Effects of Different Drip Irrigation Patterns on Grain Yield and Population Structure of Different Water- and Fertilizer-Demanding Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSuggestions for improving the article for possible publication are provided:
- What is meant by water sensitive?
- Please add some more proper references
- The abstract is long.
- Figures 5 to 8 are not clear.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSuggestions for improving the article for possible publication are provided:
- What is meant by water sensitive?
- The abstract is long.
- Figures 5 to 8 are not clear.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript (agronomy-2744565) and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We hope that your comments have been addressed accurately. All the revised parts are marked red in the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
- What is meant by water sensitive? Please add some more proper references
Response: Thank you for your comments very much. In our (2018 and 2019) preliminary cultivar screening experiments (20 varieties) under enlarged lateral space drip irrigation system, we find that XC22 (12.78) showed the highest coefficient of variation between rows yield, and XC44 (3.31) showed the lowest coefficient of variation between rows yield (Yang 2020). So we define XC22 as a water and fertilizer demanding cultivar, and XC44 as a water and fertilizer undemanding cultivar. We have reformulated the related title and contents in the manuscript.
References: Yang, J. P., 2020. Selection of spring wheat varieties suitable for drip irrigation model of XinJiang big pipe line ratio. Shihezi University. (In Chinese) DOI: 10.27332/d.cnki.gshzu.2020.000773
- The abstract is long.
Response: We deeply appreciate your suggestion, and we have made some modifications to the abstract in the manuscript.
- Figures 5 to 8 are not clear.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this deficiency, and we have increased the size of the numbers and the text in the figures.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study provides specific knowledge about the effects of various drip irrigation patterns on spring wheat production. The study is justified (by regional significance), even though wheat production under drip irrigation is not widely applied in the world. The objectives of the study are too general (observation, analysis), some potential implications should me formed here. I recommend forming some concrete goals of the study in harmony with the results highlighting the potential scientific and practical utilization of the data gained.
The manuscript is based on an intensive study carried out in China during two growing seasons. The practical approach of the materials and methods is well detailed and justified.
The results are described in details, though it is hard to follow all the data formed in the same structure for each parameter under study, especially because of the many abbreviations.
The discussion of the results is done arranging the parameters under study into two groups, which I consider a correct approach. Nevertheless, the references cited here are just general statements rather belonging to the Introduction section and do not provide a comparison or discussion of the own results with the findings of others. This section must be revised.
The Conclusions part is rather the summary of the results with no highlights of the concrete (scientific and practical) implications of the study.
I inserted some sticky notes with my specific comments and corrections in the pdf file of the manuscript. Some technical terms should be determined more precisely.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor improvement is needed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript (agronomy-2744565) and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We hope that your comments have been addressed accurately. All the revised parts are marked red in the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
1. The manuscript is based on an intensive study carried out in China during two growing seasons. The practical approach of the materials and methods is well detailed and justified.
Response: Thank you for your comments very much.
- The results are described in details, though it is hard to follow all the data formed in the same structure for each parameter under study, especially because of the many abbreviations.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this deficiency. I have annotated the abbreviations according to your suggestion in the specific comments to mark the first abbreviation in the main text. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our future academic researches.
- The discussion of the results is done arranging the parameters under study into two groups, which I consider a correct approach. Nevertheless, the references cited here are just general statements rather belonging to the Introduction section and do not provide a comparison or discussion of the own results with the findings of others. This section must be revised.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this deficiency. We have reformulated the discussion part in the manuscript. The revised part is marked in red and the added part is marked in blue. Your suggestions are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper.
- The Conclusions part is rather the summary of the results with no highlights of the concrete (scientific and practical) implications of the study.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this deficiency. We have reformulated the conclusion part in the manuscript. The revised part is marked in red. Your suggestions are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper.
- I inserted some sticky notes with my specific comments and corrections in the pdf file of the manuscript. Some technical terms should be determined more precisely.
Response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions very much. Your suggestions are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and make many changes in the manuscript according to your suggestions in the specific comments. The revised parts are all marked in red.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript ID: agronomy-2744565 entitled “Effects of different drip irrigation patterns on grain yield and population structure of spring wheat with different water and fertilizer sensitives. The study evaluated the growth, canopy photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) interception and canopy apparent photosynthesis rate, population structure and quality ow spring wheat under different row space and drip irrigation patterns.
However, the manuscript well organized, significant content, but difficult to follow due to no line numbering.
However, I have some observation and suggestions:
- In abstract; 'XC22, water sensitive and XC44, water insensitive' it is not clear and has double meaning. kindly clarify this issue.
- The second sentence in the abstract; started with ‘In a two-years…., it is too long sentence. Please rewrite.
- Page 5: ha-1 need to be superscript
- -Page 6: grain-leaf area ratio: ‘3 representative squares of each plot were selected to measure the grain number and weight of each row’. the squares not similar in area in all treatment??.
- The conclusion is too long. Please re-summarize
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenothing
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript (agronomy-2744565) and for the constructive comments, which greatly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. We hope that your comments have been addressed accurately. All the revised parts are marked red in the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
- The manuscript ID: agronomy-2744565 entitled “Effects of different drip irrigation patterns on grain yield and population structure of spring wheat with different water and fertilizer sensitives. The study evaluated the growth, canopy photo-synthetically active radiation (PAR) interception and canopy apparent photosynthesis rate, population structure and quality ow spring wheat under different row space and drip irrigation patterns.However, the manuscript well organized, significant content, but difficult to follow due to no line numbering.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this deficiency, and thank you for your comments very much.
- However, I have some observation and suggestions:In abstract; 'XC22, water sensitive and XC44, water insensitive' it is not clear and has double meaning. kindly clarify this issue.
Response: Thank you for your comments very much. In our (2018 and 2019) preliminary cultivar screening experiments (20 varieties) under enlarged lateral space drip irrigation system, we find that XC22 (12.78) showed the highest coefficient of variation between rows yield, and XC44 (3.31) showed the lowest coefficient of variation between rows yield (Yang 2020). So we define XC22 as a water and fertilizer demanding cultivar, and XC44 as a water and fertilizer undemanding cultivar. We have reformulated the related title and contents in the manuscript.
References: Yang, J. P., 2020. Selection of spring wheat varieties suitable for drip irrigation model of XinJiang big pipe line ratio. Shihezi University. (In Chinese) DOI: 10.27332/d.cnki.gshzu.2020.000773
- The second sentence in the abstract; started with ‘In a two-years…., it is too long sentence. Please rewrite.
Response: We deeply appreciate your suggestion, and we have rewritten this sentence in the manuscript. The revised part is marked in red.
- Page 5: ha-1 need to be superscript
Response: We sincerely apologize for our oversight in writing the details, and we have revised in the manuscript. The revised part is marked in red. We will pay more attention in future research.
- Page 6: grain-leaf area ratio:‘3 representative squares of each plot were selected to measure the grain number and weight of each row’. the squares not similar in area in all treatment??.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The squares are not similar in area among TR4, TR6, TR6L and TR6S. It is because the drip irrigation tube spacing and row spacing are different. But when measuring the number of grains, grain weight and leaf area, the length of row is the same.
- The conclusion is too long. Please re-summarize
Response: We are grateful for the suggestion, and we have made some modifications to the conclusion in the manuscript. The revised part is marked in red. Your suggestions are very valuable and helpful for improving our paper.
