The Effects of Phased Warming during Late Winter and Early Spring on Grain Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written.
Climate change does not have an impact on wheat production. Plants are built resilient and shall continue to quickly adapt to such fluctuations. The best thing about the current research is that trade-offs were shown, and variability was well explained, especially for the third year.
It is a presumed study with no real novelty. Yes, it does address the fact that plants' innate potential in adapting to climate crisis quicker than imagined.
A plethora of studies have been published with similar concepts but none addressing the shift in the growing season.
The authors have tested the hypothesis using possible endpoints and obtained meaningful results. It is already a super lengthy study projecting 3 main objectives and offsets from them. It is far from a least publishing unit and makes it difficult to decipher.
Speculation was quite limited bringing genuinely relevant information out.
Although the list in restricted by demographics, the references are adequate.
No comments on Tables and Figures. There is a flow and changes might make it difficult even to the primary author to understand the contents.
Author Response
1. The manuscript is well written.
Response: Thank you for your important comments.
2. Climate change does not have an impact on wheat production. Plants are built resilient and shall continue to quickly adapt to such fluctuations. The best thing about the current research is that trade-offs were shown, and variability was well explained, especially for the third year.
Response: Indeed, we agree with your perspective.
3. It is a presumed study with no real novelty. Yes, it does address the fact that plants' innate potential in adapting to climate crisis quicker than imagined.
Response: Thank you for your important comments. Based on the previous prediction that the winter temperature in the North China Plain will continue to rise [1,2], this paper explores the changes of grain yield and quality of winter wheat under the field warming environment in winter and spring, which is different from the previous experimental methods [3-5]. This can be seen in the relevant description in lines 94-96.
[1]. Tan, K.; Wu, D.; Zhao, H. Trend analysis of temperature conditions over different growth periods of winter wheat under climate warming in North China Plain. Chinese J. Agrometeorol 2017, 38, 333-341. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6362.2017.06.001.
[2]. Fang, S.; Ren, S.; Tan, K. Responses of winter wheat to higher night temperature in spring as compared within whole growth period by controlled experiments in North China. JFAE 2013, 11, 777-781.
[3]. Tian, Y.; Chen, J.; Chen, C.; Deng, A.; Song, Z.; Zheng, C.; Hoogmoed, W.; Zhang, W. Warming impacts on winter wheat phenophase and grain yield under field conditions in Yangtze Delta Plain, China. Field Crops Res 2012, 134, 193-199. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.05.013.
[4]. Li, J.; Liu, H.; Duan, L.; Eneji, A.E.; Li, Z. Spike differentiation in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) mulched with plastic films during over-wintering period. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2008, 31, 133-144. doi:10.1300/J064v31n03_09.
[5]. Fang, S.; Cammarano, D.; Zhou, G.; Tan, K.; Ren, S. Effects of increased day and night temperature with supplemental infrared heating on winter wheat growth in North China. Eur J Agron 2015, 64, 67-77. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2014.12.012.
4. A plethora of studies have been published with similar concepts but none addressing the shift in the growing season.
Response: Thank you for your comments.
5. The authors have tested the hypothesis using possible endpoints and obtained meaningful results. It is already a super lengthy study projecting 3 main objectives and offsets from them. It is far from a least publishing unit and makes it difficult to decipher.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We delete some unnecessary content (Lines 234-238, Line 332-334, Line 337-341, Line 363.) in order to reduce the difficulty of reading. At the same time, we put the phenological period table in Table A2 and deleted the previous description of wheat phenological period (Line 252). We re-described the phenological changes of wheat in Lines 221-222.
6. Speculation was quite limited bringing genuinely relevant information out.
Response: Thank you for your comments. This point is elaborated upon in lines 524-526 of this manuscript.
7. Although the list in restricted by demographics, the references are adequate.
Response: Thank you for your advice. We replaced the original references in Lines 575-578, Lines 642-646 and Lines 660-663 to reduce demographic restrictions (The replacement of references does not affect the usage of the sentence). And the original references were removed in Lines 613-614 and Lines 653-654.
8. No comments on Tables and Figures. There is a flow and changes might make it difficult even to the primary author to understand the contents.
Response: Thank you for your comments. To enhance the coherence of the manuscript, Table 3 (Lines 257-258) has been incorporated as an appendix (Table A2), and the description for Table A2 (Lines 689-691) has been placed before Table 2 (Lines 229-232).
Please see the attachment (Manuscript with tacked changes).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Please adopt suggestion give in text.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Authors,
Paper titled: “The effects of phased warming during late winter and early spring on grain yield and quality of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)” authors: Haiwang Yu 1 , Zhen Gao 1, *, Jingshan Zhao,Zheng Wang, Xiaoyu Li, Xinyan Xu , Huajian Jian, Dahong Bian ,Yanhong Cui, Xiong Du, is nice written.
Research is of great importance for science. Phased warming in late winter and early spring can increase winter wheat grain yield. Therefore, this study conducted field warming experiments in a movable polyethylene greenhouse during the late winter and early spring stages of the three wheat growing seasons from 2019 to 2022. The results showed that the accumulated growing degree days (GDD) of the warming treatment during the warming period were increased compared to the control. The authors should, in addition to the above items, add Figure 2 and describe it in detail as if to expand the conclusion. I suggest that the paper be accepted with minor changes. The general remarks in the paper are that the paper was much clearer:
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Apologies for the oversight during the manuscript organization, as Figure 2 was unintentionally omitted. We have rectified this error by adding Figure 2 to Line 278. We will modify the manuscript according to your guidance.
1. Please delete in the abstract in line 29, Morever.
Moreover, The promotion effect of longer WD on grain starch content and protein yield was more significant
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence "Moreover, the promotion effect of longer WD on grain starch content and protein yield was more significant" to "The promotion effect of longer WD on grain starch content and protein yield was more significant" in Lines 29-30.
2. Please, delete In summary, in line 94. Line 94: In summary, Previous studies evaluated the effects of Line 96 climate warming on the growth and development of wheat through winter-spring warming, post-anthesis warm …
Response: We have made the recommended modification in Line 94 in accordance with your advice.
3. In line 120-124 please put in index October 12th, October 1st, October 20th, October 22nd ... Line 120 ...
The sowing dates for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 growing seasons were both October 12th, with a sowing rate of 187.5 kg ha-1. In the 2021-2022 season, excessive rainfall 121 (precipitation during the period of October 1st, 2021 to October 20th, 2021 amounted to 122 83.0 mm) before sowing delayed the sowing date to October 22nd, 2021, with a sowing 123 rate of 280 kg ha-1. The plot area was 16 m2 (4 m× 4 m, row spacing of 15 cm). Line124-128
Response: In accordance with your suggestions, we have made modifications to the text in Lines 121-125.
4. In line 265 please add figure 2. (The spike differentiation process is shown in Figure2. ....). Response: Apologies for the oversight during the manuscript organization, as Figure 2 was unintentionally omitted. We have rectified this error by adding Figure 2 in Line 278.
5. In line 334 please delete .... Interestingly, …
Response: We have made the recommended modification in Line 341 in accordance with your advice.
6. Line 334: During the stem elongation to anthesis stage in the 2022 growing season, the...
Response: We have made the recommended modification in Line 341 in accordance with your advice.
7. In line 343 please delete However, .... However, in In the 2022 growing season, the maximum grain yield was observed at a GDD
Response: Thank you for your comments. In Line 350-352, we replaced "However, in the 2022 growing season, the maximum grain yield was observed at a GDD increase of 181.2°C d during the warming period, which then declined with further increases in GDD (Figure 7D)" with "In the 2022 growing season, the maximum grain yield was observed at a GDD increase of 181.2°C d during the warming period, which then declined with further increases in GDD (Figure 7D)".
8. In line 359 please delete However, .... However, The grain protein yield …
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have deleted “However” in Line 366 in accordance with your advice.
9. In line 411 please delete ... Interestingly, ...Interestingly, In the 2022 growing season, we found …
Response: Thank you for your comments. In Line 422-425, we replaced ”Interestingly, in the 2022 growing season, we found that the kernel number per spike in the warming treatments was positively correlated with the duration of the period from stem elongation to anthesis (DMT), contrary to the trends observed in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons” with ” In the 2022 growing season, we found that the kernel number per spike in the warming treatments was positively correlated with the duration of the period from stem elongation to anthesis (DMT), contrary to the trends observed in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons”.
10. In line 411 please delete Figure ...spike length (Figures 3 and Figure 4), and markedly enhance the NFS and …
Response: Thank you for your advice. Following your advice, we have removed the word "Figure" in Line 440.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the article submitted for review, the authors have approached the important issue of how crop yield parameters change with the following climatic changes.
Introduction - typical, without remarks
Research methodology, without remarks
Statistics - why Duncan's test? Isn't Tukey's better?
Few more comments:
1. Figure 1. Daily maximum temperature, average temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation during winter wheat growing season of 2019-2020 (2020), 2020-2021 (2021) and 2021-2022 (2022)- Figures - not very readable, too small, request to enlarge, maybe better to have them vertically instead of horizontally
2) I do not understand Figures 2 and 3 - which is which?
3) the Y axis is also not readable - why the dashed line in the axis? - comment applies to all graphs
4) Poorly legible fig. 6 - too small, hard to read - maybe better to give it vertically in 2 graphs for the same period (suggestion to make it more legible - as it is only well readable at 150 - 180% magnification)
5) Figure 7 - Axis descriptions, not very readable , year descriptions, should probably be next to each chart (note also for further charts).
Figure 7 A and 7 B, description of chart B is too close to chart 7A- this is misleading.
Figure 8, 10 too small - not very legible
6) Please read the MS once more and correct any minor shortcomings, e.g. punctuation, etc.
Author Response
In the article submitted for review, the authors have approached the important issue of how crop yield parameters change with the following climatic changes.
Response: Thank you for your comment.
Introduction - typical, without remarks
Response: Thank you for your comment.
Research methodology, without remarks
Response: Thank you for your comment.
Statistics - why Duncan's test? Isn't Tukey's better?
Response: Thank you for your advice, and indeed, Tukey's test is more suitable for our data analysis. We have reanalyzed our data using Tukey's test and made the necessary modifications in the corresponding figures (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10) and Table 4.
Few more comments:
1). Figure 1. Daily maximum temperature, average temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation during winter wheat growing season of 2019-2020 (2020), 2020-2021 (2021) and 2021-2022 (2022)- Figures - not very readable, too small, request to enlarge, maybe better to have them vertically instead of horizontally
Response: Thank you for your recommendation. We have acknowledged the difficulty posed by the small size of Figure 1 and its adverse effect on reader comprehension. Hence, we have made the decision to enlarge Figure 1, thereby facilitating a more convenient reading experience for our audience (Line 124).
2) I do not understand Figures 2 and 3 - which is which?
Response: Thank you for your careful work. Apologies for the oversight during the manuscript organization, as Figure 2 was unintentionally omitted. We have rectified this error by adding Figure 2 in Line 278.
3) the Y axis is also not readable - why the dashed line in the axis? - comment applies to all graphs
Response: Thank you for your question. We not only enlarged the smaller images (Line 115, Line 314, Line 387, Line 397), but also moved the axis titles towards the Y-axis to facilitate readers' reading (Line 115, Line 281, Line 297, Line 302, Line 314, Line 370, Line 387, Line 392, Line 397).
4) Poorly legible fig. 6 - too small, hard to read - maybe better to give it vertically in 2 graphs for the same period (suggestion to make it more legible - as it is only well readable at 150 - 180% magnification)
Response: Thank you for your critical comments. We enlarged Figure 6 to make it easier for readers to watch and read (Line 314).
5) Figure 7 - Axis descriptions, not very readable, year descriptions, should probably be next to each chart (note also for further charts).
Figure 7 A and 7 B, description of chart B is too close to chart 7A- this is misleading.
Figure 8, 10 too small - not very legible
Response: Thank you for your guidance. We modified the position of the coordinate axis title of Figure 7 in Line 370 and added a year description in each small figure. At the same time, we move the Y-axis title of Figure 7B closer to it so that readers can better distinguish the content of the picture. Not only that, we also adjusted the coordinate axis title position of other pictures to make it easier to read and understand (Line 370). At Line 387 and Line 397, we have made adjustments to the size (enlarged) of Figure 8 and Figure 10, allowing for easier reading by our readers.
6) Please read the MS once more and correct any minor shortcomings, e.g. punctuation, etc.
Response: Thank you very much for your advice. We read the MS of the journal carefully and corrected the problem of fonts and punctuation accordingly (Line 51, Line 65, Line 79, Lines 109-110, Line 166, Line 224, Line 231, Line 490).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
