Growth Analysis of Pearl Millet Genotypes Grown Under Different Management Practices

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improve

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Growth Analysis of Pearl Millet Genotypes Grown Under Different Management Practices" presents an in-depth study on the performance of different pearl millet genotypes under varying water management conditions. The study provides valuable insights into how genotype selection and irrigation strategies influence pearl millet growth, yield, and water use efficiency. Authors are advised to address the following comments to improve the manuscript, Authors are advised to explain What genetic or agronomic characteristics made these varieties particularly relevant to the study?

Response 1: In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, we have incorporated agronomic characteristics that made these varieties particularly relevant to the study. The additional information can be found on page 4, specifically between lines 100 and 115.

Comments 2: Language editing is highly recommended.

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We edited the Language where needed.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your time in reviewing this manuscript. Enclosed below, you will find a comprehensive set of responses, along with the relevant revisions and corrections highlighted within the resubmitted documents using track changes.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Is the research design

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Our corresponding response are given in the point-by-point response letter below.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors in this work have investigated three pearl millet genotypes (Pennisetum glaucum (l.) R. Br.) under different agronomic practices in a three-year field experiment (2016-2018). The topic is pertinent for agronomy science and in line with the journal scope

Some sections of the paper such as (Results and Discussions) seem a bit confused and incomplete and need further elaboration. Major revisions are required to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Lines 61-63. Add citation for the following phrase: Short-duration improved pearl millet cultivars are grown in areas where a short growing season is experienced or as a backup strategy for crop failures, guaranteeing the farmer some level of support production.

Response 1: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added citations at page 3 online Lines 62-64 for the following phrase: “Short-duration improved pearl millet cultivars are grown in areas where a short growing season is experienced is [20-22] or as a backup strategy for crop failures, guaranteeing the farmer some level of support production” that has been updated in the reviewed article production [23-25].

Comments 2: Lines 89-90. Write the complete name for Nitrogen (N) when it first appears in the text in the following sentence: According to Alagarswamy, Gardner [33] and Prasad, Samota [34], N serves as the key limiting nutrient in many economically essential crops.

Response 2: Agree as suggested by the reviewer, the complete name for Nitrogen (N) written in the sentence on Lines 89-90. which now reads “According to Alagarswamy, Gardner [33] and Prasad, Samota [34], nitrogen (N) serves as the key limiting nutrient in many economically essential crops”.

Comments 3: Lines 105-107. Delete one dot at the end of the sentence: This study aimed to measure and analyse the growth response and development, grain yield, dry matter production and water use of different pearl millet genotypes grown under a wide range of water supply conditions..

Response 3: We have deleted the dot at the end of the sentence in lines 105-107. Now the sentence reads “This study aimed to measure and analyse the growth response and development, grain yield, dry matter production and water use of different pearl millet genotypes grown under a wide range of water supply conditions.”

Comments 4: Lines 117-118. Check this sentence and correct it: The study area experiences a climate with an average annual temperature of 12–26 °C and an average annual rainfall of 709 mm for 1₂ years from 2006 to 2018.

Response 4: The sentence has been reviewed and corrected on lines 117-118. “The study area experiences a climate with an average annual temperature of 12–26 °C and an average annual rainfall of 709 mm for the 12 years from 2006 to 2018.”

Comments 5: Line 120. Put the tables or figures immediately after the first appearance in the text (Table 1).

Response 5: Table 1 has been relocated to page 4, after its initial reference on page 3, while Figure 1 is positioned on page 5, following its first citation on page 4.

Comments 6: Line 125. Figure 1. Please adjust the figure 1, specially where is written B1 B2 B3.

Response 6: We have modified Figure 1, captions labelled B1, B2, and B3 have been adjusted to enhance clarity and visibility on page 6.

Comments 7: Lines 130-131. Please correct the following sentence, a bracket is missing: The field study used three millet varieties (V): a hybrid (V1), a landrace (V2) and an improved variety (V3).

Response 7: The correction on lines 130-131 has been made by including the previously omitted bracket.

Comments 8:  Line 133. Table 1. Adjust table 1 because it is not clear what it is written specially in the last part of 2018 data.

Response 8: Table 1 on line 133 has been revised to enhance clarity, including the final portion of the 2018 data. The table has also been moved to page 4, line 122.

Comments 9: Line 138. Write the symbol of phosphorus in the correct way (P); (40 kg p/ha).

Response 9: The symbol for phosphorus has been corrected from' p' to' P' on line 138. The correction is found on line 167.

Comments 10: Line 155. Add city and country where the instrument (neutron water meter model 503 DR CPN hydroprobe) was made in.

Response 10: As recommended, the location (city and country) of the neutron water meter model 503 DR CPN hydroprobe has been included on line 155. The sentence currently reads as follow: “For monitoring the soil water balance, a neutron water meter model 503 DR CPN hydroprobe (Campbell Pacific Nuclear, Martinez, CA, USA) calibrated for the experimental site was used to measure soil water contents at 0.2 m increments to a depth of 1.0 m.” Now found on line 166.

Comments 11: Lines 236-239. This part belongs to the discussion section. Please move it to the Discussion section.

Response 11: The discussion component found on lines 236-239 has been moved to the Discussion section on lines 512 to 517

Comments 12: Lines 277-280. This part belongs to the discussion section: The results also agree with Saifullah, Munsif [47] Yadav, Kumar [48] those who reported that plant heights increased significantly with increased irrigation frequency. Varieties were also found to be significantly different at the harvest stage, and the maximum plant height was recorded for the landrace [49]. This was due to the differential maturity duration of varieties [50, 51]. Please move it to the Discission section.

Response 12: In the same way, lines 277-280 were relocated to the appropriate Discussion on lines 531 to 535

Comments 13: Line 290. Table 4. The authors should add also Standard Deviation or Standard Error in the Table 4.

Response 13: The authors chose to include the coefficient of variation (CV) because it is beneficial for comparing datasets with varying units or significantly different means. This is in contrast to using Standard Deviation or Standard Error.

Comments 14: Lines 295-298. This part belongs to the discussion section. Please move it to the Discission section.

Response 14: This section is best suited to the results section as it currently stands.

“In contrast, the improved variety under rainfed conditions had the lowest height. Under rainfed conditions, the landrace recorded higher plant height than other varieties in the growing season. Similar results of differences in plant height among different pearl millet varieties have been reported by Naeem, Chauhan [52] and [53].” This section simply presents the findings without clarifying why the results are as they are.

Comments 15: Lines 303-306. This part belongs to the discussion section. Please move it to the Discission section.

Response 15: This section appears to be best suited under results ”The increase in plant height with increasing irrigation levels has been observed for other crops and pearl millet [54, 55]. Pearl millet subjected to weekly and fortnightly irrigation management produced taller plants than plots with only rainfall.” As it does not highlight the discussion.

Comments 16: Lines 365-372. This part belongs to the discussion section. Please move it to the Discission section.

Response 16: We have agreed to move lines 368-372: “It is well documented that the leaf: stem ratio declines as forages mature [75], mainly due to the increase in stem weight because of increased cell wall content [76]. In comparison to early varieties, late-maturing varieties have higher concentrations of crude protein and are more digestible Pasternak, Ibrahim and Augustine [78].” The other section belongs to results.

Comments 17: Line 396. Table 6. The authors should add also Standard Deviation or Standard Error in the Table 6.

Response 17: Authors prefer to use CV as it provides a normalized measure of variability, while the SD offers an absolute perspective.

Comments 18: Line 436. Figure 6. The quality of the Figure 6 is poor. Please provide a more qualitative picture. Also, the error bars are missing in this figure 6. If possible, add error bars od Standard Deviation or Standard Error in the figure 6.

Response 18:  The figure 6 has been modified to improve the quality of the figure. However, we could not add error bars as it is not practical due to the size of the data.

Comments 19: Lines 443-448. This part belongs to the discussion section. Please move it to the Discission section.

Response 19: This section has been moved to discussion section on Lines 587 to 588

Comments 20: Lines 454-456. This part belongs to the discussion section. Please move it to the Discission section.

Response 19: This section has been moved to discussion section on Lines 565 to 567

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:  The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: We are pleased that the English quality is considered good.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments, please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Responses given in the point-by-point response letter below

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Responses given in the point-by-point response letter below

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Responses given in the point-by-point response letter below

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The summary contains the following sentence "The improved variety suits grain production, whereas the landrace and hybrid are more suitable for dual-purpose production". The variety has the lowest seed yield. If so, is this sentence appropriate?

Response 1: We appreciate your observation regarding the fact that the open-pollinated improved variety exhibits the lowest yield, despite being suitable for grain production. We concur with this assessment; however, the accompanying sentence remains appropriate. This is attributed to the characteristics of the improved open-pollinated variety, which is discernibly shorter and possesses a weaker stem with a smaller diameter, resulting in lower biomass when compared to landrace and hybrid varieties under both rainfed and irrigated conditions. In regions with low and inconsistent rainfall, where hybrid and landrace varieties struggle to produce grain, the improved variety has proven to yield crops, although at a lower quantity. Given these considerations, the original sentence remains appropriate.

Comments 2: The study is a three-year field experiment, so its results are valuable, but the timing of its publication reduces its effectiveness. Isn't it a little late to publish the study? The landrace in the study may have become a variety now. Therefore, your suggestions regarding genotype will be a little out of date. Isn't it?

Response 2: It is acknowledged that a delay in publication may diminish effectiveness. Nevertheless, the dissemination of the results will undoubtedly exert a significant influence on both breeders, as the genotype can still be developed into a distinct variety, and farmers with access to irrigation, who may cultivate the land for both grain and livestock, thereby promoting sustainable crop production due to the resilience of these varieties. Although an earlier publication could have provided advantages to both farmers and breeders by enhancing food security.

Comments 3: Frankly, I don't understand why you gave Figure 1. It doesn't add any extra clarity. Your test pattern is quite understandable in the text. So removing Figure 1 won't cause any deficiency in the study. If it stays, at least add the explanations about the operations (such as which filling type represents which operation...)

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We received critics in the past for leaving out the Schematic representation (Figure 1), we have added the explanations about the operations as follow: The filling patterns in each experimental block provides information about how treatments were assigned to each block every year. The filling type with a dotted pattern indicates a hybrid (I₀V₁), the alternating vertical lines symbolise a landrace variety (I₀V₂), and the horizontal stripes represent an open-pollinated improved variety (I₀V₃), all cultivated in rainfed conditions. In contrast, the no-fill pattern indicates hybrid (I₁V₁), the large grid symbolises landrace (I₁V₂), and slashes represent open-pollinated improved variety (I₁V₃), all receiving weekly irrigation. The diagonal stripe pattern denotes hybrid (I₂V₁), while the solid diamond grid represents landrace (I₂V₂), and the vertical dark stripes signify open-pollinated improved variety (I₁V₃), all subjected to biweekly irrigation. This change can be found on the revised manuscript at page 5, from line 132 to 141.

Comments 4: Yes, there are many examples in practice, but it would be good if a study in which the irrigation regime was a factor was not conducted in conditions open to the atmosphere. Because rain is much more than water for plants...

Response 4: We acknowledge your observation and have published our earlier work, titled “Improving Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Productivity through Adaptive Management of Water and Nitrogen,” which involved irrigation under a rain shelter. Unfortunately, we could not use the rain shelter for this particular study as it was allocated for other research.

Comments 5: Please reconsider this sentences, in page 8 line 227; " Increased irrigation levels resulted in higher total water use from 502 mm to 569 mm throughout the three seasons for hybrid (Agrigreen), from 552 mm to 630 mm for the landrace open-pollinated variety (Kantana), and from 478 mm to 530 mm for the improved open-pollinated variety (Kangara)". Bu şekilde yanlış anlaşılmaya müsait gibi... WUE nin formülünü hatırlayalım. artan su miktarı WUE yi artırı mı yoksa azaltır mı?

Response 5: We have reconsidered this sentence above; however, the status quo is appropriate as water use is not equivalent to water use efficiency. Want use was calculated using ?? =?+?−??−??+∆?: where ET  (evapotranspiration) is the total water use during a defined growing season, P is precipitation, I is irrigation, RO (runoff) is surface water that leaves the field, DP (deep percolation) is infiltrated water which moves below the root zone (1 m), and ∆Q represents the change in soil water storage. All terms are expressed in mm. Whereas Water use efficiency (WUE) of grain and total dry matter production is calculated per unit evapotranspiration (water use). Therefore, water use (evapotranspiration) is increases with the increase in irrigation, but WUE decrease with increase on water use.

Comments 6: You can add a little more detail on the subject of water use efficiency (WUE). For example, a formula should be added and these values should be given in a separate graph or table. It is not very understandable in this form.

Comments 6: You can add a little more detail on the subject of water use efficiency (WUE). For example, a formula should be added and these values ​​should be given in a separate graph or table. It is not very understandable in this form.

Response 6: We agree to add more details on WUE efficiency, ET and including formular. The values are highlighted in both Table 2 and the text on pages 9-10, starting from line 257- 267. Wheresas the graph are on page 20 on line 501.

Comments 7: Apart from this, there are differences in font and bold in some parts of the text. Please review the text again in this context.

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We corrected any discrepancies in the font and formatting where needed.

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: (x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

Response 1: We are pleased that the English quality is considered good.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]