The Effects of Meteorological Factors on Grain Yield of Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica Beauv.) under Different Water Supply Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the article has importance for the north region of China. The work analyzes which weather conditions related to droughts affect the yields of foxtail millet crops. However, the manuscript must be reviewed extensively in order to be published. The main problems I find are the lack of clarity in the objectives and their relation to the study area and the poor definition and justification of the methodology used. In addition, there are a lack of charts and tables that facilitate understanding of the work in order to ensure its replicability. Below, I highlight some factors to consider when improving the manuscript.

Abstract:

• Define the study area and objectives. Link these objectives to the conclusions.
• Emphasize some numerical results or more specific results in the abstract.

Introduction:

• The explanation of the specific objectives and how they will be addressed could be improved. Who is the study directed to?
• If it is already known what meteorological factors affect agriculture, why is this study being done?
• Introduce the principal component analysis method and the correlations that will be defined later in the methodology.
• Better frame the specific gap that the study aims to analyze.
• Develop the last paragraph (line 70) since it lacks context.
• Unify the writing to facilitate reading.
• There are many references needed for certain assertions.

Materials and Methods:

• I recommend introducing a map with the location of the country under study, along with some data of interest: precipitation, temperature, dry crop zones, major settlements, or any information that the authors consider important.
• The explanation of the model could be supported with flowcharts, graphs, and previous studies that justify the assumptions. I also recommend introducing clear limitations to the study.
• Explain in detail the correlations and the principal component analyses. What series were analyzed and why.
• Limitations of the methodology not defined or studied.
• Add photographs of the experiments.
• Do fertilizers affect the yields of the crop in any way? Justify their use and discuss interference in the experiments and what role they play.
• Does the missing one year of data not affect the results? Explain what assumptions and what limitations or interpretations are made in this aspect.
• Can the Drought resistance index be used with short data sets? Justify its use.

Results and Discussion:

• I recommend adding figures that facilitate and better represent the obtained results.
• In the text, the Tables are very large and difficult to read. Simplify the size and detail important information.
• The results associated are not clearly detailed in the methodology. The results, in turn, are not conclusive without the help of an appropriate reference.
• The discussion is very broad and lacks clear conclusions.
• The writing is very repetitive and could be improved.
• Clarify the implications of the study.
• Better relate the results to the objectives and the study area.
• The lack of replicability of the results is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Conclusions:

• The conclusions do not correspond to the objectives and the results obtained.
• The introduction and the conclusions do not match.
• The limitations of the study should be discussed and the implications for future research should be addressed.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

In general, the article has importance for the north region of China. The work analyzes which weather conditions related to droughts affect the yields of foxtail millet crops. However, the manuscript must be reviewed extensively in order to be published. The main problems I find are the lack of clarity in the objectives and their relation to the study area and the poor definition and justification of the methodology used. In addition, there are a lack of charts and tables that facilitate understanding of the work in order to ensure its replicability. Below, I highlight some factors to consider when improving the manuscript.

Abstract:

• Define the study area and objectives. Link these objectives to the conclusions.

Response: It has been revised.

• Emphasize some numerical results or more specific results in the abstract.

Response: It has been revised.

Introduction:

• The explanation of the specific objectives and how they will be addressed could be improved. Who is the study directed to?

Response: It has been explained.

• If it is already known what meteorological factors affect agriculture, why is this study being done?

Response: Yes, we have known that meteorological factors affect agriculture, however, we don’t know how they effect different crops in different areas, how much they impact the growth and yield of crops, and which factor is the most important, ect. So, there are a lot of study still need to be done.

• Introduce the principal component analysis method and the correlations that will be defined later in the methodology.

Response: It has been introduced.

• Better frame the specific gap that the study aims to analyze.

Response: It has been explained.

• Develop the last paragraph (line 70) since it lacks context.

Response: It has been developed.

• Unify the writing to facilitate reading.

Response: it has been improved.

• There are many references needed for certain assertions.

Response: they have been revised.

Materials and Methods:

• I recommend introducing a map with the location of the country under study, along with some data of interest: precipitation, temperature, dry crop zones, major settlements, or any information that the authors consider important.

Response: A map was added.

• The explanation of the model could be supported with flowcharts, graphs, and previous studies that justify the assumptions. I also recommend introducing clear limitations to the study.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, but in our study, the explanation of the model is not necessary.

• Explain in detail the correlations and the principal component analyses. What series were analyzed and why.

Response: It has been explained.

• Limitations of the methodology not defined or studied.

Response: It has been defined.

• Add photographs of the experiments.

Response: photographs were added.

• Do fertilizers affect the yields of the crop in any way? Justify their use and discuss interference in the experiments and what role they play.

Response: yes, fertilizers affect the yields of the the crops, however, in this study, we didn’t compare the the difference between different fertilizer treatments, the fertilizer in each plot was same,

• Does the missing one year of data not affect the results? Explain what assumptions and what limitations or interpretations are made in this aspect.

Response: one year of data was missing which could affect the results, but the influence should be very little compare with nine years of data.

• Can the Drought resistance index be used with short data sets? Justify its use.

Response: This part has been deleted, because it make the objective of this study confused.

Results and Discussion:

• I recommend adding figures that facilitate and better represent the obtained results.

Response: thank you for your suggestion, but in our opinion, it is not necessary.

• In the text, the Tables are very large and difficult to read. Simplify the size and detail important information.

Response:  tables have been simplified, and important information has been detailed.

• The results associated are not clearly detailed in the methodology. The results, in turn, are not conclusive without the help of an appropriate reference.
• The discussion is very broad and lacks clear conclusions.

Response: the discussion has been revised.

• The writing is very repetitive and could be improved.

Response: the writting has been improved.

• Clarify the implications of the study.

Response: it has been clarified.

• Better relate the results to the objectives and the study area.

Response: it has been revised.

• The lack of replicability of the results is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Response: the study in the field is impossible to replicate exactly.

Conclusions:

• The conclusions do not correspond to the objectives and the results obtained.

Response: it has been improved.

• The introduction and the conclusions do not match.

Response: it has been improved.

• The limitations of the study should be discussed and the implications for future research should be addressed.

Response: the limitations of the study has been discussed and the implications for future research has been addressed.

Reviewer 2

1. The keywords need to be arranged alphabetically.

Response: The keywords have been arranged alphabetically.

2. The Beta-carotene should be written with the symbolic beta sign.

Response: The Beta-carotene has been changed to the symbolic beta sign.

3. The novelty of the study needs to be elaborated since previous study on drought stress has also been reported.

Response: the objective of this study has been improved.

4. Was Jigu19  taken as the control variety state clearly.

Response: yes, Jigu19 was taken as the control variety,

5. The data for the yield needs to be depicted in a table rather than as a figure for more data clarity.

Response: the meteorological data for the nine seasons were added.

6. Recent references needs to be added and should be as per journal format.

Response: recent references has been added

7. The English of the MS may be improved and checked for grammatical error.

Response: it has been checked.

8. The meteorological data for the nine seasons need to be added.

Response: the meteorological data for the nine seasons were added.

Reviewer 2 Report

After peer review of the MS, I suggest the MS needs to be revised in light of the comments below:

1. The keywords need to be arranged alphabetically.
2. The Beta-carotene should be written with the symbolic beta sign.
3. The novelty of the study needs to be elaborated since previous study on drought stress has also been reported.
4. Was Jigu19  taken as the control variety state clearly.
5. The data for the yield needs to be depicted in a table rather than as a figure for more data clarity.
6. Recent references needs to be added and should be as per journal format.
7. The English of the MS may be improved and checked for grammatical error.
8. The meteorological data for the nine seasons need to be added.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

In general, the article has importance for the north region of China. The work analyzes which weather conditions related to droughts affect the yields of foxtail millet crops. However, the manuscript must be reviewed extensively in order to be published. The main problems I find are the lack of clarity in the objectives and their relation to the study area and the poor definition and justification of the methodology used. In addition, there are a lack of charts and tables that facilitate understanding of the work in order to ensure its replicability. Below, I highlight some factors to consider when improving the manuscript.

Abstract:

• Define the study area and objectives. Link these objectives to the conclusions.

Response: It has been revised.

• Emphasize some numerical results or more specific results in the abstract.

Response: It has been revised.

Introduction:

• The explanation of the specific objectives and how they will be addressed could be improved. Who is the study directed to?

Response: It has been explained.

• If it is already known what meteorological factors affect agriculture, why is this study being done?

Response: Yes, we have known that meteorological factors affect agriculture, however, we don’t know how they effect different crops in different areas, how much they impact the growth and yield of crops, and which factor is the most important, ect. So, there are a lot of study still need to be done.

• Introduce the principal component analysis method and the correlations that will be defined later in the methodology.

Response: It has been introduced.

• Better frame the specific gap that the study aims to analyze.

Response: It has been explained.

• Develop the last paragraph (line 70) since it lacks context.

Response: It has been developed.

• Unify the writing to facilitate reading.

Response: it has been improved.

• There are many references needed for certain assertions.

Response: they have been revised.

Materials and Methods:

• I recommend introducing a map with the location of the country under study, along with some data of interest: precipitation, temperature, dry crop zones, major settlements, or any information that the authors consider important.

Response: A map was added.

• The explanation of the model could be supported with flowcharts, graphs, and previous studies that justify the assumptions. I also recommend introducing clear limitations to the study.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, but in our study, the explanation of the model is not necessary.

• Explain in detail the correlations and the principal component analyses. What series were analyzed and why.

Response: It has been explained.

• Limitations of the methodology not defined or studied.

Response: It has been defined.

• Add photographs of the experiments.

Response: photographs were added.

• Do fertilizers affect the yields of the crop in any way? Justify their use and discuss interference in the experiments and what role they play.

Response: yes, fertilizers affect the yields of the the crops, however, in this study, we didn’t compare the the difference between different fertilizer treatments, the fertilizer in each plot was same,

• Does the missing one year of data not affect the results? Explain what assumptions and what limitations or interpretations are made in this aspect.

Response: one year of data was missing which could affect the results, but the influence should be very little compare with nine years of data.

• Can the Drought resistance index be used with short data sets? Justify its use.

Response: This part has been deleted, because it make the objective of this study confused.

Results and Discussion:

• I recommend adding figures that facilitate and better represent the obtained results.

Response: thank you for your suggestion, but in our opinion, it is not necessary.

• In the text, the Tables are very large and difficult to read. Simplify the size and detail important information.

Response:  tables have been simplified, and important information has been detailed.

• The results associated are not clearly detailed in the methodology. The results, in turn, are not conclusive without the help of an appropriate reference.
• The discussion is very broad and lacks clear conclusions.

Response: the discussion has been revised.

• The writing is very repetitive and could be improved.

Response: the writting has been improved.

• Clarify the implications of the study.

Response: it has been clarified.

• Better relate the results to the objectives and the study area.

Response: it has been revised.

• The lack of replicability of the results is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Response: the study in the field is impossible to replicate exactly.

Conclusions:

• The conclusions do not correspond to the objectives and the results obtained.

Response: it has been improved.

• The introduction and the conclusions do not match.

Response: it has been improved.

• The limitations of the study should be discussed and the implications for future research should be addressed.

Response: the limitations of the study has been discussed and the implications for future research has been addressed.

Reviewer 2

1. The keywords need to be arranged alphabetically.

Response: The keywords have been arranged alphabetically.

2. The Beta-carotene should be written with the symbolic beta sign.

Response: The Beta-carotene has been changed to the symbolic beta sign.

3. The novelty of the study needs to be elaborated since previous study on drought stress has also been reported.

Response: the objective of this study has been improved.

4. Was Jigu19  taken as the control variety state clearly.

Response: yes, Jigu19 was taken as the control variety,

5. The data for the yield needs to be depicted in a table rather than as a figure for more data clarity.

Response: the meteorological data for the nine seasons were added.

6. Recent references needs to be added and should be as per journal format.

Response: recent references has been added

7. The English of the MS may be improved and checked for grammatical error.

Response: it has been checked.

8. The meteorological data for the nine seasons need to be added.

Response: the meteorological data for the nine seasons were added.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the reviewers  Comments  has been resolved properly now the MS is ready for publication 

Author Response

see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf