An Improved Approach to Monitoring Wheat Stripe Rust with Sun-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript examines the potential use of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) observations as a tool for assessing disease stress in wheat. This work decomposes canopy SIF into physiological (fluorescence yield) and structural components to assess their value as quantitative tools. This study provides an interesting insight into the monitoring of wheat stripe rust. This is a well-conducted study, and there is great potential for future research in this direction.
However, the authors need to make minor revisions.
(1) The spread of wheat stripe rust is highly dependent on climate, and a brief description of temperature, humidity, and rainfall in the study area may be useful information for readers.
(2) Page 3, lines 94-100, revise the sentence.
(3) Page 4, line 149, the same reference does not need to be repeated in one sentence.
(4) The reference for Eq (5) is missing.
(5) Severity level data were scored on an eight-point scale. Nevertheless, I was somewhat surprised that the variation in canopy severity level data was continuous rather than banded.
(6) Page 10, lines 370-372, please cite references.
(7) Page 13, lines 494-496, the decision process for disease stress monitoring using meteorological data and remote sensing imagery should be properly described.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the importance of canopy geometry is presented through some references, it could be improved by describing how this factor influences the results in greater detail.
The paper could benefit from a more detailed description of wheat stripe rust’s physiological and structural effects on the crop. In addition, it would provide background for understanding the changes that Puccinia striiform can induce in canopy structure.
Structure and geometry are related terms, but they are not similar; the manuscript could be improved by explaining this relationship in more depth in the discussion.
The abbreviations assigned to the variables are confusing and do not facilitate reading the text. Therefore, it is suggested to use abbreviations that improve the readability of the text.
It is not mentioned whether leaf overlapping was considered or studied when measurements were made at the canopy level as a possible factor affecting the results.
L132 and L 143. Justify why these dates were used for the measurements.
L222. It is suggested to evaluate if the mentioned: “coefficient of variation of NIRvP 222 compared to that of NIRvR” deserves to be presented in figure (3. c).
L312 and L333. The x-axis title of Figures 6 and 7, “SIF-canopy,” is not described in the text.
L597-599. Reference no. 23, which refers to the SL determination method, is not accessible. So it is suggested to add more information about the methodology or change the reference to open-access documents.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript is devoted to the current topic of the diagnosis of striped rust of wheat. In general, the research was carried out at a high level. However, the manuscript needs a little improvement.
1. In the first paragraph of the Introduction (lines 44-46), it is said about a decrease in wheat yield due to striped rust, however, the link given [1]:
- firstly, it refers to 2012, that is, it is relatively old,
and secondly, it is dedicated to sugar beet, not wheat.
I recommend giving a more up-to-date source of information.
2. Line 49: The third sentence should start with a new paragraph.
3. In the Introduction, it is necessary to briefly describe other methods currently used to diagnose striped wheat rust. It is also necessary to conduct a brief comparative analysis of them, showing the main advantages of the method used by the authors.
4. Why do some figures (for example, 3 and 6) show R2, while others (for example, 4, 5 and 7) show R?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
