Analysis of Phenotypic and Physiological Characteristics of Plant Height Difference in Alfalfa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
: Cultivating new alfalfa varieties with high yield and quality is of great significance for 8 improving alfalfa yield and promoting the development of grass and livestock industry. Plant height is an important indicator of alfalfa yield and is closely related to photosynthetic capacity, harvest index and yield. In this paper, we measured phenotypic traits, photosynthetic physiology and endogenous hormone content of two tall and two short stemmed alfalfa as test materials, and analyzed the correlation between alfalfa plant height and various measurement indicators, as well as the reasons of the differences in alfalfa plant height.
I have some comments to improve the manuscript.
1. The title should be improved in the light of objectives.
2. The abstract is very long, it should be below 300 words.
3. Write research gaps in the existing literature about your work.
4. The authors mention the phenotypic indexes, how they were calculated, and where is its methodology.
5. Add space between values and units.
6. You should narrate all the abbreviations.
Polishing of language is needed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our manuscript. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our revised manuscript can be get your consideration. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:
Point 1:The title should be improved in the light of objectives.
Response 1: We thank the reviewers for pointing out these issues, and we have improved the title in the light of objectives. We’ve changed [original title : Correlation Analysis of Phenotypic Traits, Physiological Indicators and Plant Height in Alfalfa] to [edited title : Analysis of phenotypic and physiological characteristics of plant height difference in Alfalfa]
Point 2: The abstract is very long, it should be below 300 words.
Response 2: We agree with the reviewer's comments and have simplified the abstract based on the research content.
Point 3: Write research gaps in the existing literature about your work.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue out. On the basis of summarizing previous research, we have listed the gaps in existing research work and supplemented corresponding literature.
Point 4: The authors mention the phenotypic indexes, how they were calculated, and where is its methodology.
Response 4: We agree and have updated. We have listed the calculation methods for corresponding phenotypic indicators in section 2.3.1 and supplemented relevant references.
Point 5: Add space between values and units.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue out. We have added spaces between the values and units in the entire text.
Point 6: You should narrate all the abbreviations.
Response 6: I'm very sorry, it's my carelessness. We have narrated all the abbreviations.
Point 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language. Polishing of language is needed.
Response 7: We agree and have Polished the language in the entire text.
I sincerely thank the experts for their comprehensive and professional advice, which has helped me a lot to inspire my research ideas.
Thank you very much for your attention and time. Look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Fang Jing
19 Jun., 2023
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has valuable information about alfalfa, with physiological and biochemical analyzes that help to understand the differences that occurred between the compared material. The authors showed correlation analyzes of different alfalfa materials, seeking to analyze its phenol alloy and physiology. I left small suggestions to be inserted in the work.
The Abstract is too long. I suggest reducing.
In the Introduction there are many long paragraphs. I suggest reducing or dividing.
You don't need to put topics in the results.
Check overlapping of letters in the Figures.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our manuscript. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our revised manuscript can be get your consideration. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:
Point 1: The Abstract is too long. I suggest reducing.
Response 1: We agree and have simplified the abstract based on the research content.
Point 2: In the introduction there are many long paragraphs. I suggest reducing or dividing.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue out. We have simplified and divided the long paragraphs in the introduction.
Point 3: You don't need to put topics in the results.
Response 3: We agree and have updated.
Point 4: Check overlapping of letters in the Figures.
Response 4: We agree and have made modifications to the overlapping letters in the full text image.
I sincerely thank the experts for their comprehensive and professional advice, which has helped me a lot to inspire my research ideas.
Thank you very much for your attention and time. Look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Fang Jing
19 Jun., 2023
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper aimed to analyse the mechanism of plant height development in alfalfa from the perspectives of phenotype and physiology.
From a formal point of view, the paper is quite long, not well written.
However, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the present form and needs to be improved.
Unfortunately, there is a basic weak point (see general remark, thereafter).
Abstract
L 14 -16 height. The results showed that the average plant height of the high stem alfalfa material was 83.68cm, while the short stem material was 55.06cm. The high stem material was 51.97% higher than the dwarf material.
Other than a redundant information (both as cm and %), it is also an obvious information and result but with little or no scientific interest. Initially, two tall and two short and two tall alfalfa accessions were chosen and compared. Of course, they can differ in several traits!
L 20 Tr, Pn, and Gs and thereafter
Please, write out at the first time.
In the introduction section,
L 114 please, forage legume instead of ….legume forage grass….
The hypothesis of the research should be stated and the research objective should be better defined.
MM section
L 151 At the end of May of the second year,…..?
Please, specify exactly how many days after sowing.
Statistical Analyses
Please, Add references for the used software.
I have a question:
Was the principal component analysis performed on the covariance matrix or on the correlation matrix?
L 209 cytokinin (ABA), at L 209 and throughout the manuscript also in figures
Please, pay attention at L 209 and throughout the manuscript and also in figures, ABA is not the acronym of the cytokinin!!!!
Please, modify accordingly.
Table 2, please, use always the same number of decimals throughout the same table.
Please, increase the readability of figure 7.
The same acronyms should be used
Conclusions
Conclusion must reflect the stated objectives.
L 112 – 115 “It aims to analyse the mechanism of plant height development in alfalfa from the perspectives of phenotype and physiology, in order to provide new ideas to reveal the formation of legume forage grass plant height traits and genetic improvement of alfalfa and other legumes.”
Where are the new ideas?
Where is the novelty from the research??
Which are the practical implications of the study?
Authors must emphasise the new insight from their results.
General remark
Authors should reduce the redundant information related to the obvious different trait values of diversified plant material and focus more on the correlation between plant height and phenotypic traits and photosynthetic physiological indicators, which is the most important content and information from the manuscript.
I suggest authors summarize the data on the differences in Plant Height, Phenotypic Traits, Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics, Photosynthetic Product Content, and Endogenous Hormone contents in order to shorter the paper. The above-mentioned differences must be considered as the starting point for establish the subsequent relationship, which represent the proper and valuable focus of the research for producing new knowledge and useful information. Therefore, the above-mentioned relationship must be more emphasized and discussed
The paper aimed to analyse the mechanism of plant height development in alfalfa from the perspectives of phenotype and physiology.
From a formal point of view, the paper is quite long, not well written.
However, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the present form and needs to be improved.
Unfortunately, there is a basic weak point (see general remark, thereafter).
Abstract
L 14 -16 height. The results showed that the average plant height of the high stem alfalfa material was 83.68cm, while the short stem material was 55.06cm. The high stem material was 51.97% higher than the dwarf material.
Other than a redundant information (both as cm and %), it is also an obvious information and result but with little or no scientific interest. Initially, two tall and two short and two tall alfalfa accessions were chosen and compared. Of course, they can differ in several traits!
L 20 Tr, Pn, and Gs and thereafter
Please, write out at the first time.
In the introduction section,
L 114 please, forage legume instead of ….legume forage grass….
The hypothesis of the research should be stated and the research objective should be better defined.
MM section
L 151 At the end of May of the second year,…..?
Please, specify exactly how many days after sowing.
Statistical Analyses
Please, Add references for the used software.
I have a question:
Was the principal component analysis performed on the covariance matrix or on the correlation matrix?
L 209 cytokinin (ABA), at L 209 and throughout the manuscript also in figures
Please, pay attention at L 209 and throughout the manuscript and also in figures, ABA is not the acronym of the cytokinin!!!!
Please, modify accordingly.
Table 2, please, use always the same number of decimals throughout the same table.
Please, increase the readability of figure 7.
The same acronyms should be used
Conclusions
Conclusion must reflect the stated objectives.
L 112 – 115 “It aims to analyse the mechanism of plant height development in alfalfa from the perspectives of phenotype and physiology, in order to provide new ideas to reveal the formation of legume forage grass plant height traits and genetic improvement of alfalfa and other legumes.”
Where are the new ideas?
Where is the novelty from the research??
Which are the practical implications of the study?
Authors must emphasise the new insight from their results.
General remark
Authors should reduce the redundant information related to the obvious different trait values of diversified plant material and focus more on the correlation between plant height and phenotypic traits and photosynthetic physiological indicators, which is the most important content and information from the manuscript.
I suggest authors summarize the data on the differences in Plant Height, Phenotypic Traits, Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics, Photosynthetic Product Content, and Endogenous Hormone contents in order to shorter the paper. The above-mentioned differences must be considered as the starting point for establish the subsequent relationship, which represent the proper and valuable focus of the research for producing new knowledge and useful information. Therefore, the above-mentioned relationship must be more emphasized and discussed
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our manuscript. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. We hope that our revised manuscript can be get your consideration. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:
Abstract
Point 1: L 14 -16 height. The results showed that the average plant height of the high stem alfalfa material was 83.68cm, while the short stem material was 55.06cm. The high stem material was 51.97% higher than the dwarf material. Other than a redundant information (both as cm and %), it is also an obvious information and result but with little or no scientific interest. Initially, two tall and two short and two tall alfalfa accessions were chosen and compared. Of course, they can differ in several traits!
Response 1: We thank the reviewers for pointing out these issues, and we have removed redundant information from the abstract and rewritten the abstract section.
Point 2: L 20 Tr, Pn, and Gs and thereafter Please, write out at the first time.
Response 2: We agree and have updated. I am very sorry that this problem was caused by my carelessness. [edited text : Pn (net photosynthetic rate), Tr (transpiration rate), upper leaf SP (soluble protein), Suc (sucrose) content, middle stem Sta (starch) content, middle stem ZT (zeatin) and IAA (indole-3-acetic acid).]
Introduction
Point 3: L 114 please, forage legume instead of ….legume forage grass….The hypothesis of the research should be stated and the research objective should be better defined.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue out. We’ve changed [original text: legume forage grass] to [forage legume] (line 104). We have clarified the research hypotheses and redefined the research objectives. As follows:
Therefore, in this study, we analyzed the differences in phenotypic traits, photosynthetic physiology and hormone content of two tall and two short stalk Alfalfa materials. The relationship between alfalfa plant height and phenotypic traits and physiological indicators was discussed, and the important external and internal factors that caused the difference of Alfalfa plant height were analyzed. Overall, the findings of this study provide new ideas for genetic improvement of plant height traits in leguminous forage such as alfalfa.
Point 4: MM section
L 151 At the end of May of the second year,…..? Please, specify exactly how many days after sowing.
Response 4: We agree and have updated. We’ve changed [original text: At the end of May of the second year] to [In June 2022] .
Point 5: Statistical Analyses
Please, Add references for the used software. I have a question:Was the principal component analysis performed on the covariance matrix or on the correlation matrix?
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing this issue out. We have supplemented the references for the used software and modified the content of the “Statistical Analysis” section. I'm glad to answer your question, the principal component analysis is performed on correlation matrices.
Point 6: L 209 cytokinin (ABA), at L 209 and throughout the manuscript also in figures. Please, pay attention at L 209 and throughout the manuscript and also in figures, ABA is not the acronym of the cytokinin!!!!Please, modify accordingly.
Response 6: We agree and have updated. I am very sorry that this problem was caused by my carelessness. We’ve changed [original text: cytokinin (ABA)] to [abscisic acid (ABA)] .
Point 7: Table 2, please, use always the same number of decimals throughout the same table.
Response 7: We agree and have updated the same number of decimals throughout the same table.
Point 8: Please, increase the readability of figure 7.The same acronyms should be used
Response 8: We agree and have made modifications to Figure 7 using the same acronyms.
Point 9: Conclusion must reflect the stated objectives.
L 112 – 115 “It aims to analyse the mechanism of plant height development in alfalfa from the perspectives of phenotype and physiology, in order to provide new ideas to reveal the formation of legume forage grass plant height traits and genetic improvement of alfalfa and other legumes.”
Where are the new ideas?
Where is the novelty from the research??
Which are the practical implications of the study?
Authors must emphasise the new insight from their results.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your professional advice and comments. We agree and have rewritten the conclusion based on the stated objectives and emphasise the new insight from the result.
Point 10: General remark Authors should reduce the redundant information related to the obvious different trait values of diversified plant material and focus more on the correlation between plant height and phenotypic traits and photosynthetic physiological indicators, which is the most important content and information from the manuscript.
I suggest authors summarize the data on the differences in Plant Height, Phenotypic Traits, Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics, Photosynthetic Product Content, and Endogenous Hormone contents in order to shorter the paper. The above-mentioned differences must be considered as the starting point for establish the subsequent relationship, which represent the proper and valuable focus of the research for producing new knowledge and useful information. Therefore, the above-mentioned relationship must be more emphasized and discussed
Response 10: Thank you very much for your professional advice and comments. This has greatly inspired my research approach and I have learned a lot from it. We have reduced redundant information related to obvious different trait values from diverse plant materials and summarized data on differences in plant height, phenotypic characteristics, photosynthetic physiological characteristics and endogenous hormone content. In the discussion, redundant information related to significantly different trait values was removed, and the discussion on differences in plant height, phenotypic characteristics, photosynthetic physiological characteristics, photosynthetic product content, and endogenous hormone content was strengthened.
I sincerely thank the experts for their comprehensive and professional advice, which has helped me a lot to inspire my research ideas.
Thank you very much for your attention and time. Look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Fang Jing
19 Jun., 2023
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revision is OK
Acceptable
