Response of Indian Dwarf Wheat and Persian Wheat to Sowing Density and Hydrothermal Conditions of the Growing Seasons
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is generally well written. The results are presented comprehensively and clearly. Appropriate statistical methods were used. I only have a few minor comments:
Line [101] - close the parenthesis
Table 1 - it is more correct to give the content of assimilable forms of macronutrients in g kg-1, and the same applies to the content of organic carbon
Line [142] – ‘kg ha-1’ it shouldn't be subscript
Table 2 - Is the given average temperature for March 2018 correct?. For rainfall it is not a monthly average, but a sum. insert mean / sum instead of mean
In my opinion, it is worth calculating the Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficient and analyzing its relationship with the determined parameters.
Line [167-178] - please specify pesticide application dates using the BBCH scale
In which units are the values in tables 7 and 8. In percent? this needs to be clarified.
Please add a unit to ‘sowing density’ and to ‘CV’ in the tables
Please add a unit to ‘sowing density’ on the Figure 1
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful for all suggestions that have allowed us to improve our manuscript. We made all the changes as suggested.
Comment 1. Line [101] - close the parenthesis
Answer 1. It was corrected.
Comment 2. Table 1 - it is more correct to give the content of assimilable forms of macronutrients in g kg-1, and the same applies to the content of organic carbon.
Answer 2. Units in Table 1 were changed as suggested.
Comment 3. Line [142] – ‘kg ha-1’ it shouldn't be subscript
Answer 3. It was corrected.
Comment 4. Table 2 - Is the given average temperature for March 2018 correct?. For rainfall it is not a monthly average, but a sum. insert mean / sum instead of mean
Answer 4. It was corrected.
Comment 5. In my opinion, it is worth calculating the Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficient and analyzing its relationship with the determined parameters.
Answer 5. The correlations of the Sielianinov's hydrothermal coefficients with the determined parameters were calculated (Table S1 and S2, Supplementary Materials) and described in the manuscript (Lines 472-476).
Comment 6. Please specify pesticide application dates using the BBCH scale
Answer 6. BBCH scale was added.
Comment 7. In which units are the values in tables 7 and 8. In percent? this needs to be clarified.
Answer 7. Units were completed.
Comment 8. Please add a unit to ‘sowing density’ and to ‘CV’ in the tables
Answer 8. Units were added.
Comment 9. Please add a unit to ‘sowing density’ on the Figure 1
Answer 9. The unit was added.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to meet the manuscript entitled: "Response of Indian dwarf wheat and Persian wheat to sowing density and hydrothermal conditions of the growing seasons". New research into "forgotten" genetic resources is important.
It is a great loss that the qualitative and physiological parameters of the monitored species were not addressed in this research. This would significantly increase the manuscript quality.
Nevertheless, I evaluate the statistical analysis and the number of monitored features positively, although I think that there is a possible improvement in this area as well:
As the influence of two factors (sowing density and weather conditions) was observed in the experiment, it is also necessary to perform an analysis of the interactions of these factors (two-way ANOVA). It is well known that the weather has a decisive influence on crop yields and quality. However, it would be useful to find out whether it is not possible to mitigate the negative impact of the dry year by some specific interaction (sowing density x year).
The other comments are set out in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are very grateful for all suggestions that have allowed us to improve our manuscript. Below we provide answers to all comments.
Comment A - It is a great loss that the qualitative and physiological parameters of the monitored species were not addressed in this research. This would significantly increase the manuscript quality.
Answer A. Thank you for this comment. The qualitative parameters of the yield will be the subject of subsequent publications.
Comment B. As the influence of two factors (sowing density and weather conditions) was observed in the experiment, it is also necessary to perform an analysis of the interactions of these factors (two-way ANOVA). It is well known that the weather has a decisive influence on crop yields and quality. However, it would be useful to find out whether it is not possible to mitigate the negative impact of the dry year by some specific interaction (sowing density x year).
Answer B: In our publication, we conducted such an analysis, and its methodology is described in the revised chapter 2.4. We analyzed all parameters, including the grain yield of both wheat species sown at different sowing densities in individual years. The results of this analysis have been described in detail in the Results and interpreted in the Discussion, taking into account the reaction of yields depending on the sowing density in individual years. The results of these analyzes are summarized in Abstract and Conclusions.
Comment C. The other comments are set out in the attachment.
Answers C:
- Line 132 – the word ,,relatively’’ was deleted
- Table 1. – the dot was deleted
- Line 141 – Comment: Why were P and K nutrients applied in the spring?
Answer: We agree with the Reviewer that spring fertilization with P and K is rarely used. However, our experiment was located on light soil with high potassium and phosphorus content. We decided to fertilize the spring with a small dose of P, because the purpose of this fertilization was mainly to maintain high soil fertility. Similarly, the spring use of potassium was justified by the high content of this nutrient in the soil and the risk of its leaching during the winter.
- Lines 191-162 We removed the duplicate seeding densities as suggested by the Reviewer.
- Table 2. The incorrect value in Table 2 was corrected.
- Table 5. (and Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) Comment: Why was not the identification of the data for the significance of differences for all traits?
Answer: We performed ANOVA for all parameters in each year of the study, but in the absence of significant differences, the group of similar values was not marked with the same letter "a". It turned out, however, that it is not clear, so in the revised manuscript we added the same letters ("a") in the absence of significant differences between the means.
