Preliminary Results of the Use of Sowing Time and Variety Choice as Techniques of Adaptability of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) to Temperature Increases
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the study focuses on the sowing time and variety choice as an adaptation of durum wheat to temperature increase. The manuscript is well organized and covers an interesting topic. The feedback below, provided by section should help to improve the manuscript.
Abstract:
Line 15: I think that a small change is in the terminology. Temperature mainly drives crop development as crop growth which mass expansion is part of it is driven also by other factors., e.g. water stress, radiation interception. Development can be affected by water stress but a much less extent. So it would be good to change "growth" into "development".
Introduction:
Line 30: you should begin with "Durum wheat..." rather than "Wheat" and then this whole paragraph (Lines 30-34) need to be about the importance of durum wheat in the wheat context. This will give a potential reader a better framing regarding the importance of durum wheat.
Line 35: same comment about temperature being important for development and not growth
Line 36: rephrase the end of this sentence, and also add the "literature" you mention here. But your points depends on many factors, are you writing about increase temperature during vegetative stage? reproductive stage? grain filling stage? or about extreme events (e.g. when daily maximum temperature goes above the threshold temperature for a given physiological process). As you know wheat has different threshold optimal temperatures according the growth stage. So it will help the clarity of the sentence to be more specific.
Line 37: change growth with development
Line 45: Consider that Fischer (1984) showed that during grain filling the maximum temperature above 34C cause severe yield decline. Porter and Gawit (2022) gave a much better overview of temperature thresholds. Use this latter publication
Lines 45-49: Prior to this section you also need to make sure to tell the readers (in a short paragraph) the main difference between wheat and durum wheat and their different resilience to climate.
Line 50: the correct way in the context you are referring to is to say "climate projections" or "projected changes".
Lines 51-56: why not to get the the literature information from the projections of the latest IPCC report? the results of the 2011/2013 papers are not really up-to-date projections
Line 60: Reference [11] does not seem to be about wheat. Is that perhaps a mistake? again, use more updated information. There are a lot available.
Line 64: one important observation, you mostly deal with adaptation in this study and not mitigation.
Line 67: at the end of the sentence add a reference to your claim
Line 76: I think the choice of "rustic" is not fully understood by potential readers outside your expertise.
Line 84: replace "trial" with "study"
Materials and Methods
Line 97: rather than postponed use "delayed" and still keep the PS
Line 109: "were monitored using a ...." also which environmental variable you measured with the weather station?
Lines 115-119. This is all fine regarding growth, but development? did you observe anthesis date? or heading date? and how? did you observe end of tillering? etc...
Results:
Line 140: delete averagely
Lines 141-143: please rewrite this sentence for clarity
Line 145: delete "anyway"
Line 156: delete "obviously"
Figure 2: does the Figure needs a Lsd? or some statistical significance asterisks? (same for other Figures with error bars)
Line 203: delete "as regards of..." , maybe it might be good to use a different way to start the sentence
Discussion
Line 306: what about extreme high temperatures and decrease in rainfall?
Lines 317-320: please rewrite for clarity
Lines 383-384: please rewrite for clarity
Author Response
We attached the file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Work is important because we have climate change and periods of drought. But I am afraid that one year of study is not enought to conclusion. In this type of experiments we need two years, or three years of research.
In the next year of research, we nay have different meteorological conditions (rainfall and temperature) and then the conclusion will be differ. The repetition (nex year of experiment) of such experiments is so important.
IF THE SECOND YEAR OF RESEARCH WILL INCLUDED, THE WORK CAN BE RE-REVIEWED FOR PUBLICATION.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, your comment is surely right, it is obvious that this typology of research would require at least two years of study but better again more years. Anyway, in this article we wanted to report some preliminary results, in fact, we also changed the title of the paper, specifying it.
Reviewer 3 Report
Tackling the climate change is a hot topic and very important in the sight of the future predictions, therefore, to increase the adoptability of the crops to the changing environment is desirable.
This work using old and modern varieties in ordinary and hot temperature conditions with ordinary and postponed showing time. The experimental setup is clear, and interpretation of the results are clear, but the novelty of the work is low. As it discussed in the discussion part, there are already several studied in this area. It should be more highlighted what is the new outcome of this work apart from using varieties specific on the Mediterranean area.
Materials and methods: what were the ratio of the mixed varieties used in the experiment?
“The sowing density was 400 seeds per square meter distributed in five rows per pot”. This is not clear.
The figures are too crowded, plotting the results in a different way would be more visible.
Line 228. (page 8) Was the number of spikes significantly higher in ordinary sowing condition?
Observing a lower plant hight in the postponed sowing condition is not necessarily due to the higher temperature, could be due to the shorter life cycle. This is just speculation, not proven.
Author Response
We attached the file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have satisfactorily answered the concerns.
Reviewer 2 Report
ACCEPT IN PRESENT FORM.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved, could be suitable for publication.
