Comparative Study on the Morpho-Physiological Responses of White Clover Cultivars with Different Leaf Types to Water Deficiency
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is very important in field
But need improved in language Editing
Please parpherase the conclusion
Please update the reference according to last five years
Need improved in language editing
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The manuscript is very important in field, but need improved in language Editing.
Response 1: Thank you for your approval of our manuscript. We have improved our language editing (revised line 18, 29, 39, 42, 44, 46, 52, 54, 55, 61, 82, 86, 97, 104, 108, 109, 122, 125, 227, 279).
Point 2: Please paraphrase the conclusion.
Response 2: We have improved our conclusion (revised line 438-450).
Point 3: Please update the reference according to last five years.
Response 3: We have updated the reference according to last five years (Reference 1, 4, 9, 18, 19, 35, 43; revised line 465-466, 471-472, 482-483, 502-504, 505-507, 543-544, 562-564).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper titled "Comparative study on the morph–physiological responses of white clover cultivars with different leaf types to water deficiency" examines the responses of four white clover cultivars with different leaf types to drought stress and subsequent recovery. The study aims to compare these cultivars' morphological and physiological characteristics under varying water conditions. Overall, the paper thoroughly investigates the topic and provides valuable insights into the adaptability of white clover cultivars to water deficiency.
Some corrections in the text:
Line 18: should say: conditions
Line 29: the smaller
Line 43: long-lasting
Line 44: clover a worldwide
Line 52: An early
Line 54: a 30%
Line 61: phenotype plasticity’s?
Line 105: clovers
Line 108: is a medium-leafed
Line 109: LP originated from Northern China, PD and KL were introduced
Line 122: the growth
Line 125: the growth
Line 227: not apparently different
The paper begins by introducing white clover as a legume herbage with high feed quality but susceptibility to water deficiency. This sets the context for the study and highlights the importance of understanding the responses of white clover cultivars to drought stress. The objectives of the study are clearly stated, and the methodology is described in sufficient detail, allowing for replication of the experiments.
The results of the study indicate that small-leafed white clover cultivars exhibited superior responses to drought stress compared to medium- and large-leafed cultivars. The small-leafed cultivars maintained higher relative water content, better membrane stability, and more effective osmotic regulation as drought intensity increased. Additionally, the small-leafed cultivars displayed faster recovery after rehydration. These findings suggest that small-leafed white clover is more adaptable to drought conditions and has a higher potential for post-drought recovery.
Furthermore, the study investigated the impact of drought stress intensity on photosynthetic characteristics and stomatal features. As drought stress intensified, the net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance decreased in all cultivars. However, the small-leafed white clover showed a smaller decline in these parameters compared to the medium- and large-leafed cultivars. Additionally, the small-leafed cultivars exhibited smaller leaf size and higher stomatal density under both normal and drought conditions.
The paper concludes by summarizing the results and emphasizing the superior adaptability of small-leafed white clover cultivars to drought stress and post-drought recovery compared to the other leaf types. The findings contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying drought response and recovery potential in different white clover cultivars.
Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the morphological and physiological responses of white clover cultivars with different leaf types to water deficiency. The study is well-designed, and the results are presented in a clear and logical manner. The findings highlight the superior adaptability of small-leafed white clover cultivars to drought stress and post-drought recovery, as evidenced by their maintenance of higher relative water content, better membrane stability, and more effective osmotic regulation. The inclusion of statistical analyses, more detailed environmental conditions, and visual aids would further enhance the paper's quality. Nonetheless, the study contributes to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying drought response and recovery potential in white clover cultivars and serves as a valuable reference for future research in this field.
Author Response
Point 1: Some corrections in the text:
Line 18: should say: conditions
Line 29: the smaller
Line 43: long-lasting
Line 44: clover a worldwide
Line 52: An early
Line 54: a 30%
Line 61: phenotype plasticity’s?
Line 105: clovers
Line 108: is a medium-leafed
Line 109: LP originated from Northern China, PD and KL were introduced
Line 122: the growth
Line 125: the growth
Line 227: not apparently different
Response 1: Thank you for your comment for the manuscript, we have corrected these parts with reference to your comments (revised line (revised line 18, 29, 39, 42, 44, 52, 54, 61, 104, 108, 109, 122, 125, 227).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presented coparative study concerning morph-physiological responses of white clover cultivars with different leaf types to water deficiency. It is very important to fined out when providing research work the changes in osmoregulatory substances. Also it is important to understand mechanisms of small-leafed and large leafed of white clover tolerance to drought stress and select more tolerant white clover cultivars. Section 5 Conclusions should have subpoints describing the most important findings of the study. Please add some recent publications concerning morph-physiological responces of white clover cultivars with different leaf types to water deficiency.
English language allows to undertand the goals of the study and its contribution to the world scientific community.
Author Response
Point 1: Section 5 Conclusions should have subpoints describing the most important findings of the study.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We have improved our conclusion (revised line 438-450).
Point 2: Please add some recent publications concerning morph-physiological responses of white clover cultivars with different leaf types to water deficiency.
Response 2: We further searched the web of science website for documents related to morph-physiological responses of white clover cultivars with different leaf types to water deficiency in recent years. However, there is no relevant literature in recent five years. We found that only Li et al published different response on drought tolerance and post-drought recovery between the small-leafed and the large-leafed white clover in 2013, and this document has been quoted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
