Water Deficit During Pod Development Affects Eco-Physiological Traits, Growth, and Yield in Pea Varieties Under Greenhouse Conditions in Tropical Highlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

crops-3812037

Comment to authors

The authors examined the effect of water deficiency on physiological properties related to leaf area in pea varieties with different leaf and growth types during pod development under greenhouse conditions. Based on their results, they concluded that leaf area index (LAI) determines the amount of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation, which differed significantly under water stress and between cultivars as lower LAI (afila types) absorbed less light and its utilization was lower under WD. These factors can contribute to the selection and cultivation of suitable varieties in tropical areas. The experimental design and methodological description are satisfactory, although some additions would be necessary, such as information on soil type and characterization of varieties according to processing.

Detailed notes

I suggest changing the title, as the experiment was conducted in a controlled greenhouse environment, not in open fields in a tropical climate, so I think the word "tropical highland" should be deleted.

2.11. Experimental conditions: The varieties tested should be described. Are they suitable for processing (canning industry), human consumption or animal feed? The type of experimental soil should also be specified.

Some expressions need to be clarified:

-Line 56. What is meant by "final stage of seed abortion"? This is more a stage of seed development than seed abortion. Please check the sentence.

-Line 137: What does the term "final seed abortion status" mean in relation to the duration of deficit irrigation?

-Line 144: You should use plant samples instead of "dry biomass samples" because fresh plants need to be collected to determine dry matter. The sentence needs to be corrected.

-Line 196: What is the full name of the abbreviation “TAGV”? Please specify it.

-Lines 326-327: Does the significant decrease in varieties refer to Table 4 or Figure 4d? I see that the WUE value of the San Isidro variety does not decrease under WD compared to WW in Figure 4d. Please check the sentence.

-Lines 337-338: The percentage decrease in HI under WD must be checked. In the San Isidro and Rizada varieties HI was higher under WD treatment than under WW (see Table 5).

Table 5 is missing the unit of measurement: indicate pods per m2.

-Line 367: The Curly variety was not included in the experiment. Delete or indicate which experiment it was tested in.

-Lines 453-454: The sentence is unclear, please check.

References

Beer-Bouguer-Lambert-Law (33) is mentioned in the text, but this reference is not listed under number 33 in the reference list.

They appear twice in the reference list:

-References 16 and 31, i.e. Geetika et al. 2022, Field Crops Res. 2022, 287, 108648

-References 13 and 42, i.e. Nemeskéri et al. 2015 Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 34

These need to be corrected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are not understandable so these and some expressions need to be reinterpreted.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1
CORRECTIONS MADE

1. The trial was carried out under greenhouse conditions in the high tropics at an altitude of 2,696 m. Therefore, the authors consider it important to highlight these conditions, as the study is purely ecophysiological.

2. Line 56 describes the final stage of seed abortion, a phenological state of the pea crop. Multiple authors have named it as a stage sensitive to water stress, in which seed abortion can occur (for example, Lecoeur and Guilioni (2010); Chaillet and Biarnes, 2010) in their book Physiology of the Pea Crop.

3. Line 137 indicates that the irrigation deficit began before the start of the FSSA (Final Stage of Seed Abortion) phenological stage.

4. The suggested correction was made on line 144.

5. On line 196, the term that abbreviates the acronym TAGB (Total Aboveground Dry Biomass) was correctly described and spelled, and a spelling error in the acronym was corrected elsewhere in the document.

6. On lines 326 and 327, the text was improved to make it more understandable.

7. On lines 337 and 338, the text was corrected to align with the information reflected in Table 5.

8. In Table 5, the missing unit of measurement was corrected, and the variable name was specified.

9. The name of the Curly variety was corrected.

10. The wording of lines 453 and 454 was improved.

11. The bibliography from which the Beer-Bouguer-Lambert-Law equation was derived is included in bibliography 33, and lines 187 and 188 were improved.

12. Reference 16 was changed to the correct one, and reference 31 was retained.

13. Reference 42, which was duplicated, was removed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the very current and important topic of water deficit on ecophysiological traits and yield of peas of different leaf types in the tropical highlands of Colombia. The results are relevant, and the manuscript is clearly structured. However, there are certain shortcomings that need to be improved before possible publication.

Water deficit is defined by the cessation of irrigation and a drop in VWC in the substrate. Measurements of plant water status (RWC, leaf water potential, stomatal conductance) are missing. Without these indicators, it is not possible to assert with certainty that the plants were under physiological stress. Please emphasize this in the discussion and conclusions.

In  paper, HI index were calculated on the basis of pod mass/biomass, and not classically (grain mass/biomass). This makes comparison with the literature difficult. It is necessary to clearly justify the choice and add a note on the limitation.

Statistical analysis

ANOVA is correct, but the analysis would be much better if you are using linear mixed models (LMM) and extended by multiple regression or PCA. This would enable a better interpretation of the relationship between physiological parameters and yield.

Lizaso model: The model used to describe LAI was developed for maize and is applied here to peas. It is necessary to emphasize the methodological limitation of such application. The current R² > 0.99 indicates the possibility of overfitting.

Discussion of afila types: The result that afila varieties retain more stable LAI and WUE is significant. However, it is necessary to more clearly emphasize the trade-off: stability under stress versus less biomass and potentially lower maximum yield.

Greenhouse conditions: Since the experiment was conducted in a greenhouse, it should be noted that the results may not be fully transferable to field conditions.

References are are mostly well chosen and relevan but need be more recently. However, claims about WUE in aphila types rely primarily on morphological sources, therefore I recommend adding literature that includes physiological data. Also, the baseline temperature for GDD was taken from a single source (2.9 °C), although the literature indicates a range of 0 –  5°C (also have to be mention in paper).

Figures and tables are clear.

Author Response

Comment 1. The plants experienced stress because the volumetric water content was measured with a sensor at 40 cm depth, where well-watered (WW) plants maintained 28% moisture, as shown in Figure 1 and in lines 135 to 141.

Comment 2. In the text, lines 154 to 156 clarify why the HI was calculated as the ratio of pod mass to total biomass, since in Colombian production and commercialization systems, the filled pod is the marketed product.

Comment 3. A principal component analysis was conducted with the data to better visualize the relationships among variables and offer a more detailed explanation of the results.

Comment 4. In the methodology section, clarification was added regarding the potential limitations of the Lizaso model applied to pea crops (lines 168 to 170), and the R² values reported are those generated by the model.

Comment 5. Emphasis was placed on the compensation shown by afila varieties when subjected to stress.

Comment 6. In the conclusions section (lines 503 to 505), clarification was provided about the greenhouse conditions, their influence, and the potential applicability of greenhouse results to field conditions.

Comment 7. In lines 473 to 475, an explanation was added detailing from a physiological perspective how afila varieties exhibit higher WUE under water stress conditions. Additionally, the base temperature was selected based on the study by Olivier and Annandale (1998), who performed an in-depth analysis of the thermal time needed for pea crop development from emergence to the reproductive stage. It was also noted that the range generally varies between 0 and 5 °C.