Identification and Validation of the Genomic Regions for Waterlogging Tolerance at Germination Stage in Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present paper the authors investigated the water-logging tolerance of wheat, what is especially important in abundant rainfall, improper irrigation as well as in rice-wheat rotation zone. The problem is well known by the authors, as evidenced by the introduction section. In the study SNP array was combined with bulk segregation analysis that allow identifying three genomic regions for water logging tolerance. The data obtained were confirmed by statistical analysis. The results are supplemented by the experimental data, clear and understandable figures. In the discussion section the authors analyzed their own result comparatively to previously known ones and suggested the most like candidate gene governing waterlogging tolerance. As a result, the authors identified varieties resistant to waterlogging stress, developed effective KASP markers perspective in wheat marker assisted selection.

As a remark to the present study. It would be interesting for breeders to know if the authors observed phenotypic differences between waterlogging tolerant and sensitive wheat plants at the mature phase.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Agronomy (ISSN 2073-4395)

Manuscript ID: agronomy-1831340

Manuscript Title: "Identification and validation of the genomic regions for waterlogging tolerance at germination stage in wheat"

Reviewer comments:

In this study, the authors focused on studying the effects of waterlogging stress and its effect on wheat during the germination stage through the identification and validation of the genomic regions for waterlogging. The topic is nice and fits well with the scope of agronomy-MDPI, and the results are of interest to the scientific community. The study is well-designed and the methods are satisfy. However, the text needs a major revision before publication. In addition, this paper gives an overview of the identification and validation of the genomic regions for waterlogging tolerance at the germination stage in wheat.

Abstract:

-          When reading the abstract part only, it is necessary for the reader to know what this scientific paper contains in brief. Hence, the authors must include the experimental treatments that affected the germination and plant growth, but the authors did not include this in the abstract part, but only mentioned the symbols of the treatments.

-          Lines 18: “In this abstract, what do you mean by " genomic regions"

-          The abbreviation should be used after the full term. Please be consistent with the usage of all abbreviations. Pls revise the abbreviations in the whole part of MS.

Keywords: I suggest rephrasing some words because keywords should not repeat words from the title (waterlogging), on the other hand, it is not preferable to write abbreviations (QTL, KASP) in the keywords.

Introduction:

-          The introduction part is well written but the authors have to write a short paragraph about the wheat plant and its importance at the beginning of the introduction section.

-          Lines 39 and 40: "Wheat plants probably encounter waterlogging at any period from germination and seedling stages to booting and filling stages" pls add relevant ref.

-          Lines 40-43:"" Waterlogging happened at an early period (germination, seedling, and tillering stages) usually induces rot of wheat seeds and seedlings, reduced seedling survivals, faded leaves, weak plant growth, and delayed tillering, and finally influences plants population establishment [4]" pls shorten this sentence.

-          The introduction section requires more revision; Pls revise the introduction by consulting the recent relevant references. The manuscript could be substantially improved by citing the latest refs.

-          In the introduction section, conjunctions should be used to show the relationship between sentences, especially in the same paragraph.

-          Please highlight more specifically the objective of the work more in the end of the introduction section.

Material and methods

-          In the material part, the authors must include the weather conditions and annual rainfall rates, especially during the periods of conducting the experiment, in detail, as it is mentioned in this part that the authors did not irrigate their plants and relied only on rainwater.

-          Lines 101 and 102: "Two replications of 20 seeds from each line were placed in a 120 mL wide mouth bottle with two layers of wet filter paper" what do you mean by two replications. Are the authors using two replication only in this concern??

-          The authors have to include the number of plants for each experimental plot.

-          Lines 101-106: “Two replications of 20 seeds from each line were placed in a 120 mL wide mouth bottle with two layers of wet filter paper. The bottles were full of ultrapure water and kept in a germination chamber set at 14h/10h photoperiod with a temperature of 103 22℃/20℃. At five days after seed placement, the water was removed, and the seeds were kept germinating for five days. The seeds germination rates (SGR) were collected as the phenotype of waterlogging tolerance? Please review this carefully.

-          The authors have to include some important characteristics in this study, such as plant height and some physiological estimates, and other parameters that can change as a result of experimental treatments that help authors to interpret their results.

Results and discussion

-          The figures are clear and the quality of the figs and graphs is good

-          In the discussion section, conjunctions should be used to show the relationship between sentences.

-          It is suggested to add the study of the growth parameters of wheat, which will help analyze the optimal and suitable conditions for germination.

-          The results are sufficient for publication in this prestigious scientific journal

-          The results present are clearly presented; my main concern is about the discussion, which is not of a good level.

-          Please, make an effort to synthesize the text avoiding redundancies and repetitions in the discussion.

-          Some parts of the discussion sentences need clarification and interpretation, and recent references need to be used as much as possible.

-          This part should be better organized and extended. It is important to try to better deepen and explain.

Conclusions; conclusion part is very long, so, do not repeat the above sentences in the conclusion part. In conclusion, you should write a summary of your work in short sentences so that I, as a reader of this article, can understand what the article ended up being.

General:

-          The manuscript contains some typo errors; please revise it very carefully. A careful revision of the English Grammar is required. So, language needs to be improved thoroughly 

- Summarizing, this is a good study, which certainly merits publication after a major revision.

-          Pls, shorten the long sentences and add Ref. as soon as possible with avoiding repetition.

References:

-          The number of references is about 28 ref. Only 6 of the in the last four years. I think it is very little. So, pls delete the old ones, and add the recent ref. (2020-2022) and avoid repetition and self-citation as soon as possible.

-          The scientific names in the refs part have to write in italic form according to the journal requirements.

-          There are several recent ref. in the same trend of the topic of this MS, pls pay attention to this point.

-          Cross-check all the references for mistakes and follow the journal style of reference input.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc