Allometric Individual Leaf Area Estimation in Chrysanthemum
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper "Allometric individual leaf area estimation in chrysanthemum" is very interesting.
Fig. 2. Baltica is three times. Should be: "Baltica", "Baltica pink" and "Baltica salmon".
Table 1: Letters should be after mean values not after standard deviations values.
Table 1 needs LSD values for particular traits.
Table 2: Letters should be after mean values not after standard deviations values.
Table 2 needs LSD values for particular traits.
Analiza korelacji między przestrzeżonymi rysami jest konieczna dla przedstawionych danych. Może być w graficznej formie.
Paper needs minor revision.
Author Response
Heraklion, 13 April 2021
Dear Reviewer,
Herewith we submit the second revision of the manuscript entitled “Allometric individual leaf area estimation in chrysanthemum” (Manuscript ID 1169021) by D Fanourakis, F Kazakos and PA Nektarios for publication in Agronomy.
We would like to thank you for the kind words and the valuable suggestions. Please find below a description on how we have dealt with the received comments. We hope that the manuscript can now be accepted for publication in your journal.
Yours sincerely,
Dimitrios Fanourakis
Comments of Reviewer 1
Paper "Allometric individual leaf area estimation in chrysanthemum" is very interesting.
Reply: Thank you.
(1) Fig. 2. Baltica is three times. Should be: "Baltica", "Baltica pink" and "Baltica salmon".
Reply: Done.
(2) Table 1: Letters should be after mean values not after standard deviations values.
Reply: Done.
(3) Table 1 needs LSD values for particular traits.
Reply: LSD0.05 value refers to the LSD test. However, we employed the Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) test, which is more reliable.
(4) Table 2: Letters should be after mean values not after standard deviations values.
Reply: Done.
(5) Table 2 needs LSD values for particular traits.
Reply: LSD0.05 value refers to the LSD test. However, we employed the Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) test, which is more reliable.
Paper needs minor revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an empirical model for estimating leaf area in chrysanthemum leaves, considering genotype variation. Although the soundness of the study seems appropriate, I think that the presentation of the results could be improved for an easier interpretation. For this effect, several of the presented tables could be moved to supplementary information, and perhaps the rest could also be merged to facilitate the model rationale to the reader. Here is a list of some other minor comments:
Line 26 – ‘In this vein’ – use another expression
Lines 26-27 – Checking reference nº5 (Srinivasan et al 2017 GCB), seems that there is a misconception with the term ‘leaf area’. In that article, they use it for LAI (leaf area index) or for total leaf area (area of leaves per plant). Hence, the association between individual leaf area and plant productivity is by no means true. The authors need to differentiate between these different parameters.
Line 28 – As for above, better references are required when making these statements.
Line 83 – For such study, more specifications are needed regarding the collected leaves. More specifically, light (irradiance) and developmental/phenological stage of the leaves, since these two factors are among the most important in determining leaf traits.
Figure 1 – The photo of the leaf presented here could be complemented with a depiction of the different measures described in lines 98-102 to facilitate the interpretation of their meaning, and the possible relation with the selected species.
Line 126 – This sentence seems odd (‘tested for both each cultivar’); please rephrase it.
Lines 193-195 – This needs to be more clearly introduced earlier, that is, why you use two sets of cultivars (separating the results in tables 1 and 2 is not clear).
Consider presenting some of the tables (especially the ones that are not referred to the final, most accurate model) as supplementary, since they are difficult to read and do not influence your final conclusion (e.g., tables 3, 6, 7 and 8).
Present figures 3 and 4 as a single figure to aid in the comparison between models.
Author Response
Heraklion, 13 April 2021
Dear Reviewer,
Herewith we submit the second revision of the manuscript entitled “Allometric individual leaf area estimation in chrysanthemum” (Manuscript ID 1169021) by D Fanourakis, F Kazakos and PA Nektarios for publication in Agronomy.
We would like to thank you for the kind words and the valuable suggestions. Please find below a description on how we have dealt with the received comments. We hope that the manuscript can now be accepted for publication in your journal.
Yours sincerely,
Dimitrios Fanourakis
Comments of Reviewer 2
The authors present an empirical model for estimating leaf area in chrysanthemum leaves, considering genotype variation. Although the soundness of the study seems appropriate, I think that the presentation of the results could be improved for an easier interpretation. For this effect, several of the presented tables could be moved to supplementary information, and perhaps the rest could also be merged to facilitate the model rationale to the reader. Here is a list of some other minor comments:
Reply: Thank you.
(1) Line 26 – ‘In this vein’ – use another expression
Reply: Done.
(2) Lines 26-27 – Checking reference nº5 (Srinivasan et al 2017 GCB), seems that there is a misconception with the term ‘leaf area’. In that article, they use it for LAI (leaf area index) or for total leaf area (area of leaves per plant). Hence, the association between individual leaf area and plant productivity is by no means true. The authors need to differentiate between these different parameters.
Reply: It is now clarified that crop growth is related to the whole plant leaf area, and that the latter is generally determined by summing the leaf area of individual leaves. The respective references were also replaced by more relevant ones.
(3) Line 28 – As for above, better references are required when making these statements.
Reply: These references were replaced.
(4) Line 83 – For such study, more specifications are needed regarding the collected leaves. More specifically, light (irradiance) and developmental/phenological stage of the leaves, since these two factors are among the most important in determining leaf traits.
Reply: All leaves were fully-expanded. Therefore, a single developmental stage was employed.
Our aim was to develop one leaf area estimation model indepedent of the leaf position. To achieve this, leaves were randomly sampled throughout the canopy.
(5) Figure 1 – The photo of the leaf presented here could be complemented with a depiction of the different measures described in lines 98-102 to facilitate the interpretation of their meaning, and the possible relation with the selected species.
Reply: Done.
(6) Line 126 – This sentence seems odd (‘tested for both each cultivar’); please rephrase it.
Reply: This line was re-phrased.
(7) Lines 193-195 – This needs to be more clearly introduced earlier, that is, why you use two sets of cultivars (separating the results in tables 1 and 2 is not clear).
Reply: This is mentioned in the M&M section.
(8) Consider presenting some of the tables (especially the ones that are not referred to the final, most accurate model) as supplementary, since they are difficult to read and do not influence your final conclusion (e.g., tables 3, 6, 7 and 8).
Reply: Tables 3 (models tested per cultivar) and 8 (models including a shape factor) are now presented as Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.
(9) Present figures 3 and 4 as a single figure to aid in the comparison between models.
Reply: Done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well written and clearly explains how the research was conducted.
Common practice often leads to overcomplicate models by adding predictors that, based on intuition alone, are thought to improve accuracy. Thus, I appreciate the empirical evidence brought by this study on the higher effectiveness of simple leaf length and width at predicting leaf area for chrysanthemum.
I only have one question for the authors.
In this work, leaves are excised and photographed to obtain accurate measurements using image analysis software.
While this methodology is sound for developing a model based on reliable measurements, I wonder if the same LA estimation model will hold under field conditions, with length and width measured in a non-destructive way, for example, using a caliper directly on the plant without cutting out the leaves.
I understand that this may go beyond the scope of this paper and it could be the subject of future research, but it would be interesting to explore a model of the noise (if any) introduced by in situ non-destructive manual measurements and assess how this affects the model developed on ground truth data as it was obtained in this work.
Author Response
Heraklion, 13 April 2021
Dear Reviewer,
Herewith we submit the second revision of the manuscript entitled “Allometric individual leaf area estimation in chrysanthemum” (Manuscript ID 1169021) by D Fanourakis, F Kazakos and PA Nektarios for publication in Agronomy.
We would like to thank you for the kind words and the valuable suggestions. Please find below a description on how we have dealt with the received comments. We hope that the manuscript can now be accepted for publication in your journal.
Yours sincerely,
Dimitrios Fanourakis
Comments of Reviewer 3
The manuscript is well written and clearly explains how the research was conducted.
Common practice often leads to overcomplicate models by adding predictors that, based on intuition alone, are thought to improve accuracy. Thus, I appreciate the empirical evidence brought by this study on the higher effectiveness of simple leaf length and width at predicting leaf area for chrysanthemum.
Reply: Thank you.
I only have one question for the authors.
In this work, leaves are excised and photographed to obtain accurate measurements using image analysis software.
While this methodology is sound for developing a model based on reliable measurements, I wonder if the same LA estimation model will hold under field conditions, with length and width measured in a non-destructive way, for example, using a caliper directly on the plant without cutting out the leaves.
I understand that this may go beyond the scope of this paper and it could be the subject of future research, but it would be interesting to explore a model of the noise (if any) introduced by in situ non-destructive manual measurements and assess how this affects the model developed on ground truth data as it was obtained in this work.
Reply: This is now treated in the last paragraph of the discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
