Relationships between Plant Architecture Traits and Cotton Yield within the Plant Height Range of 80–120 cm Desired for Mechanical Harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns and the title and claims of the manuscript are now more appropriate to the work conducted and data presented.  I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for your suggestion and help to our paper processing.

Yours sincerely,

Xiaoli Tian

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is greatly improved over your first draft.  Following are questions/concerns:

Title: The title is much improved, but is very long.  Journal editors will decide whether the length is satisfactory. Table 2 and scattered through text. Replace “variety” with “cultivar”. Line 88. It is not clear whether topping was employed at some or all of sites.  Plant height would certainly be affected by topping.  Additional description and explanation are needed. Line 89. What is “full flowering stage”?   You replaced “bloom” with “flower”, but that does not define “full”.  Since cotton is an indeterminate plant, the term “full flowering stage” has no meaning.  Are you referring to when all plants have initiated flowering, or some time associated with the cessation of flowering. Lines 110-114. I still do not understand why you addressed mainstem nodes and fruiting branches separately.  These two characterizations of plant structure are essentially the same.  Your sections 2,3, and 4 appear to be similar to LFB, MFB, and UFB, respectively.  Making two different characterizations is confusing.  I think that you could eliminated on set without affecting your results.  Table 2. Changing the word “volume” to “amount” does not address my question.  What do the numbers under N1, N2, N3, and N4 represent - number of plants or plots measured or some other factor? Page 14, Line 70. I still do not see how these data with correlation analyses can be used to address stability of yields.  A simple decrease (less than 0.1 decrease) in the correlation coefficient does not indicate that an increase in yield stability.  Page 14., line 83. I do not understand this sentence.  What do you mean by “yield will respond to a consortium” in this regard?  It would be preferred to simply indicated that “seed cotton yield tended to higher with increased (specific parameters) and/or decreased (specific parameters).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports on the evaluation of cotton plant measurements that may be best suited for mechanical harvest.  A great volume of apparently good data is included, but many of the factors are interacting.  I suggest eliminating the overall correlations, and dwell on correlations (or other statistical tool) within years and within main factors.

Following are questions/concerns:

1.       Title:  Based on the title, I was surprised that the research did not include any actual mechanical harvest.  How can you propose an ideal plant structure for mechanical harvest without conducting any mechanical harvest?

2.       The assumption is made that a specific range of plant heights (80-120cm) would be best suited for mechanical harvest.  What is the basis for this assumption?

3.       Line 47 and elsewhere.  Replace “varieties” with “cultivars”.

4.       Line 52.  Reference 7 does not address the statement in this sentence.  Other references would be better.

5.       Line 92.  What is “full blooming stage”?   (also, “flower” is a more appropriate botanical term than “bloom”

6.       Lines 102-103.  The three sections are not directed related to fruiting zones when you include lateral position (horizontal fruiting). 

7.       Lines 104-105.  The fruiting branch groups are the same as the sections 2, 3, and 4 in lines 102-103?  This is confusing?  Explain.  What is difference in “main stem internodes” and “fruiting branch” groups?

8.       Line 119, Table 2.  What if meant by “volume”?

9.       Line 129.  I do not see how these data with correlation analyses can be used to address stability of yields.  Needs more explanation, defense.

10.    Line 135 and  Figure 1.   I question the value of a correlation of plant height and seed cotton yield when you have year, plant density and MC effects.  The correlation over all of these factors has not meaning.  Correlation analyses is weak method of analyzing these data.  Some sort of regression or path coefficients may be better.

11.    Lines 229-250.  I do not see how these data can be used to establish these architecture traits, and to establish an ideal plant architecture for mechanical harvesting.  Figure 6C suggests that you desire a plant without monopodia, 12 sympodia with each sympodia having two lateral positions.  How was this structure derived and how does it relate to actual vertical and horizontal fruiting intervals.

12.    Line 264-265.  Therefore, the correlations have little meaning?

13.    Line 292.  What range of lower plant density are you suggesting?

14.    Lines 374-376.  What is basis for this statement?

15.    Line 386.  Based for 3.5 cm internode length?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the submission be Wei Yan and colleagues, “The Ideal Plant Architecture for Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton in the Yellow River Valley of China”, cotton plant architecture was mapped over 24 field experiments between 2010 and 2017 in Hebei Province.  The authors conducted correlation analysis between numerous architectural traits and seed yield among different varieties. 

The title is deceiving since it implies the authors have identified an architecture “ideal” for mechanical harvesting.  They have not done this.  What they have done is looked at correlations between architecture and yield among the entire population, and then looked at the same correlations among a subsample of plants that happen to be in the size range suitable for the harvesting equipment, and they note the differences.  A title that more accurately describes the work would be “Correlations between architecture traits and fiber yields among cotton plants that are within the height guidelines for mechanical harvesting in the Yellow River Valley of China.”

The paper is lacking in the description of materials and methods and the growth of the plants.  I assume no irrigation was used since only rainfall is mentioned.  Use of agrochemicals (growth regulators, herbicides, pesticides, etc.) and fertilizers is common in all growing areas and a scientific agronomy paper should describe these treatments.  Other than mepiquat chloride in some trials, nothing is mentioned.  Should I assume no fertilizer was added and no pesticide treatments were used?  Furthermore, the timing and dose of mepiquat chloride is not recorded. This is a critical omission since the authors are arguing that irrigation and agrochemicals (growth regulators) should be used to control plant height.

They argue that growers should use irrigation and growth regulators to keep plants in the range of 80-120 cm, but they have done no experiments to keep plants in this range and still record yield.  Any treatment with growth regulators or irrigation will change the architecture and the effect on yield is unknown for the Hebei province.  There is extensive literature from the USA where mechanical harvesting along with agrochemical use has been implemented for decades.  Is there a reason to think that treatments successful in the USA will not be successful in Hebei province?

The Discussion section appears to repeat the most of the information presented in the Results section.  This level of repetition is undesirable and makes the manuscript unnecessarily long. Table 4 is cropped on the left hand side.  Writing style and language is acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx