Effect of Planting Density on the Growth and Yield of Sunflower under Mulched Drip Irrigation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Extensive English language editing is required. The authors should rewrite the manuscript, avoiding the use of long sentences. Some lengthy sentences should be broken into two or more smaller sentences.
Author Response
①We have studied a lot of the relevant references which published in the last five years;
②We have tried our best to describe the methods detailedly;
③We have tried our best to present the results according to the research data;
④The conclusions of the paper are all supported by the results presented;
⑤We have revised the sentences page by page in the text, especially focused on the long sentences and misrepresentation.
Additionally, some main corrections in the manuscript are as flowing:
(1) We have tried our best to describe the methods detailedly;
(2) We have tried our best to present the results according to the research data;
(3) We have deleted the space between values and unit, and unified some unit such as g/L to g.L-1, km/m2 to kg∙m-2, ha to hm2. However, the unit “plants/hm2” and “plants/m2” remain unchanged.
(4) The Figures number have been corrected in L219.
(5) We have added “(spacing 30 - 50 cm)” behind D1-D5 variants. We also added the total amount of water consumed for Table 4 and 5. The variants name of Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 have been unified to D1-D5 treatment.
(6) We have corrected “Table 4 and Table 5” instead of “Table 5 and Table 6” in L219.
(7) We have amended the sentence in L221-L233.
(8) We have added the “Notes” below Table 7 for letters explanation, such as “a/b/c”.
(9) We have modified the sentence that describe the results of variant comparison as significant in L235 and L254. According to the advice of Reviewer 3, we have analysed all the yield attributes by ANOVA in Table 8 and Table 9.
(10) The 1000-seed weight usually have positive correlation with crop production, while the effect of 1000-seed weight on yield was weaker than that of plants population.
(11) We have added the expression that, based on the perspective of maximum production per unit area of farmland, the appropriate plants space is 750px.
(12) We have added the expression about the economic coefficient that, through the IWUE decreased with the increase of plant density, the economic coefficient had no significant difference between treatments, which implied that the proportion of economic output to biological production has no obvious relationship with planting density.
(13) We have added the explanation of “(Soil Matric Potential)” behind the abbreviation of “SMP” in L2.
(14) We have added the “Notes” behind the Table 9 and Table 10 to explain the abbreviation of “IWUE”.
(15) We have made comparison between the five variants, D1 had the highest IWUE (Irrigation Water Use Efficiency), while D5 treatment with the highest yield. Generally, due to the relatively high IWUE and production, also with relatively little soil salt accumulation in the film, D4 variant was supposed to be the appropriate plant density.
Reviewer 2 Report
Evaluating the effect of saline water on sunflower production at different populations was an excellent problem to study. However, i would like to see more details on the type of plastic mulch you used in this study and the color of the mulch. Did you record soil temperatures under the plastic mulch for the different sunflower populations? A few of the figures were difficult to read.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for you advise on our manuscript.
①We have tried our best to describe the methods detailedly;
②We have tried our best to present the results according to the research data;
③We have added some details of plastic mulch: color (white); size (thickness, 0.01mm; width, 900mm);
④Unfortunately, soil temperatures were not considered in the experiment, but it is an interesting issue, I will pay attention to the influence of planting density of crop and cover of plastic film on soil temperatures in future studies.
⑤We have revised the sentences page by page in the text, especially focused on the long sentences and misrepresentation.
Additionally, some main corrections in the manuscript are as flowing:
(1) We have tried our best to describe the methods detailedly;
(2) We have tried our best to present the results according to the research data;
(3) We have deleted the space between values and unit, and unified some unit such as g/L to g.L-1, km/m2 to kg∙m-2, ha to hm2. However, the unit “plants/hm2” and “plants/m2” remain unchanged.
(4) The Figures number have been corrected in L219.
(5) We have added “(spacing 30 - 50 cm)” behind D1-D5 variants. We also added the total amount of water consumed for Table 4 and 5. The variants name of Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 have been unified to D1-D5 treatment.
(6) We have corrected “Table 4 and Table 5” instead of “Table 5 and Table 6” in L219.
(7) We have amended the sentence in L221-L233.
(8) We have added the “Notes” below Table 7 for letters explanation, such as “a/b/c”.
(9) We have modified the sentence that describe the results of variant comparison as significant in L235 and L254. According to the advice of Reviewer 3, we have analysed all the yield attributes by ANOVA in Table 8 and Table 9.
(10) The 1000-seed weight usually have positive correlation with crop production, while the effect of 1000-seed weight on yield was weaker than that of plants population.
(11) We have added the expression that, based on the perspective of maximum production per unit area of farmland, the appropriate plants space is 750px.
(12) We have added the expression about the economic coefficient that, through the IWUE decreased with the increase of plant density, the economic coefficient had no significant difference between treatments, which implied that the proportion of economic output to biological production has no obvious relationship with planting density.
(13) We have added the explanation of “(Soil Matric Potential)” behind the abbreviation of “SMP” in L2.
(14) We have added the “Notes” behind the Table 9 and Table 10 to explain the abbreviation of “IWUE”.
(15) We have made comparison between the five variants, D1 had the highest IWUE (Irrigation Water Use Efficiency), while D5 treatment with the highest yield. Generally, due to the relatively high IWUE and production, also with relatively little soil salt accumulation in the film, D4 variant was supposed to be the appropriate plant density.
Reviewer 3 Report
- delete space between values and unit (e.g. L95, L99, etc.). Consider adjustment of measure units to SI (g/l - g.l-1)
- L219 - correct Figures number (5 and 6 instead of 1 and 2)
- Table 4 and 5 - consider to add plant density bellow D1-D5 variants (or add spacing 30 - 50 cm). There is inconstintency in variants nameing (Fig. 5+6 vs. Fig. 7+8) Also I will recommend to add total amount of water used for both tables.
- L197 - correct link to Table 4 and 5 (instead of Table 5 and 6).
- L221-233 - consider to split this very long sentence, which is not clear and easy to read.
- Table 7 - add a/b/c/ letters explanation
- some of the results of variant comparison are described as "significant", but except of dry matter results in Table 7 with a/b/c marks there is not mentioned statistical testing in results comment. However, MaM section of statistical analysis describes ANOVA testing. Why also other results were not analysed by ANOVA, at least in case of grain weight and crop yield?
One of the conclusion is that increased number of plants led to higher crop yield, but with smaller achenes (L351). How is decreased thousand-grain-weight influencing the product quality and final product price)? Where is the economic threshold of plant spacing? There is economic coefficient in Table 8 and 10, but without further explanation.
- explain abbreviations: SMP (L63), IWUE (Table 9 and 10).
- L354 - Is really D5 variant the most appropriate plant density due to the little water consumption? Sum of irrigated water shows that D5 had highest amount of water used (Table 4 and 5).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your advices on our manuscript. We have made many modifications.
(1) We have tried our best to describe the methods detailedly;
(2) We have tried our best to present the results according to the research data;
(3) We have deleted the space between values and unit, and unified some unit such as g/L to g.L-1, km/m2 to kg∙m-2, ha to hm2. However, the unit “plants/hm2” and “plants/m2” remain unchanged.
(4) The Figures number have been corrected in L219.
(5) We have added “(spacing 30 - 50 cm)” behind D1-D5 variants. We also added the total amount of water consumed for Table 4 and 5. The variants name of Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 have been unified to D1-D5 treatment.
(6) We have corrected “Table 4 and Table 5” instead of “Table 5 and Table 6” in L219.
(7) We have amended the sentence in L221-L233.
(8) We have added the “Notes” below Table 7 for letters explanation, such as “a/b/c”.
(9) We have modified the sentence that describe the results of variant comparison as significant in L235 and L254. According to the advice of Reviewer 3, we have analysed all the yield attributes by ANOVA in Table 8 and Table 9.
(10) The 1000-seed weight usually have positive correlation with crop production, while the effect of 1000-seed weight on yield was weaker than that of plants population.
(11) We have added the expression that, based on the perspective of maximum production per unit area of farmland, the appropriate plants space is 750px.
(12) We have added the expression about the economic coefficient that, through the IWUE decreased with the increase of plant density, the economic coefficient had no significant difference between treatments, which implied that the proportion of economic output to biological production has no obvious relationship with planting density.
(13) We have added the explanation of “(Soil Matric Potential)” behind the abbreviation of “SMP” in L2.
(14) We have added the “Notes” behind the Table 9 and Table 10 to explain the abbreviation of “IWUE”.
(15) According to the reminder of the appropriate plant density, we have made comparison between the five variants, D1 had the highest IWUE (Irrigation Water Use Efficiency), while D5 treatment with the highest yield. Generally, due to the relatively high IWUE and production, also with relatively little soil salt accumulation in the film, D4 variant was supposed to be the appropriate plant density.
(16) We have revised the sentences page by page in the text, especially focused on the long sentences and misrepresentation.
Once again, thank you very much for your kind help.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript.
