Relationship between Delayed Leaf Senescence (Stay-Green) and Agronomic and Physiological Characters in Maize (Zea mays L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is review for “Relationship between delayed leaf senescence (Stay-green) and agronomic and physiological characters in maize (Zea mays L.)

First of all, this manuscript well addressed the if SG is advantageous to increase grain and stover yield in inbred corn.

Introduction

1. Target end use of SG featured corn is not limited to dual purpose; grain for animal feed and stover for cellulosic biofuel. For instance, SG is favorable character for silage corn, having more starch from grain while not loosing quality of leaf and stem. Thus, Author may indicate various usages of SG and not just limiting usage for dual purpose as those inbred lines can be used for different combination for F1. (same for abstract).
2. Importance and dilemma of SG is well described.
3. Line 69 make category for objective of rather than using “we also study”, This experiment is to ‘was’ same for other sentences in the paragraph.

MM

1. What is two locations of Galicia (Spain)? Just remove Galicia and put Spain very end.
2. Table 1, headline “SG” to “Leaf Senescence Group “ or something else as “SG” represent staygreen itself.
3. For experiemtal design section, intra-row and inter-row spacing are more appropriate than between adjacent plant and between two rows
4. Line 112, Replace 13 plants to actual length of the row.
5. This is a type of N usage experiment, more detail description of fertilizer application needed; split application? Urea?? Date?
6. Line 134, mistyping for Celsius
7. Line 138, reword “realized”

Result

1. Grouping of flowering group in table 1 vs. All figures are different. I do not understand justification of another FG in figures (1), (2), (3), (4)
2. Figures note “the average plus the SE…..” to simply (mean+- stderr)
3. Description of DAF is repeated measure. However, I do not see any indication of repeated measure in statistical analyses. For SG this is very important.
4. Figure 4 a and b are in different format. A is extremely confusing. Do not understand grain yield (b) exceeded 100%. I guess % is mistake for both A and B.
5. Figure 5, remove % for SM(%), If numbers are showing up, what is the point of having figures then?
6. For Figure 4,5,6,7 SGvs.NSG should be relocated to main text with the explanation of they are average difference.
7. Same issue for figure 7. Comma is not period, please keep SI unit not Spanish typing for instance. 1,3 to 1.3.
8. Figure 7 to table. It is very confusing with the figure.
9. It will be better to show oeverall N removal (Nkg/ha) as SG cultivar efficiently take N from soil.

Discussion

1. Line 325, CO2 2 to lowercase
2. Line 325, faster to earlier
3. Line 351, what is the pitfall of delayed harvest? Author also needs to indicate such as crop rotation issue with the following crop.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript ID: agronomy-1080835 Title: "Relationship between delayed leaf senescence (Stay-green) and agronomic and physiological characters in maize (Zea mays L.)" submitted to Agronomy.

I am attaching below the file with the corrections of your pertinent comments;

We would like to thank your comments I hope all your inquiries are properly addressed.

We consider the manuscript has improved substantially with your input.

Sincerely,

Nadia Chibane

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

your manuscript is well written and presented, so that from my point of view only some minor amendments are necessary:

General: Writing and style are ok, but there are several misspellings (e. g. line 295: "this results" instead of "these results"). Anyway, I am also no native English speaker but I would recommend to have it proof-read.

Material & Methods:

In which characteristics do the two experimental locations differ (e. g. altitude, soil, climate)? Please provide weather data of the vegetation period if possible.

Also, there are no precise information on the N fertilization (amount of N applied, timepoint). Since this may be crucial for the results (N uptake and remobilization differences of SG vs. NSG), these data should be provided.

Maybe it would make sense to evaluate the two field environments also separately to analyze if SG was more favorable under certain conditions?

best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed the revised version of the manuscript ID: agronomy-1080835 Title: "Relationship between delayed leaf senescence (Stay-green) and agronomic and physiological characters in maize (Zea mays L.)" submitted to Agronomy.

I am attaching below the file with the corrections of your pertinent comments;

We would like to thank you for your comment and hope that all your inquiries can be properly resolved. We believe that with your input, the manuscript has been greatly improved.

Sincerely,

Nadia Chibane

Author Response File: Author Response.docx