Differential Responses to Yellow-Rust Stress Assist in the Identification of Candidate Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes for Resistance Breeding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While the manuscript has enough results, presentation is jumbled. Authors failed to differentiate between effect and affect at some places. I request authors to use full form of any abbreviation when it is mentioned first.

Results are repeated in the discussion section. I suggest authors to improve introduction and discussion sections. Discussion should include critical commentary. Similarly, conclusion section should be succinct. I would like to see a thorough revision of the manuscript. It is too loose in its current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer please find the authors response in detailed in the attached document.

Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study has useful information related to yellow rust breeding. It could have been better if the authors used a known yellow rust race. There are some English mistakes that should be corrected especially in lines 59, 71, 81, 84, 85, 89, 98-99, 103, 107, 114, 119, 121, 138, 141, 143, 145, 155, 203, 208, 217, 218, 226, 227, 251, 259, 262-263, 281, 292, 345-346, 357, 361, 363, 427, 429, 430, 431, 433, 438, 441, 457, 497, 565, 569, 574, 579, 580, 581, 614, 624, 630, 634, 636, 652-653, 658, 663, 678, 683-684, 747, 769, 781.

References should be checked and should be written according to Journal rules. Scientific names shoıld be written in italic.

Author Response

Dear reviewer kindly find line wise response to your valuable suggestions in the attached document.

Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review on the article “Differential responses to yellow-rust stress assist in the identification of candidate wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for resistance breeding (agronomy-1841579)

The article is correctly written, except for some minor corrections needed, and presents a lot of information on phenological, anatomical, physiological characters, etc., of wheat lines under the two conditions of YR described. The methods used are traditional and the statistics seem correct but excessively detailed, with some information that is maybe unnecessary, see comments.

However, the presentation of results is extremely long and excessively detailed, including tables. This is detrimental to the general understanding and reader’s interest. Also, not much information is presented on the development of the disease, which leaves some doubts about the possible variations that could exist in the results presented due to changes in the intensity of the development of the disease.

In the same way, the discussion is very long and detailed, according to the results, and a lot of information about the results is repeated here, see comments.

Some additional comments are provided below and can contribute to improve the text for a resubmission.

28 – The summary does not provide enough information to justify the work nor does it make the objectives clear and exceeds the results.

51 – Use only the abbreviated name.

83 – This paragraph needs a rewording, as it was probably inadvertently cut off during editing and some parts need clarification.

118 – Standardize the coordinates provided.

120 – Rabi season, I understand that it is a winter crop, but it must be explained what it means, this terminology not used in many places.

120 - …with an average precipitation of about 2.9 mm, …annual?

135 - Figures 1A and 1B should be improved, in 1B almost nothing can be seen.

164 – Provide abbreviations showed in the table.

189 – (and elsewhere), … gm?, use international units.

196 – What are the programs used (packages, procedures) used in the statistical analysis?

196 – Provide explaining for GCA (general combining ability?) and SCA (specific combining ability), for example, in the heading 2.5.1, and also, use one type of abbreviation for them. For example, in the next paragraph these abbreviations were written dot separated.

221 - If these are commonly used formulas, you should refer only to the referenced publications (formulae in I, ii, iii, iv, v).

 280 – There is some information (more than Fig 1) about the severity observed in the experiments? It is expected that the observed parameters may vary with variations in YR severity.

291 – The GCA results are presented in a slow and very detailed way, for data that is already in Table 4. Do not present results that can be seen in Table 4. In addition, table 4 has a lot of information that is excessive to present in this format in the article itself, better in a supplementary archive or material.

353 - The same can be said for SCA, the results can be seen in table 5, and Table 5 is very long and difficult to follow.

429 – Correct Class-3.

431 – Again, correct Class-3.

538 – For the discussion in general, try not to repeat the results again, these should be discussed based on other previous and referenced knowledge.

579 – Correct “phonological”.

659 – The direct selection of genotypes … this paragraph needs a reference.

661 – sections, or selections.

683 – …isolated class as isolated class?

Author Response

Dear reviewer kindly find attached point to point response to your expert in depth critique of the manuscript.

Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like authors to consider my points from the earlier review. I would like discussion section to be shortened and clearly integrated. It is better not to have subsections in discussion. I would like conclusions to be concise.

I observed unnecessary hyphenation in the abstract.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for taking his precious time and highlighting again the required corrections in round 2 that were missed in the first round.

Reviewer Comment: I would like authors to consider my points from the earlier review.

Author Response: Points from earlier review have now been addressed. The effect and affect have now been corrected in the introduction as well as in the discussion section. Full forms of the abbreviations have now been explained on first use.

Reviewer Comment: I would like discussion section to be shortened and clearly integrated. It is better not to have subsections in discussion. I would like conclusions to be concise.

Author response: Discussion section has now been critically reviewed and made clearer and concise. The repetition of results in the introduction has now been removed. The sub-headings in the discussion have now been removed.

Reviewer comment: I observed unnecessary hyphenation in the abstract.

Author response: Unnecessary hyphenations have now been removed from the abstract.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx