Changes of Stem Characteristics, Senescence Indexes and Yield and Quality of Wintering Rye under Different Populations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on the ms entitled “Differences in stalk characteristics, senescence indexes, yield, and quality of overwintering rye under different populations”.

Firstly, I would like to say that I found the content of this article to be more relevant to Agronomy or Agriculture MDPI journals rather than Sustainability. The findings of the study and the general idea of the article are not very novel, nevertheless, it is a well-organized experiment, and no significant flaws were detected. However, there are major issues related to the statistical analyses that the authors applied to their dataset in order to interpret their results. The authors state in their M&M Data analysis section that “the LSD method was used for data analysis of variance” when it is well-known that LSD is the post hoc analysis of ANOVA (One- or Two-way ANOVA). The authors in their results did not present any p values and they did not indicate whether they applied One- or Two-way ANOVA in any of the legends, or within the text. For example, in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, a Two-way ANOVA should have been applied as time is another independent variable. Yet, the effect of time and time x treatment interaction is not mentioned; and no p-values are provided. The same issue stands for other data (Tables 2-1, 2-2) where it is obvious that One way ANOVA was applied, but once again no p-values were given. Also, in the table legends, the type of analyses should be provided, as each table must be independent of the rest of the text. The authors are interested only to provide the differences among treatments, but they did not do it in the proper way.

Other issues

The title must be rephrased as the last part “under different populations” makes no sense. Moderate English changes are also required in the rest of the text

Data about the soil texture must also be provided in the M&M section

The data analysis section must be rewritten, and all statistical analyses applied in the text must be presented there

In Table 2-1 the authors have a footnote stating: lowercase letters ( a, b, c, etc. ) indicate the significant difference between the same number of days and different treatments ( P < 0.05 ). The same below”. Such a footnote should be included in all tables and figures. Moreover, the p-values are not the same in all cases, this should also be indicated in the tables for each analysis.

The format of most of the Tables must be checked  

For all these reasons the article should be rejected in its present form.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for the proposed amendments to this article and the affirmation of the theoretical, practical significance and innovation of this article. We have made amendments one by one according to the valuable suggestions put forward by experts. The specific amendments are as follows :

1. The title of the article has been revised.
2. The arrangement of keywords has been modified.
3. The preamble has been revised and added.
4. Table 1 has added climate table.
5. The type of analysis for each table is also indicated by the P value.
6. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 have been modified by two-way ANOVA.
7. Table 2-1, 2-2 indicate P value.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

please, consider the comments inside PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, thank you for the proposed amendments to this article and the affirmation of the theoretical, practical significance and innovation of this article. We have made amendments one by one according to the valuable suggestions put forward by experts. The specific amendments are as follows :

1. The title of the article has been revised.
2. The arrangement of keywords has been modified.
3. The preamble has been revised and added.
4. Table 1 has added climate table.
5. The type of analysis for each table is also indicated by the P value.
6. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 have been modified by two-way ANOVA.
7. Table 2-1, 2-2 indicate P value.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a much-improved version. The ms can be published after minor corrections from the authors.

In section 2.3 the authors must add that they applied either One Way or Two way ANOVA and not just LSD.

In the Table legends, they must clearly state whether they conducted one or two way ANOVA. This information is not given

Author Response

Dear teacher, I am very glad to receive your letter. We express our heartfelt thanks for the modifications you proposed. We have also made modifications to your comments, and the modifications have been marked in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept with english editing 

Author Response

Dear teacher, very glad to receive your letter, we proposed to you my heartfelt thanks to modify, we have to modify your comments made, we put the 2.3 illustrates what is analysis method has the blue in the changes and comments were modified at the same time, indicate the respectively between the groups with the method of analysis of variance, the modified place has the blue, thank you again for your pay,I wish you happiness and happiness.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx