Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper needs major revision in the Introduction-Material and Methods and also Discussion sections.

You need to clarify a lot of points in these sections and make it easier to the reader but also to explain better your results

It will be easier as well to submit your manuscript with numbered lines to make the comments easier

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The submitted paper needs major revision in the Introduction-Material and Methods and also Discussion sections.

Response:   Thanks for your comments, I had revised the sections you mentioned and highlighted in blue.

Comment 2: You need to clarify a lot of points in these sections and make it easier to the reader but also to explain better your results

Response: I had revised the manuscript according to your comments in the manuscript and highlighted in blue.

Comment 3: It will be easier as well to submit your manuscript with numbered lines to make the comments easier

Response: Thanks for your comments; I had added the line number.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is ok by me. Some minor issues are reported in attached .pdf file. Please check it out.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: It is ok by me. Some minor issues are reported in attached .pdf file. Please check it out.

Response: Thanks for your comments, I had revised the manuscript according to your comments in the attached pdf file, the changes were highlighted in blue.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript shows several shortcomings.

The methodology is not very detailed. It is not reported if the experiment was carried out in a growth chamber or in a controlled environment, and the growing conditions are missing.

It is reported that the experiment has 4 replicates; in R2 (end of flowering) all 4 replicates were used for destructive measurements of the roots. It is therefore not clear how the experiment could continue until the physical maturity for the determination of the final yield.

The assessment of the canopy is made at different times for the two water regimes: at the end of flowering for the TDS and at maturity for the WW; therefore I do not believe that the values are comparable nor that any conclusion can be drawn from this comparison.

The authors discuss the different growth of the root system between new and old cultivars and put this character in relation to the different water use of the same. However, the differences in water use are visible only under WW condition, while the differences in radical growth are reported only for TDS. This confuses the reader and makes the discussion unpleasant.

The conclusions are inconsistent and do not bring anything new information compared to those available in the literature.

Please, see the text in which several other comments and corrections are reported

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The methodology is not very detailed. It is not reported if the experiment was carried out in a growth chamber or in a controlled environment, and the growing conditions are missing.

Response: Thanks for your comment, I had added the information you mentioned and highlighted in blue.

Comment 2: It is reported that the experiment has 4 replicates; in R2 (end of flowering) all 4 replicates were used for destructive measurements of the roots. It is therefore not clear how the experiment could continue until the physical maturity for the determination of the final yield.

Response: There are 96 pot in this study; 64 pots (8 genotypes×2 water levels ×4 replicates) were harvest at maturity and 32 pots (8 genotypes×1 water levels ×4 replicates) were harvest at R2.

Comment 3: The assessment of the canopy is made at different times for the two water regimes: at the end of flowering for the TDS and at maturity for the WW; therefore I do not believe that the values are comparable or that any conclusion can be drawn from this comparison.

Response: Accepted. Although the canopy was determined at different stage under different water regimes, but we can compare the canopy architecture among the soybean cultivars and analysis the relationship between the canopy and the water use under different water regimes.

Comment 4: The authors discuss the different growth of the root system between new and old cultivars and put this character in relation to the different water use of the same. However, the differences in water use are visible only under WW condition, while the differences in radical growth are reported only for TDS. This confuses the reader and makes the discussion unpleasant.

Response: Accepted. We revised the section of discussion and made it more clearly.

Comment 5: The conclusions are inconsistent and do not bring anything new information compared to those available in the literature.

Response: In this study, we brought some new information: (1) the yield performance and drought adaptation were associated with water uptake at the flowering and podding stage and the changing of water use partition before and after flowering; (2) The leaf area on the branches was the main driver of the water use, and reducing the branch number was the main factor reducing the leaf area and the canopy size which reduced water demand but improve yield performance under drought.

Comment 6: Please, see the text in which several other comments and corrections are reported

Response: Thanks for your comments; I had revised the manuscript according to your comments in the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

You have made most of the changes and additions requested.

Please in the Materials and Methods add a Table with the climatic conditions during the experiment.

Also make sure that you have made all the changes asked by all the reviewers during the first phase of the review

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: You have made most of the changes and additions requested.

Response: Thanks for your comments.

Comment 2: Please in the Materials and Methods add a Table with the climatic conditions during the experiment.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion and I had added the climatic conditions as Table 2.

Comment 3: Also make sure that you have made all the changes asked by all the reviewers during the first phase of the review

Response: Thanks for your comments. I will check the whole manuscript carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I saw the corrections made and I thanks the authors.

Now for me the manuscript can be accepted

Author Response

Comment 1: I saw the corrections made and I thank the authors. Now for me the manuscript can be accepted.

Response: Thanks for your comments. I will try my best to check the whole manuscript and avoid the potential spelling error.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx