The Impact of Polymer on the Productivity and Photosynthesis of Soybean under Different Water Levels
, Maria Lucrecia Gerosa Ramos 3,*, Guilherme Filgueiras Soares 3, Cristiane Andréa de Lima Guimarães 3, Sebastião Pedro da Silva Neto 2, Onno Muller 4, Christina Cleo Vinson 3, André Ferreira Pereira 2 and Thomas Christopher Rhys Williams 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Abbreviations can be elaborated once at the beginning of the manuscript, which makes the text legible and easy to understand (Line 26, 168 and 169)
2. Minor grammatical errors in the introduction, material and methods, and table 1., can be corrected.
3. The text looks poor and not legible in some parts due to complex abbreviations and misunderstanding with A (Net CO2 assimilation) with sentence starting with A.
4. Rearrange the text at some places and present in more polished way (Lines 171-174)
5. Role of polymer under water stress with respect to its properties can be addressed in the manuscript in a few lines, along with supporting statements
6. Article can be accepted and further processed upon considering the necessary changes and corrections suggested in the manuscript comment section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The impact of polymer on the productivity and photosynthesis of soybean under different water levels
- Abbreviations can be elaborated once at the beginning of the manuscript, which makes the text legible and easy to understand (Line 26, 168 and 169)
- Authors:
We corrected in these lines and other lines on the paper.
- Minor grammatical errors in the introduction, material and methods, and table , can be corrected.
Authors: We read the paper again carefuly and corrected minor grammatical errors
- The text looks poor and not legible in some parts due to complex abbreviations and misunderstandingwith A (Net CO2 assimilation) with sentence starting with
- Authors: We corrected and checked all parts of the text. Furthermore, there are not sentence starting with “A”
- Rearrange the text at some places and present in more polished way (Lines 171-174)
Authors: We corrected and rearrange the text:
In WR4, photosynthesis (A) decreased by between 11-18% in Control plants and 39-52% in Polymer treated plants compared to WR3. Under WR1 and WR2 decreases in A were even greater, reaching up to 88%. Stomatal conductance was also affected with reductions of 26 to 41% in Control and 48 to 64% in Polymer treated plants at WR3. In WR1 decreases of photosynthesis reached 82% in Control and 85% in Polymer.
- Role of polymer under water stress with respect to its properties can be addressed in the manuscript in a few lines, along with supporting statements
Authors: We corrected and included its properties in the introduction:
One alternative to minimize plant water stress is using superabsorbent polymers. According to Oladosu et al. [10], in a recent review, indicated that water stored by superabsorbent polymer slowly returns water to the soil close to roots. Moreover, polymers increased water content in dry areas, increasing water use efficiency and irrigation intervals, consequently reducing production costs.
Article can be accepted and further processed upon considering the necessary changes and corrections suggested in the manuscript comment section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author/s
Its a well written and well organised document.
Few error are there, kindly address them. I have attached my questions as a separate word file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Line # |
Details |
Objection |
|
|
26 |
the reductions in A and E by the addition of the polymer |
What is A and E Try to avoid abbreviation in abstract |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected. A is photosynthesis and E is transpiration. |
|
|
|
61-63 |
Thus, annual crops may demand more water over a shorter period, such that water 61 retaining polymers could potentially have a negative impact on photosynthetic 62 metabolism, especially under drought conditions. |
Explain plz |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected. The new text is below:
Thus, annual crops may demand more water over a shorter period, requiring greater efficiency to absorb water and, in this sense, such that water retaining polymers could potentially avoid losses and supply water at times of greatest demand, especially under water stress |
|
|
|
70 |
We hypothesized |
It was hypothesized |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected |
|
|
|
77 |
2016 e 2017 |
E? |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected.
2016 and 2017 |
|
|
|
83 |
d at depths of 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm (Table 1) |
Why two layers were selected for this study |
|
|
Why soil was not tested for micronutrients? |
|||
|
Authors |
In relation to analysing two depths:
Because these are the depths that are normally corrected by liming and where roots are expected to be found due to aluminum correction.
|
|
|
|
Authors |
In relation to not testing micronutrients:
The experimental area has been used for several years with cash crops, and normally micronutrients are applied. |
|
|
|
118 |
Irrigation was performed every five days: We explained:
|
Why this gap of 5 days selected |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Authors |
This period of irrigation is normally used in the cerrado region.
Irrigation was performed in average every five days, depending on evapotransoiration and climate data, and the highest water level was applied according to the monitoring program for the replacement of evapotranspiration of the crop |
|
|
|
159-161 |
The data obtained were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, and Hartley's 159 F test (QMres1/ QMres ≤ 7) was performed, which allowed us to verify that all variables of 160 the two groups could be compared |
Rewrite and avoid repetition of verb. Try to avoid use of first person |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected:
The data obtained were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. Furthermore, Hartley's F test (QMres1/ QMres ≤ 7) was performed, to verify that all variables of the two groups could be compared |
|
|
|
168 |
A, gs and E |
? its explained in tables not in methodology or any other write up part |
|
|
Quality of figure 3,4, and 5 is not good |
|||
|
Is partition in discussion is allowed in journal styled because it is not usually liked for discussion |
|||
|
Authors |
We corrected in the methodology:
|
? its explained in tables not in methodology or any other write up part |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected all figures of the paper, with better resolution |
Quality of figure 3,4, and 5 is not good |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected. |
Is partition in discussion is allowed in journal styled because it is not usually liked for discussion |
|
|
411 |
severe closure stomatal |
What does it mean |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected:
stomatal closure |
|
|
|
|
Conclusion |
Needs to be rewritten. It seems quite complicated. It should have a direct message for next researchers or end users. |
|
|
Authors |
We corrected and altered the conclusions:
In general, water stress affected the physiological parameters and productivity, and therefore there were consistent responses to irrigation. In the first year of application, under severe stress, the polymer negatively affected photosynthesis; however productivity was not affected. In the second year of polymer application, positive effects on gas exchange and mainly on productivity occurred at intermediate and high water levels in all genotypes and phenological phases. Therefore, Polymer is not recommended for severe water stress. Due to differences obtained in the two years of evaluation, more years of research will be necessary to obtain a conclusive result about the additon of Polymer in soils under water stress.
|
||
Reviewer 3 Report
1. This research is of great significance for developing strategies for mitigation of the impacts of water deficit on soybean. The highlight of the study is the complex split-plot scheme design with consideration of the 3 genotypes and 4 different water regimes. However, the inconformity of the two year results leads to the accuracy of the research conclusion is unconvincing. It is suggested to provide one more year or another point experiment data to get more conclusive experimental conclusions.
2. Actually, the readers could be more interested in the effect of polymer addition on soybean yield than photosynthesis. This study only provides yield data and lacks the necessary yield formation process data, such as dry matter, seed number and 100-seed weight…. Therefore, the research can not directly answer people's confusion about how this polymer can mitigate the impacts of drought on yield.
3. Some details need to be noted such as the sharpness of the figures.
Author Response
Observations of reviewer three;
- This research is of great significance for developing strategies for mitigation of the impacts of water deficit on soybean. The highlight of the study is the complex split-plot scheme design with consideration of the 3 genotypes and 4 different water regimes. However, the inconformity of the two-year results leads to the accuracy of the research conclusion is unconvincing. It is suggested to provide one more year or another point experiment data to get more conclusive experimental conclusions.
Authors: we corrected the conclusions.
- Actually, the readers could be more interested in the effect of polymer addition on soybean yield than photosynthesis. This study only provides yield data and lacks the necessary yield formation process data, such as dry matter, seed number and 100-seed weight…. Therefore,the research can not directly answer people's confusion about how this polymer can mitigate the impacts of drought on yield.
Authors: The observations of the third reviewer are important, but the project's main objective was to evaluate the impact of the addition of polymer on plant physiology.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript can be considered for publication in this journal.
