Excellent Canopy Structure in Soybeans Can Improve Their Photosynthetic Performance and Increase Yield
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhat is a "reasonable" canopy structure, authors may choose to modify the title suitably.
LN 24: full form of STV at the first mention
LN 33 and elsewhere: What is an "excellent" canopy?
LN 64-65: rephrase the statements, technological advancement in imaging led to development of crop phenotypic research, and not genomics/bioinformatics
Use either of the terminologies consistently: "shade-sensitive varieties" or "non-shade-tolerant soybeans" or "shade-intolerant varieties"
Use either of the terminologies consistently: "shade" or "low light" or "weak light"
LN 144: delete "intelligent"
LN 210: delete "some"
LN 215-216: rephrase the statement
LN 219: include "in intercropped soybean varieties"
Figure captions and Tables could be described in more detail
LN 301-309, 337-341: move to "discussion" section.
Please confirm the range and unit of canopy photosynthesis
LN 391-393: rephrase for better clarity
LN 542 and elsewhere: photoactivity?
LN 538: biomass production capacity of sinks?
LN 565: rapid consumption of transpiration?
LN 580-581: rephrase the statement for clarity
LN 621: nutrient formation?
In general, many statements are redundant and emphasizing similar meaning. This may be taken care to reduce the content of the manuscript and make it crisp and clear to the reader.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear expert reviewer,
Hello!
Thank you for your valuable suggestions amidst your busy schedule. We have made modifications to the relevant content of the article as per your requirements. The specific revisions have been highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript. During the revision process, we carefully revised the manuscript by organizing our thoughts and reviewing literature. We integrated the content, added important information, and removed unnecessary parts to enhance reader comprehension. Additionally, we made significant revisions to both the content and formatting of the cited references, ensuring that the manuscript adheres to standard conventions. We hope these changes will enhance the quality of our manuscript.
We will now summarize the detailed modification instructions in the revised manuscript (i.e. corresponding responses to each modification suggestion), as shown below:
Comments 1: What is a "reasonable" canopy structure, authors may choose to modify the title suitably.
Response 1: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. The term "reasonable" in the original manuscript was intended to indicate that shade-tolerant soybean varieties have a larger top area and side width, which increases light transmittance within the canopy and promotes uniform light distribution, thereby enhancing photosynthesis. However, we realize that this is merely an excellent characteristic of the shade-tolerant soybean canopy and should not be directly defined as "reasonable." After careful consideration and discussion, we have changed the title to: "Excellent canopy structure of soybean can improve its photosynthetic performance and increase yield."
Comments 2: LN 24: full form of STV at the first mention.
Response 2: Thank you for the reviewers' reminders and suggestions. We sincerely apologize for our oversight in forgetting to include the full form of STV at its first mention. We have now added it to the abstract section.
Comments 3: LN 33 and elsewhere: What is an "excellent" canopy?
Response 3: Thank you for the questions raised by the reviewers. The term "excellent" mentioned in the original text refers to the evaluation of shade-tolerant versus shade-sensitive soybean varieties. Compared to shade-sensitive varieties, shade-tolerant soybean varieties have a significant yield advantage, which is attributed to their superior canopy structure and photosynthetic capacity. This is characterized by a larger top area and wider lateral width, increasing the light interception area within the canopy and facilitating efficient photosynthesis, which promotes the synthesis and accumulation of photosynthetic products in the leaf source. At the same time, this study also clarifies that shade-tolerant soybean varieties have relatively lower assimilate content during transport (in the main stem and branches), while the content transported to the pods (the sink) is higher. This will be a major reason for the absolute yield advantage of shade-tolerant soybeans.
Comments 4: LN 64-65: rephrase the statements, technological advancement in imaging led to development of crop phenotypic research, and not genomics/bioinformatics
Response 4: Thank you for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers. We have revised the statement accordingly.
Comments 5: Use either of the terminologies consistently: "shade-sensitive varieties" or "non-shade-tolerant soybeans" or "shade-intolerant varieties"
Response 5: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have made the revisions as advised. To maintain consistency in logic and content throughout the manuscript, we will refer to shade-sensitive soybean varieties uniformly as "shade-sensitive varieties," or SSV.
Comments 6: Use either of the terminologies consistently: "shade" or "low light" or "weak light"
Response 6: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have standardized the term throughout the manuscript to "shade."
Comments 7: LN 144: delete "intelligent"
Response 7: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have removed "intelligent" from this section.
Comments 8: LN 210: delete "some"
Response 8: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have removed "some" from this section.
Comments 9: LN 215-216: rephrase the statement
Response 9: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We apologize for any reading difficulties caused by our inappropriate description. We have made the necessary revisions in the manuscript. For details, see lines 257-261 of the revised draft.
Comments 10: LN 219: include "in intercropped soybean varieties”
Response 10: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. The differences in aboveground dry matter accumulation among intercropped soybean varieties have been discussed in the revised manuscript, specifically in lines 262-270.
Comments 11: Figure captions and Tables could be described in more detail
Response 11: Once again, we sincerely thank all the reviewers for their tremendous assistance with our work. The titles of the figures and tables in the original manuscript have been revised for more detailed descriptions.
Comments 12: LN 301-309, 337-341: move to "discussion" section.
Response 12: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have moved the content from lines 301-309 of the original manuscript to the last paragraph of Discussion section 4.2.
Comments 13: Please confirm the range and unit of canopy photosynthesis
Response 13: Thank you for the reviewers' questions. The authors have reconfirmed that the units and scope of canopy photosynthesis mentioned in the original text are correct. To correspond with the individual plant canopy structure, we averaged the measured population canopy photosynthesis to individual plant levels, which is why the range of canopy photosynthesis is smaller.
Comments 14: LN 391-393: rephrase for better clarity
Response 14: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have followed the advice and made revisions. The content in lines 391-393 of the original manuscript has been clarified to enhance readers' understanding of the article. Please refer to lines 419-421 in the revised manuscript for details.
Comments 15: LN 542 and elsewhere: photoactivity?
Response 15: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. The term "photoactivity" mentioned in the original manuscript was intended to express the strength of photosynthetic activity; however, we apologize for the misunderstanding caused by the improper phrasing. To enhance the overall logical coherence and completeness of the article, we have changed "photoactivity" to "photosynthesis" in the revised manuscript, specifically in section 4.2.
Comments 16: LN 538: biomass production capacity of sinks?
Response 16: Thank you for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers. We have made the corresponding revisions (lines 561-563 in the revised manuscript). Specifically: "This indicates that the biomass in the STV variety not only has a strong production capacity in the source but also transports a greater amount to the sink, with relatively less assimilate remaining in the flow." We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by our oversight and lack of thorough consideration during the writing process.
Comments 17: LN 565: rapid consumption of transpiration?
Response 17: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have recognized the error in the language used in the original manuscript and have changed "rapid consumption of transpiration" to "excessive transpiration," as noted in line 598 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 18: LN 580-581: rephrase the statement for clarity
Response 18: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions; we have made the recommended revisions. The previous description in the manuscript was too vague, and we have refined this section to significantly enhance the logical flow of the article, as detailed in lines 625-627 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 19: LN 621: nutrient formation?
Response 19: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. To enhance readability and ensure consistency with the surrounding content, we have changed "nutrient formation" to "assimilate accumulation," as noted in line 665 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 20: In general, many statements are redundant and emphasizing similar meaning. This may be taken care to reduce the content of the manuscript and make it crisp and clear to the reader.
Response 20: Thank you to the reviewers for all their efforts on this research. We have reorganized the article's logic, further improved the manuscript, removed unnecessary content, and incorporated the latest research developments. We have actively addressed all the requests made by the experts and have revised all the issues. We sincerely apologize for any confusion and inconvenience caused by the original manuscript, and we hope that the revised version will show significant improvement.
Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to all the expert reviewers. Your support is highly valuable to us.
We look forward to hearing from you again.
Wishing you smooth work and a happy life!
Sincerely,
Shuyuan He
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1: incorporate main data findings in the abstract section. Make it look smooth and easy for the readers
2: rewrite the whole abstract section
3: add recent citations in first two paragraphs of introduction section. Only few studies have been mentioned.
4: Novelty , research gap and highlights of the study is missing and should be clearly presented at the end of introduction section.
4: Statistical analysis is confusing . Is suggest the authors to again calculate the statical significance of all the results.
5 : discussion section needs improvement. Add recent citations to enhance the critical analysis of all the parameters that will defend tour study. The language need to be simple and clear.
Overall I congratulate all the authors for such beautiful study. I hope my all the concern should be addressed , that will improve the quality of this ms
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A minor editing in language is needed
Author Response
Dear expert reviewer,
Hello!
Thank you for your valuable suggestions amidst your busy schedule. We have made modifications to the relevant content of the article as per your requirements. The specific revisions have been highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript. During the revision process, we carefully revised the manuscript by organizing our thoughts and reviewing literature. We integrated the content, added important information, and removed unnecessary parts to enhance reader comprehension. Additionally, we made significant revisions to both the content and formatting of the cited references, ensuring that the manuscript adheres to standard conventions. We hope these changes will enhance the quality of our manuscript.
We will now summarize the detailed modification instructions in the revised manuscript (i.e. corresponding responses to each modification suggestion), as shown below:
Comments 1: incorporate main data findings in the abstract section. Make it look smooth and easy for the readers
Response 1: Thank you for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers. We have added the main data section to the abstract. The revisions have made the content of the article clearer and more understandable, and have also improved its logical coherence.
Comments 2: rewrite the whole abstract section
Response 2: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions; we have followed your advice. We have made detailed revisions to the abstract, rewriting and adjusting most of the content.
Comments 3: add recent citations in first two paragraphs of introduction section. Only few studies have been mentioned.
Response 3: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have recognized the lack of content in the introduction and have supplemented it with relevant information and research, specifically in the second and seventh paragraphs of the introduction (lines 56-67 and 117-131 in the revised manuscript).
Comments 4: Novelty, research gap and highlights of the study is missing and should be clearly presented at the end of introduction section.
Response 4: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have addressed the lack of novelty and research gaps in the manuscript by supplementing these points at the end of the introduction, specifically in lines 132-141 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 5: Statistical analysis is confusing. Is suggest the authors to again calculate the statical significance of all the results.
Response 5: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We would like to clarify that the significance analyses in this study are conducted at the P=0.05 level, comparing different soybean varieties within the same planting system. Since this research involves two factors—soybean varieties and planting systems—letter case is used to distinguish between sole and intercropped levels. Specifically, lowercase letters denote sole cropping levels, while uppercase letters indicate intercropped levels. We have provided a detailed explanation of the significance analysis below Table 2 and Figure 3, where it first appears. We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused to the reviewers.
Comments 6: discussion section needs improvement. Add recent citations to enhance the critical analysis of all the parameters that will defend tour study. The language need to be simple and clear.
Response 6: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. In the discussion section, we have removed unnecessary content and incorporated the latest research developments, ensuring that the added content is concise and clear. Specifically, the additional content can be found in lines 567-575 and 658-663 of the revised manuscript. Meanwhile, we have conducted another review and restructuring of the overall logic and content of the manuscript to ensure an improvement in its quality.
Comments 7: Overall I congratulate all the authors for such beautiful study. I hope my all the concern should be addressed, that will improve the quality of this ms.
Response 7: We would like to express our gratitude to all the experts for their strong support of our work. We have carefully revised and improved the manuscript, removed unnecessary content, and added the latest research developments. We have actively addressed all the requests made by the reviewers and resolved all issues. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by the problems in the original manuscript. We hope that the revised version will demonstrate significant improvements and that we will receive your affirmation.
Once again, we express our gratitude to all the expert reviewers for affirming our work. We look forward to hearing from you again!
Wishing you smooth work and a happy life!
Sincerely,
Shuyuan He
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArticle Title: The reasonable canopy structure and high photosynthetic performance of shade-tolerant soybeans promote yield improvement
Comments to the author(s).
The data presented here is valuable. However, I feel that the method description is very limited in this article. Because of this, I cannot judge whether the method is technically sound or not, and this is a fatal problem in this manuscript. It seems that this manuscript might be a revised version, and in the previous version, “Methods” chapter is at the end of the article; in the present form, unfortunately, it is very difficult to understand “Methods” before reading “Results” (see below).
Major issue(s)
Figure 3.
1. Do the authors calculate instantaneous photosynthetic rate at each time of day taking consideration of “midday depression”?
2. The measurement and calculation procedure for Figure 3 is not well described. If my understandings is correct, they only described procedure for net photosynthetic rate at specific PAR value.
3. The method description is very poor.
The authors use several words such as “top area”, “side width, and “side “bounding rectangle area”, without definition in the method.
4. L161 “This 161 allowed us to obtain 46 parameters related to soybean canopy structure".
(My comment) What parameters did they measure? No information here at all
5. I think Figure S1 should be in the main text. Not in the Supplementary Materials.
Author Response
Dear expert reviewer,
Hello!
Thank you for your valuable suggestions amidst your busy schedule. We have made modifications to the relevant content of the article as per your requirements. The specific revisions have been highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript. During the revision process, we carefully revised the manuscript by organizing our thoughts and reviewing literature. We integrated the content, added important information, and removed unnecessary parts to enhance reader comprehension. Additionally, we made significant revisions to both the content and formatting of the cited references, ensuring that the manuscript adheres to standard conventions. We hope these changes will enhance the quality of our manuscript.
We will now summarize the detailed modification instructions in the revised manuscript (i.e. corresponding responses to each modification suggestion), as shown below:
Comments 1: The data presented here is valuable. However, I feel that the method description is very limited in this article. Because of this, I cannot judge whether the method is technically sound or not, and this is a fatal problem in this manuscript. It seems that this manuscript might be a revised version, and in the previous version, “Methods” chapter is at the end of the article; in the present form, unfortunately, it is very difficult to understand “Methods” before reading “Results” (see below).
Response 1: Thank you for the suggestions from the reviewers, and we appreciate their strong support for our work. We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by the insufficient description of the methods. After careful summarization and analysis, we have provided a detailed explanation of the methods section and added several necessary details. Please refer to the methods section in the revised manuscript for specifics.
Comments 2: Figure 3. Do the authors calculate instantaneous photosynthetic rate at each time of day taking consideration of “midday depression”?
Response 2: Thank you for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers. We acknowledge that this study has not yet mentioned "photosynthetic midday depression" in relation to calculating the instantaneous photosynthetic rates at different times of the day. We are currently conducting a detailed analysis on this aspect and will enhance our understanding to incorporate it into our future research findings.
Comments 3: The measurement and calculation procedure for Figure 3 is not well described. If my understandings is correct, they only described procedure for net photosynthetic rate at specific PAR value.
Response 3: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We acknowledge that the explanation regarding the canopy photosynthetic measurements and calculations was insufficient, and we sincerely apologize for that. The calculation formulas (1) and (2) related to the process have been added to section 2.4, along with supplementary details on the canopy photosynthetic measurement process.
Comments 4: The method description is very poor. The authors use several words such as “top area”, “side width, and “side “bounding rectangle area”, without definition in the method.
Response 4: Thank you for the valuable suggestions from the reviewers. We have taken the advice into account and made revisions. This section has been supplemented in the second paragraph of section 2.2, where we provide detailed explanations for each parameter's definition. The revisions have significantly enhanced the overall logic of the article, making it easier for readers to understand.
Comments 5: L161 “This 161 allowed us to obtain 46 parameters related to soybean canopy structure". (My comment) What parameters did they measure? No information here at all
Response 5: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We apologize for any reading difficulties caused by our oversight during writing. We have realized that the 46 parameters obtained should be summarized in the methods section first, rather than being mentioned only in section 3.4.1 when selecting canopy structures. Information about the 46 canopy structure parameters of soybean obtained through RGB imaging technology has been added to the supplementary material, as shown in Table S1.
Comments 6: I think Figure S1 should be in the main text. Not in the Supplementary Materials.
Response 6: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. After our reflection and discussion, we acknowledge that it would be more appropriate to move Figure S1 from the supplementary materials to the main text, as seen in line 222 of the revised manuscript.
Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to all the expert reviewers. Your support is highly valuable to us.
We look forward to hearing from you again.
Wishing you smooth work and a happy life!
Sincerely,
Shuyuan He
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and I am satisfied with the response and corrections that have made. I recommend acceptance of this ms in the current form
Author Response
Comment 1: The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript and I am satisfied with the response and corrections that have made. I recommend acceptance of this ms in the current form
Response 1: We would like to thank you for your professional review work, constructive comments, and valuable suggestions on our manuscript. Meanwhile, thank you for your great support to our work. Your support means a lot to us.
We wish you a happy life and success in your work.
Sincerely,
Shuyuan He
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
