Effects of Different Soil Moisture-Holding Strategies on Growth Characteristics, Yield and Quality of Winter-Seeded Spring Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have suggested some changes in the attached PDF, which are self-explanatory.

Please consider the following points:

1. The results must be concise and discussed with other updated findings.

2. Discussion is vague and deviates the reader's attention. It should be focused.

 

3. Conclusion should be explained a bit more, and any future study that goes a step forward from the present one should be suggested.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors described in the research article entitled ``Effects of Different Soil Moisture-holding Measures on  Growth Characteristics, Yield and Quality of Winter-Seeded  Spring Wheat in Hetao Irrigation Area`` the importance of soil moisture on plant growth and how it could be retained in order to enhance plant germination growth and yield attributes. Although the recommended strategy is time-consuming and needs high labor power. Additionally, this strategy doesn't support sustainability and eco-friendly approaches too. I recommend some suggestions which might improve the quality of the article 

The title of the research paper is long-winded, it could be comprehensive. 

the author can construct a map showing the  Experimental site, and meteorological data     soil properties determination methodology is missed,  and the table must be put under the  soil properties portion in the Results who  provided the wheat cultivar “Yongliang 4”  
The author(s)  must explain the methodology of each parameter comprehensively.  Grain protein content  (Pro), Wet gluten content (WGC),  Water absorption (WA),  Sedimentation value (SV),  Test 140 weight (TW),  Extensibility area (EA), Flour yield (FE), Dough malleability (DM),  Maxi- mum resistance (MR)    

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper suffers several drawbacks that may require major revision. It is questionable whether represents any significant contribution to the field; hence, I remain unconvinced whether the novelties of the findings are sufficient to justify publication in your journal. In any case, I highly encourage the authors to carefully review point by point to clarify some issues and eventually improve the manuscript.

There are some problems in this manuscript

1.    In general, this work does not have any solid concepts and aims. As I could see, this paper is just a set of classical morpho-physiological analyses without a clear vision and aims, so please indicate the novelty of their research.

2- Please did not start any sentence with an abbreviation. Authors should abbreviate at first mention and follow this abbreviation in the entire manuscript.

3- The statistical analysis was one or two ways?? there are two factors, wheat planting races in spring or winter as well as amendments

4- please indicate some information about the characteristics of plastic mulch and the thickness of straw mulch that is affecting the plant productivity

5- please add more information about the role of amendement on plant growth and productivity 

6- please add the abbreviation meaning below the Tables or Figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf