Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors 

You did very well work inside the paper but havings some corrections which should be corrected as given below:

1. Line 1, mention article, review or other????

2. Line 19, the control should be control only.

3. In abstract you put results only for Lv not for Bv why???

4. What is outcome and recommendation for this study?

5. Line 18, what is full form FAA, and concentration ?? Which ratio youvuaed.

6. How many replications you used for this study? Pls mention for biological or technical replication.

7. As which test you used for statistical significance pls mention below the table or fig.

8. Reference should be according to journal guidelines. 

9. English language must be improve.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English need to improvement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report: agronomy-2706603

The findings could be interesting for researchers. However, following comments should be addressed before proceeding this manuscript for further. Authors are highly recommended to correct manuscript as per following suggestions for enhancing readability and reproducibility of results.

1. In abstract: Include quantitative key results and a very clear conclusion and future prospect.

2. The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented in the last paragraph of introduction section.

3. The following references maybe helpful for this paper and recommended to be cited.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-022-10807-x

4. How many replicates have been done for each assay. Please indicate it in the related sections.

5. I could not find any soil characteristic and methods used for analysis in this paper. Details are missing.

6. There was no information about harvest time of plants!  In which stage they were harvested. Please explain it carefully.

7. Is there possibility to include mean comparison letters in the Tables?!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors studied the impact of strong soil water limitation on aboveground strucutural attributes and morpho-anatomical response strategies of Bromus valdivianus Phil. and Lolium perenne L.

The work raises an important topic, is well written, and contains interesting results and photos. But I don't see any innovation in it. Moreover, some important physiological measurements are made in five repetitions, which is definitely not enough in the case of measuring photosynthetic indicators - I personally perform 15-20 such measurements. Plants are too biologically diverse to do only five repetitions. Therefore, I believe that these measurements are unreliable.This makes the manuscript unreliable. I believe that the analysis carried out is sufficient to draw appropriate conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the explanations, I see that the work has been corrected according to the reviewers' instructions. I have no further comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx