Next Article in Journal
Identification of Soybean Yield QTL in Irrigated and Rain-Fed Environments
Next Article in Special Issue
Rendering Multivariate Statistical Models for Genetic Diversity Assessment in A-Genome Diploid Wheat Population
Previous Article in Journal
Positive Mathematical Programming to Model Regional or Basin-Wide Implications of Producer Adoption of Practices Emerging from Plot-Based Research
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mitigation of Cadmium Induced Oxidative Stress by Using Organic Amendments to Improve the Growth and Yield of Mash Beans [Vigna mungo (L.)]
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Carbohydrate Assimilation and Translocation Regulate Grain Yield Formation in Wheat Crops (Triticum aestivum L.) under Post-Flowering Waterlogging

Agronomy 2021, 11(11), 2209; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112209
by Shangyu Ma 1,2,3, Panpan Gai 1, Yanyan Wang 4, Najeeb Ullah 5,6, Wenjing Zhang 1,2, Yonghui Fan 1,2, Yajing Shan 1, Zhenglai Huang 1,2,3 and Xia Hu 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2021, 11(11), 2209; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112209
Submission received: 16 October 2021 / Revised: 29 October 2021 / Accepted: 29 October 2021 / Published: 30 October 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

1. This is an important study for the journal agronomy.

Major comments

2. Figures 2 and 3. SPAD has a connection to photosynthetic rate. But it isn't perfect. I think most readers can trust this paper.

3. Figure 1. To write the wheat growth periods into that will get even better.

4. Table 5. Remove the mean values will be consistent like any other results. There is no point in writing. 5. Conclusions. I think the sentences would be generalized sophisticatedly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is very interesting, I really liked the findings and the regression analysis of the grain filling rate. Al Please address these several points below and I will recommend the paper for publication.

L26: Pn not defined

L104-105: define normally

L126: was K defined post-harvest?

L127: Parameters A and B should be better defined

L182: i suppose these are the p-values

Table2: two-way ANOVA is described, yet the results show three-way analysis

Grouting just does not sound appropriate for this purpose. Why not filling?

Table 3 is very interesting; however it should be interpreted with regard to grain number per spike. In 2015-16 season, YM18 seems to favor W9 treatment, while in next year it does less. Ok, that is clear from table 5…

L394: Reduction?

Two paragraphs of conclusions regarding results are confusing. Iti s not clearly written is it reduction or increase.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop