Field Population Density Effects on Field Yield and Morphological Characteristics of Maize

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Abstract should be more concisely and need to rewrite. It should be summary of the research findings, not just repeat the result.

The results and discussion should have subtitle to each characteristic in order to read clearly.

Author Response

To the 1^st Reviewer

All the recommendations have been made (in red), for sections introduction, results and discussion. Some combinations with the 2^nd reviewer (in blue) have been made due to some common and valuable recommendations of both reviewers. Abstract now includes all the additions asked by reviewers. Some sentences were rewritten and some references have been added. A new table presenting correlations was added (the 3^rd reviewer asked for this)

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript evaluates the effect of population density and row spacing on field yield and other characteristics of maize. 

Abstract - the abstract was poorly written and require significant improvement.  The results were not clearly present within the abstract and followed with a logical concluding statement that sums up the rationale for the study. 

Introduction- Good introduction, need some rephrasing on a few statements for better flow for the reader.  Would to benefit from some supporting work for twin rows.  Think you going to need a reference for line 51 to 54. 

Material and Method

What about irrigation rate and time?

Was there any adjustment made with fertility and irrigation for the higher population? Do you think there needs to be an adjustment to fertility and irrigation with increased plant population?

Result and discussion- I think this area needs lots of improvement.  When the interaction is significant the focus should be on the interaction and not the main effects.  Sectioning the result by yield and other characteristics could improve readability.  Better presentation of the results and explanation supported with literature is needed in this section.  

What about analyzing the data across years rather than by year. We know there will be a year to year variation, but what we are interested in is the aggregate across the years. 

Author Response

To the 2^nd Reviewer

All the recommendations have been made (in blue), for sections introduction, results and discussion. Some combinations with the 1^st reviewer (in red) have been made due to some common and valuable recommendations of both reviewers. Abstract now includes all the additions asked by reviewers. Some sentences were rewritten and some references have been added. A new table presenting correlations was added (the 3^rd reviewer asked for this)

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-written paper, however only presents very simple and primary knowledge in the field.   Comments: What software was used for statistical analysis? Table 1 is missing units. Correlation analysis between studied traits is missing.

Author Response

To the 3^rd Reviewer

All the recommendations have been made (in green) and in some cases, there were combinations with the other two reviewers. A new table presenting correlations was added and discussion and new references were also added. Abstract now includes all the additions asked by reviewers. Some sentences were rewritten.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Am having a problem with the data is analyzed and presented. I don't think the authors have spent enough time to evaluate the data and review the literature and allowing the data to tell its own story to provide new insights and information to the readers.  This is just my opinion and I can be totally wrong. I just think this manuscript can be written much better and the story presented with a greater understanding of the science of row spacing x genotype x environment interactions. There as to be greater emphasis on the analysis and explanation of the interactions. Abstract still need improvement. Most often times the abstract is all that is read of a manuscript it should be well written and provide the most relevant findings in a synopsis to the reader. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

A full re-arrangement in results and dicussion section have been made.

Results are discussed in units under head titles in the sense of factor interactions.

Conclusions were reformed.

Abstract was rewritten and shortened.

Some combinations of reviewers' comments have been made.

 

Thank you very much

Reviewer 3 Report

Language and presentation could be improved.

Author Response

A full re-arrangement in results and dicussion section have been made.

Results are discussed in units under head titles in the sense of factor interactions.

Conclusions were reformed.

Abstract was rewritten and shortened.

Some combinations of reviewers' comments have been made.

 

Thank you very much