Intra-Plant Variability for Heat Tolerance Related Attributes in Upland Cotton

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

・The English quality of this manuscript is considerably low: there are a several type, such as “paly” in L17. Thus, this reviewer strongly suggest that authors should send the manuscript to English editing service. 

・Some keywords, such as chlorophyl content, are not appropriate for the content of this manuscript, while “heat tolerance” and “cotton” should be added.  

・The number of references in the manuscript should be in the［ ] . Otherwise, it is very difficult to find the reference number. 

・Some literatures, such as Khan et al. (2011) (Genet. Mol. Res. 10: 96-101), introduced the characteristics of cotton accessions varying in heat tolerance. Nevertheless, authors did not introduce these related studies as references. Authors should include such related literatures in their article. 

・In L67, authors described “These accessions different genetic backgrounds and have genetic variability”, but they did not show any data or references that show genetic variability. Therefore, the the findings in this study seem to be considerably limited: they just checked some parameters in cotton accessions. Authors should add such data and references in the manuscript. In addition, it is important to show the relationship among 13 accessions by cluster analysis, as shown in Khan et al. (2011).

・In Figure 1, “a” and “b” in (i) and (ii) indicate different things, respectively. Since it is very confusing, authors should use different alphabet. 

・In Figure 3, I could not find (a) and (b) in the figures.

・The information of materials and experiments in Materials and Methods section is limited. For instance, the information of company for each chemical and experimental facilities, such as “SPAD 502 Plus” (L118), should be added. 

Author Response

Response to comments from reviewer 1 is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study evaluated the intra-plant variability of physiological attributes associated with seed cotton yield under heat stress conditions. It is well known that heat stress affects pollen germination and short pollen tube growth in cotton. Thus, it was vital to identify the key mechanisms for improving heat tolerance in cotton at the flowering stage. However, the data is minimal to set an insightful mechanism. Besides, the current version can be reconsidered after significant improvement. I strongly suggest authors work on their manuscript, mainly in English, carefully. Some of the major issues are:

1. Would you please follow the journal guidelines for preparing citations? Currently, they are so confused with the text. The citations must be within the parenthesis as per the journal guidelines.
2. The introduction must be improved to justify the current study. The authors should mainly focus on cotton and highlight the related data to justify the urgency of the current work.
3. In table 1, the genotype characteristic must be introduced, including origins.
4. Line 60, the statement is not consistent according to the title.
5. Line 66, the authors must enlist the germplasm units in the table.
6. Line 72, is there any standard method/references for the agronomic practices? If so, please add it to the text.
7. Line 96, would you please add model, and developer name, locations, etc.
8. The “&” should be replaced with “and” within the entire manuscript.
9. Line 113-121, these methodologies should be explained in detail.
10. Line 127, add developer name and location for Statistix 8.1. Please carefully check the entire methodology and add the related information for all chemicals/instruments used in the current study.
11. There is a mistake with the figure 2/3 caption positions. Would you please fix the errors and place the related caption under the related figure?
12. The legends are missing in Figure 3.
13. Overall, the results are very concise. The authors should thoroughly revise the result sections, not just describe the data. Instead, they should focus on what result do the data reflect.
14. The discussion is very poorly written. There are no mechanistic insights behind the observed mechanisms. The discussion should thoroughly revise using cotton references particularly.
15. The conclusion needs improvement. The take-home message is not clear, also add some future directions.
16. The English language demands significant improvement. There are many typos, grammar and spelling mistakes.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 2 are attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This work has been very rapidly resubmitted with responses to the comments and a little extra data. Unfortunately, the authors did not correspond to some of my comments. Especially, I suggested to introduce the relevant literatures, such as Khan et al. (2011) (Genet Mol. Res. 1-: 96-101), that introduced the characteristics of cotton accessions varying heat tolerance. However, they did not added the literatures. Since there are several papers associated with the variations of heat tolerance among cotton accessions, it is very difficult for me to find the novelty of this study. In addition, probably they know these relevant studies but they did not introduce since these previous studies showed similar results that decrease the novelty of this study.

In addition, I suggested the cluster analysis of 13 accessions, but they did not answer to this comment. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer-1

Reviewer 2 Report

The English has been improved; however, some of the main issues still remain.

1. The novelty of the current work should be clearly highlighted in the abstract and introduction.
2. I am still not happy with the introduction to justify the current study. Since similar has already been reported in cotton as discussed in the introduction. Then what were the main objectives to repeat the same work in cotton? There should be something new and exciting and better than the previous report.
3. Figures 3 and 4 are the same. The authors are co careless in correcting the figure positions and legends. On page 9, these graphs must be deleted to avoid duplications and misunderstandings. Figure 4 caption should be placed right under the figure, instead of on the next and under the other graphs.
4. Overall, the results are very concise. The authors should thoroughly revise the result sections, not just describe the data. Instead, they should focus on what result do the data reflect. This comment is yet to be fully addressed.

Author Response

Response to reviewer-2