Barley Seed Germination and Seedling Growth Responses to Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)-Induced Drought Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, I will provide you with all of my scientific comments, but the article requires considerable improvement in its present format, such as: the abstract is not well written; you must follow the instruction of it from a brief introduction, the objectives and methods, the key findings, and ultimately a short conclusion. Also, your introduction should be revised with the intention of avoiding utilizing any facts without proper citation. Some aspects of your approach should be comprehensive and include references. The discussion section needs to be expanded. Your numbers one, two, and three need to be edited to include important stars or letters. After your discussion, you should include a section for conclusions. Please, you have substantial data, but it has to be presented in a more positive light. Thus, I'm waiting for your editing to provide you some small feedback.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comment: Dear Authors, I will provide you with all of my scientific comments, but the article requires considerable improvement in its present format, such as:
the abstract is not well written; you must follow the instruction of it from a brief introduction, the objectives and methods, the key findings, and ultimately a short conclusion.
Response: The abstract has been improved (line 15-23).
Also, your introduction should be revised with the intention of avoiding utilizing any facts without proper citation.
Response: More references have been added (line 26, 28, 29, 31, etc.).
Comment: Some aspects of your approach should be comprehensive and include references.
Response: Materials and Methods has been improved and more references have been added (line 59-87).
Comment: The discussion section needs to be expanded. Your numbers one, two, and three need to be edited to include important stars or letters.
Response: Discussion section was improved (line 162-289).
Comment: After your discussion, you should include a section for conclusions. Please, you have substantial data, but it has to be presented in a more positive light. Thus, I'm waiting for your editing to provide you some small feedback.
Response: Conclusions section has been added (line 291-297).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBarley, as a kind of worldwide distributed crop, is often cultivated in crop rotation and intercropping systems under diverse climates and soil conditions. However, the human being has to face the environmental challenge for the drought stress will become more frequent and intensive. Therefore, this study tried to investigate the responses of ten barley genotypes to drought stress induced by PEG and identify drought-tolerant genotypes for potential use in breeding programs. It’s helpful for the breeder to select the higher resistance germplasms to release new varieties.
However, there are some problems including germination method and writing etc. should be revised further.
Some problems need to be revised in the manuscript listed as follow:
1 In 2.2 Experimental design, the germination temperature should be described clearly.
2 In 2.3 Trait measurements, seed germination rate (GR) should be revised as seed germination percentage (GP). Also there is similar problem in the Figure 1.
3 the citation format of the references does not meet the requirement of the Journal, such as Hellal, F. A. et al. [12] reported in line 145-146.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comment: Barley, as a kind of worldwide distributed crop, is often cultivated in crop rotation and intercropping systems under diverse climates and soil conditions. However, the human being has to face the environmental challenge for the drought stress will become more frequent and intensive. Therefore, this study tried to investigate the responses of ten barley genotypes to drought stress induced by PEG and identify drought-tolerant genotypes for potential use in breeding programs. It’s helpful for the breeder to select the higher resistance germplasms to release new varieties.
However, there are some problems including germination method and writing etc. should be revised further. Some problems need to be revised in the manuscript listed as follow:
Comment 1: 1 In 2.2 Experimental design, the germination temperature should be described clearly.
Response: Done as suggested (line 63-64 and Line 69-70).
Comment 2: In 2.3 Trait measurements, seed germination rate (GR) should be revised as seed germination percentage (GP). Also there is similar problem in the Figure 1.
Response 2: Corrected as suggested (line 77 and 122).
Comment 3: the citation format of the references does not meet the requirement of the Journal, such as Hellal, F. A. et al. [12] reported in line 145-146.
Response 3: Corrected as suggested (line 144)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript does not meet the fundamental requirements of a research paper. It is overly brief, and none of the sections are sufficiently developed. The introduction lacks references for several statements, and the current state of literature on this topic is not addressed. The goal is not clearly defined, particularly given that it focuses solely on the germination process.
The materials and methods section requires significant improvement. There is no information on the origin, production year, or rationale for selecting this specific genotype. Additionally, the applied methods lack appropriate citations. A major issue is that too few parameters are examined; the parameters assessed do not align with the ambitious goal and title of the manuscript.
Furthermore, the results are repetitive, with graphs and tables presenting the same data. There is minimal discussion, and the paper includes far too few references; a minimum of 25 references is necessary for a comprehensive review of the topic.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: This manuscript does not meet the fundamental requirements of a research paper. It is overly brief, and none of the sections are sufficiently developed. The introduction lacks references for several statements, and the current state of literature on this topic is not addressed. The goal is not clearly defined, particularly given that it focuses solely on the germination process.
Response 1: The introduction section has been improved (line 26-56).
Comment 2: The materials and methods section requires significant improvement. There is no information on the origin, production year, or rationale for selecting this specific genotype.
Response 2: The information has been provided in M&M (line 61, 69-70,75-76).
Comment 3: Additionally, the applied methods lack appropriate citations. A major issue is that too few parameters are examined; the parameters assessed do not align with the ambitious goal and title of the manuscript.
Response 3: We have added references and discuss the parameters in Discussion section (line 162-289).
Comment 4: Furthermore, the results are repetitive, with graphs and tables presenting the same data. There is minimal discussion, and the paper includes far too few references; a minimum of 25 references is necessary for a comprehensive review of the topic.
Response 4: The table include the data of seed germination drought tolerance index, which not showing in Figures. The discussion has been extended and references have been added (line 162-289).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy Comments
1- What does the acronym PEG signify in the title of your research? Although you use the abbreviation "polyethylene glycol 6000" in the introduction, the full name should be used in the title beside PEG.
2- Drought stress is a state in which there is a shortage of water available in the environment, resulting in a water deficit for plants. This may directly produce physiological stress, influencing activities like as photosynthesis, nutrition intake, and growth.
Osmotic stress occurs when the water potential surrounding a plant is lower than within its cells, resulting in a decreased capacity to absorb water. It may be induced by dryness, as well as excessive salt or other causes that generate a hyperosmotic environment surrounding the plant roots.
My comment you should be clear which of them (drought or osmotic) you mean?
3- Based on their yield performance in field testing, the following varieties have been utilized in your study: CH1808-ON-28, CH1808-ON-69, CH1818-PE-34, CH1819-PE-05, OB1864-ON-16...etc. In this case, I have a question: do you utilize two known background genotypes—one that is tolerant and one that is susceptible—to determine if these genotypes are tolerant or susceptible to drought?
4-Significant differences are indicated by different letters (a, b, or c) above the columns. Why your figures haven't ?
5- There is insufficient keyword density to adequately describe the substance of your text.
6- Both the introduction and the discussion sections could need some work.
Author Response
- What does the acronym PEG signify in the title of your research? Although you use the abbreviation "polyethylene glycol 6000" in the introduction, the full name should be used in the title beside PEG.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing it out. We have added ‘Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) in the title.
- Drought stress is a state in which there is a shortage of water available in the environment, resulting in a water deficit for plants. This may directly produce physiological stress, influencing activities like as photosynthesis, nutrition intake, and growth.
Osmotic stress occurs when the water potential surrounding a plant is lower than within its cells, resulting in a decreased capacity to absorb water. It may be induced by dryness, as well as excessive salt or other causes that generate a hyperosmotic environment surrounding the plant roots.
My comment you should be clear which of them (drought or osmotic) you mean?
Response 2: We completely agree with the definition of drought stress vs osmotic stress. In this study, we used the PEG to simulate drought stress by inducing osmotic pressure and changing water potential of the barley lines.
- Based on their yield performance in field testing, the following varieties have been utilized in your study: CH1808-ON-28, CH1808-ON-69, CH1818-PE-34, CH1819-PE-05, OB1864-ON-16...etc. In this case, I have a question: do you utilize two known background genotypes—one that is tolerant and one that is susceptible—to determine if these genotypes are tolerant or susceptible to drought?
Response 3: The tested genotypes had no known drought background. They were selected based on the yield performance of these lines in the field condition.
4-Significant differences are indicated by different letters (a, b, or c) above the columns. Why your figures haven't?
Response 4: The significant different between PEG (treatment) and control is shown by the standard error. We did not compare the performance of genotypes within the treatment and control.
5- There is insufficient keyword density to adequately describe the substance of your text.
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. We added ‘roots and polyethylene glycol’ in the keywords.
6- Both the introduction and the discussion sections could need some work.
Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. We went through the ms and improved the introduction and discussion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Some suggestions have been addressed, but not all, which is concerning. While references have been added for certain statements, the Introduction section still feels limited, and the study's aim remains unclear. Furthermore, the Materials and Methods section has not been fully revised; for instance, the seed production year is still missing as suggested.
I recommend that you review the entire manuscript and the suggestions once more, making all possible changes to enhance the quality of the paper.
Best regards,
Author Response
Some suggestions have been addressed, but not all, which is concerning. While references have been added for certain statements, the Introduction section still feels limited, and the study's aim remains unclear. Furthermore, the Materials and Methods section has not been fully revised; for instance, the seed production year is still missing as suggested.
Response: We have expanded the introduction section and aim of the study. We have also added information about the seed production year and location.
I recommend that you review the entire manuscript and the suggestions once more, making all possible changes to enhance the quality of the paper.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We reviewed the entire ms and make changes if possible.
