Does Belt Uniform Sowing Improve Winter Wheat Yield under High Sowing Density?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reading the abstract, title and bibliographic references of the article “Belt uniform sowing improves dry matter accumulation and partition for high yield under high plant density in four winter wheat cultivars” developed by Mei Chen, Yong-He Zhu, Ming-Jian Ren, Long Jiang, Jin He and Rui Dong, it presents a topical issue regarding the wheat cultivation.
The title of the article is informative and relevant.
By reading the abstract of the article, the reader gets a clear and faithful picture of the research carried out by the authors, being very comprehensive, containing essential introductory information, presenting the used working methods.
The introduction clearly presents the topic addressed, the research ideas being clearly outlined, presenting in detail what is already known about this topic.
In the material and method chapter, the experience variables are properly defined and measured, the study methods are valid and reliable, there are enough details to repeat the study, and the topic of the article is clearly presented.
The research results are presented in an appropriate way, the data presented in the form of graphs are interspersed in the text of the article, being clear and relevant.
The conclusions are supported by the obtained results, but also by the bibliographic references, and respond to the intended purpose. However, the conclusions could be accompanied by some relevant results.
Recommendation. In the presented conclusions, intersperse some research results.
The 41 bibliographic references are relevant and recent, with authors correctly referencing generally including appropriate key studies.
The article “Belt uniform sowing improves dry matter accumulation and partition for high yield under high plant density in four winter wheat cultivars” presents an opportunity to inform future research, being a self-consistent article and responding to the proposed research objective.
Author Response
Comment 1: Reading the abstract, title and bibliographic references of the article “Belt uniform sowing improves dry matter accumulation and partition for high yield under high plant density in four winter wheat cultivars” developed by Mei Chen, Yong-He Zhu, Ming-Jian Ren, Long Jiang, Jin He and Rui Dong, it presents a topical issue regarding the wheat cultivation.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment.
Comment 2: The title of the article is informative and relevant.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment.
Comment 3: By reading the abstract of the article, the reader gets a clear and faithful picture of the research carried out by the authors, being very comprehensive, containing essential introductory information, presenting the used working methods.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment.
Comment 4: The introduction clearly presents the topic addressed, the research ideas being clearly outlined, presenting in detail what is already known about this topic.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment.
Comment 5: In the material and method chapter, the experience variables are properly defined and measured, the study methods are valid and reliable, there are enough details to repeat the study, and the topic of the article is clearly presented.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment.
Comment 6: The research results are presented in an appropriate way, the data presented in the form of graphs are interspersed in the text of the article, being clear and relevant.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment.
Comment 7: The conclusions are supported by the obtained results, but also by the bibliographic references, and respond to the intended purpose. However, the conclusions could be accompanied by some relevant results.
Recommendation. In the presented conclusions, intersperse some research results.
Response: Accepted. We have revised the conclusion.
Comment 8: The 41 bibliographic references are relevant and recent, with authors correctly referencing generally including appropriate key studies.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your useful suggestions.
Comment 9: The article “Belt uniform sowing improves dry matter accumulation and partition for high yield under high plant density in four winter wheat cultivars” presents an opportunity to inform future research, being a self-consistent article and responding to the proposed research objective.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comment and we will do further research in the near future.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled “Belt uniform sowing improves dry matter accumulation and partition for high yield under high plant density in four winter wheat cultivars” is submitted to the Agronomy journal. This study aimed to investigate the changes of the dry matter accumulation, partition to the grain and yield and yield components under five sowing densities (75, 150, 225, 300 and 375 plants per m2 ) and three sowing patterns (Line and dense (LD) sowing with 33.3 cm row spacing (LDS); the Belt uniform (BU) sowing with 15 cm (BUN) and 20 cm (BUW) row spacing.
This paper is a good fit for the journal’s audience and subject matter, I recommend this article needs revision, based on the comments and questions detailed below.
Title. Please think about the title. The title should be short (manuscript preparation) and communicate the processes and purpose of the research undertaken. It should make the reader curious with a certain mysteriousness. In my opinion, the title should suggest the possibility of a phenomenon that will be explained in the manuscript rather than informing in advance about the research results. I leave the decision to change the content of the title of the manuscript to the authors.
In the abstract “The improvement in grain yield and spike number was explained (94%) by the increase in shoot dry weight”
Is 94% increase was observed or correlation was observed among these parameters?It's not clear.
In keywords, the 1st word replaced with “Belt” instead of the belt
The overall introduction needs to improve, including grammar and sentence structure.
Add objectives at the end of the introduction instead of the hypothesis.
Correct all units such as kg-1 and ha-1
Figures why the letter is not mentioned above boxes, and add an explanation also in the caption.
Add explanation for R2
What *** indicated? add an explanation in figure captions
Section 4.1. replaced per m2 by m2
The conclusion of the study is not enough, needs to improve, Author needs to mention the significant relationships also in the conclusion
Other comments are mentioned in the uploaded file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: This paper is a good fit for the journal’s audience and subject matter, I recommend this article needs revision, based on the comments and questions detailed below.
Response: Thanks for your positive comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions.
Comment 2: Title. Please think about the title. The title should be short (manuscript preparation) and communicate the processes and purpose of the research undertaken. It should make the reader curious with a certain mysteriousness. In my opinion, the title should suggest the possibility of a phenomenon that will be explained in the manuscript rather than informing in advance about the research results. I leave the decision to change the content of the title of the manuscript to the authors.
Response: Accepted. We have revised the title according to your suggestion.
Comment 3: In the abstract “The improvement in grain yield and spike number was explained (94%) by the increase in shoot dry weight”. Is 94% increase was observed or correlation was observed among these parameters? It's not clear.
Response: Accepted. We have revised it.
Comment 4: In keywords, the 1st word replaced with “Belt” instead of the belt
Response: Accepted. We have deleted this keyword because it is shown in the title.
Comment 5: The overall introduction needs to improve, including grammar and sentence structure.
Response: Accepted. We have revised and carefully checked the section of Introduction.
Comment 6: Add objectives at the end of the introduction instead of the hypothesis.
Response: Accepted. We have re-write this paragraph, both the aims and the hypothesis were shown.
Comment 7: Correct all units such as kg-1 and ha-1
Response: Accepted. We have corrected them.
Comment 8: Figures why the letter is not mentioned above boxes, and add an explanation also in the caption.
Response: Accepted. We have revised and please see the figure caption.
Comment 9: Add explanation for R2
Response: Accepted. The R2 means the percentage of the parameter on Y-axis can be explained by the parameter on the X-axis.
Comment 10: What *** indicated? add an explanation in figure captions
Response: Accepted. The indicated the relationship was significant at P=0.001.
Comment 11: Section 4.1. replaced per m2 by m2
Response: Accepted. We have revised the section of Introduction.
Comment 12: The conclusion of the study is not enough, needs to improve, Author needs to mention the significant relationships also in the conclusion.
Response: Accepted. We have re-write this section.
Comment 13: Other comments are mentioned in the uploaded file.
Response: Accepted. We have carefully read the comments in the upload file, then revised the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I had the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled „Belt uniform sowing improves dry matter accumulation and partition for high yield under high plant density in four winter wheat cultivars” (ID Agronomy-2016305).
This manuscript examines the changes in dry matter accumulation, grain partition, yield and yield components at five sowing densities (75, 150, 225, 300 and 375 plants per m2) and three sowing patterns (line and dense sowing with a 33.3 cm row spacing, belt uniform sowing with a 15 cm and 20 cm row spacing).
In my opinion, the research topic absolutely fits the journal's focus. My review below suggests some improvements.
Title: needs to be changed, the current title is a conclusion rather than a title.
Abstract: the abstract is clear and reasonable.
Keywords: there are a couple of keywords in the title already, so they need to be reconsidered.
1. Introduction: the introduction provides a sufficient overview of the research topic. There is a missing parenthesis at the end of the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph in Introduction section, at the end of the list of sowing patterns.
It is better to separate the research hypothesis into two: the first one is about examining whether belt uniform sowing pattern (BU) can increase winter wheat yield when sowing density is high. The second hypothesis proposes that high dry matter accumulation leads to high dry matter partition to the spike, increasing wheat yield at high sowing densities.
2. Materials and Methods: there is a clear description of the experimental design, sampling.
It is necessary to revise the statistical methods in accordance with the aims of the analyses. Multiple comparisons were performed using which post hoc test?
To determine correlations between grain yield, yield components, and shoot dry weight, why was Spearman's correlation coefficient used (rather than Pearson's correlation coefficient)?
Please check: „The linear model was used to fit the curve…”.
3. Results: the structure and content of this section are clear. The description of weather conditions should be moved to 2. Materials and Methods section.
The effect of cultivars is not examined: I only see an investigation of the effects of sowing density and sowing patterns, as well as the interaction between them.
The results of the correlation analysis (Fig. 5-7) are very briefly described, so this part of the Results section needs to be expanded.
"The ratio between the spike and stem dry matter under belt uniform sowing patterns was significantly higher than the line and dense sowing patterns in three of the four wheat cultivars (Fig. 4)" - Since I don't see the marks for these four wheat cultivars, how is it justified that "in three of the four wheat cultivars"?
Why did you use a correlogram to examine the difference among sowing patterns in the ratio of spike to stem dry matter? What is the purpose of drawing a regression line? To determine significant differences among sowing patterns, you can calculate the ratio and then use the ANOVA with post hoc test (multiple comparisons).
There are no explanations of the parameters of linear equations (Figs. 5-6). What is the purpose of providing linear equations?
What does the notation three asterisks in the figures mean, p<0.001?
4. Discussion: It is necessary to extend the Discussion section.
5. Conclusions: It would have been interesting to compare the results of the study with those of previous studies. It is true that this was partly done in the Discussion section, but moving it to this section would be more appropriate. In its current form, the Conclusion section fails to fulfill its intended purpose: the conclusion does not equal the summary. This section is not mandatory, so if the Discussion section will be extended, it can be removed.
In addition to clearly defining research hypotheses, the Results and Discussion sections should be structured accordingly.
Author Response
Comment 1: In my opinion, the research topic absolutely fits the journal's focus. My review below suggests some improvements.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comments.
Comment 2: Title: needs to be changed, the current title is a conclusion rather than a title.
Response: Accepted. We have revised the title.
Comment 3: Abstract: the abstract is clear and reasonable.
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comments.
Comment 4: Keywords: there are a couple of keywords in the title already, so they need to be reconsidered.
Response: Accepted. We have used the new keyword.
Comment 5: 1. Introduction: the introduction provides a sufficient overview of the research topic. There is a missing parenthesis at the end of the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph in Introduction section, at the end of the list of sowing patterns.
It is better to separate the research hypothesis into two: the first one is about examining whether belt uniform sowing pattern (BU) can increase winter wheat yield when sowing density is high. The second hypothesis proposes that high dry matter accumulation leads to high dry matter partition to the spike, increasing wheat yield at high sowing densities.
Response: Accepted. We have added the missing parenthesis. We have divided the hypothesis in into two.
Comment 6: 2. Materials and Methods: there is a clear description of the experimental design, sampling.
It is necessary to revise the statistical methods in accordance with the aims of the analyses. Multiple comparisons were performed using which post hoc test?
Response: Accepted. Thanks for your positive comments. We have made some revision about the statistical methods. The multiple comparisons were performance using Duncan test.
Comment 7: To determine correlations between grain yield, yield components, and shoot dry weight, why was Spearman's correlation coefficient used (rather than Pearson's correlation coefficient)?
Response: Both the Spearman and Pearson correlation analysis were performed and got the same results, thus we used the Spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Comment 8: Please check: „The linear model was used to fit the curve…”.
Response: We have corrected it.
Comment 9: 3. Results: the structure and content of this section are clear. The description of weather conditions should be moved to 2. Materials and Methods section.
Response: Accepted. We have move to the section of Materials and Methods.
Comment 10: The effect of cultivars is not examined: I only see an investigation of the effects of sowing density and sowing patterns, as well as the interaction between them.
Response: Accepted. In this study, we focus on the effects of the sowing density and sowing patterns on the yield formation, thus we the variation of cultivars was not shown.
Comment 11: The results of the correlation analysis (Fig. 5-7) are very briefly described, so this part of the Results section needs to be expanded.
Response: Accepted. We have revised and highlight in blue.
Comment 12: "The ratio between the spike and stem dry matter under belt uniform sowing patterns was significantly higher than the line and dense sowing patterns in three of the four wheat cultivars (Fig. 4)" - Since I don't see the marks for these four wheat cultivars, how is it justified that "in three of the four wheat cultivars"?
Response: Accepted. I have revised it to make it clearer.
Comment 13: Why did you use a correlogram to examine the difference among sowing patterns in the ratio of spike to stem dry matter? What is the purpose of drawing a regression line? To determine significant differences among sowing patterns, you can calculate the ratio and then use the ANOVA with post hoc test (multiple comparisons).
Response: In this study, we used the slopes of the regression line to show the relative growth between the different organs. Then the multiple comparisons (Duncan test) were used to test whether the slopes were significantly different.
Comment 14: There are no explanations of the parameters of linear equations (Figs. 5-6). What is the purpose of providing linear equations?
Response: Accepted. We have corrected. We can see the slopes of the linear equations showed in the figures, and the slopes were used to show the relative growth between the different organs.
Comment 15: What does the notation three asterisks in the figures mean, p<0.001?
Response: Accepted. The three asterisks mean p<0.001.
Comment 16: 4. Discussion: It is necessary to extend the Discussion section.
Response: Accepted. We have extended the Discussion section.
Comment 17: 5. Conclusions: It would have been interesting to compare the results of the study with those of previous studies. It is true that this was partly done in the Discussion section, but moving it to this section would be more appropriate. In its current form, the Conclusion section fails to fulfill its intended purpose: the conclusion does not equal the summary. This section is not mandatory, so if the Discussion section will be extended, it can be removed.
Response: We have revised.
Comment 18: In addition to clearly defining research hypotheses, the Results and Discussion sections should be structured accordingly.
Response: Accepted. Revised accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
most of my suggestions for improving your article have been taken into consideration; therefore, I support its publication.
