the changes in the manuscript are used highlighted in yellow color.

 

 

Your sincerely,

 

Sanun Jogloy

(Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following comments on the manuscript: 

1. The study (incl. writing the manuscript) was carried out by 8 people. At the end of the manuscript they have explained the individual responsibility for this project. Nevertheless, I wonder why this large group of authors was involved and what did each co-author contribute to it. Therefore, please justify in detail why this large number of authors and what each member has done. 
2. A large numer of JA varieties were included in this study. However, there is no description about these varieties regarding the origin, the genetic background, the state or private licence or its properties. Is one of the tested varieties already cultivated in agriculture? 
3. The soil of the used experimental station was analyzed for total N, organic matter, bulk density, P, K, Ca, CEC and more. But there is no information which method was used for determining these parameters. Please describe shortly the lab methods or cite the literature or Standard Methods.
4. The first results (chapter 3) include the analyzed soil parameters (tab. 1) and the climate data (figure 1). This approach is incorrect. Tab 1 and fig 1 have to be moved to the chapter 2 because those data are not experimental findings. 
5. Where is figure 2? Please clarify and correct the list/numbers of figures.
6. What about inulin content of the tubers of the investigated varieties? It seems this important chemical parameter has not been analyzed?
7. You explain "year effects". Because the location/soil was changed between the two years it could be also a soil effect. Please comment and explain it. 
8. The botanic name of the crop must be written in italic style. 

Author Response

COVER LETTER FOR RESUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

 

Subject: RESUBMISSION OF A REVISED MANUSCRIPT FOR EVALUATION

 

Dear Editor,

 

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript “Responses of total biomass, shoot dry weight, yield and yield components of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) genotypes under different terminal drought duration” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-794523) has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. The details of the revision are given to all reviewers to explain more in-depth by point-by-point. Lastly, the changes in the manuscript are used highlighted in yellow color.

 

 

Your sincerely,

 

Sanun Jogloy

(Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

 

SUMMARY

 

The paper addresses the research area related to “Crop Production” of the MDPI Agriculture journal. I believe that the target journal is an appropriate forum for this article. The paper aims to estimate the effects of different terminal drought durations on total biomass, tuber yield, harvest index, and yield components, and to identify varieties with high tuber fresh weight (economic yield) under long-drought in tropic region, in Khon Kaen, Thailand.

 

BROAD COMMENTS

 

The Introduction section is well done. The methodology is well written and detailed. I appreciate the fact that the authors did two years (seasons) trials in the study. This help to capture the variability and minimizing the experimental errors. However, the weakness of this study is that the authors failed to put the conclusion of the study in a big picture; it is too specific to the study area and the experiment. Please do include more implications of the results of the study in the conclusion section.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

 

Lines 136-139: I suggest that the authors mention the methods used in the Lab to measure each soil parameter mentioned here.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COVER LETTER FOR RESUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPT

 

Subject: RESUBMISSION OF A REVISED MANUSCRIPT FOR EVALUATION

 

Dear Editor,

 

First of all, we would like to thank you for considering our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript “Responses of total biomass, shoot dry weight, yield and yield components of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) genotypes under different terminal drought duration” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-794523) has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. The details of the revision are given to all reviewers to explain more in-depth by point-by-point. Lastly, the changes in the manuscript are used highlighted in yellow color.

 

 

Your sincerely,

 

Sanun Jogloy

(Corresponding Author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising and improving the manuscript. I do accept the cuurent version now.

Best regards