Drought Priming and Subsequent Irrigation Water Regimes Enhanced Grain Yield and Water Productivity of Wheat Crop
, Ashutus Singha 3, Li Bin 4,* and Muhammad Uris Mirjat 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of the article focused on an interesting topic that addresses the use of priming to increase wheat yields and reduce irrigation water. The article has a standard solution. However, I would recommend thinking about the title of the article itself. I also have a comment on the Abstract, which should include more info about the site where the trial was conducted, what type of irrigation was used, what manure rates were applied, etc. It would therefore be advisable to rewrite the Abstract. Another criticism I have is the keywords, which should not match the words in the title.
It would also be useful to check the abbreviations used in the text and their explanations. For example, WUE is not explained until line 150.
It would be useful to add more information about the experimental site in Pakistan + overview map + photos of the experimental plots.
In ch. 2.1 Treatment and experimental setup - I would recommend to describe first the experimental area and then the description of the experiment.
Line 126 Contains 2x the same sentence.
Line 130 is missing the unit after the formula.
The order of figures or table is much after the text they are tied to.
It would also be useful to distinguish whether the research is more focused on yields or biomass volume or whether it is both. Alternatively, separate the two and comment on them.
In the Discussion section I am missing more specific information on irrigation regimes.
For the above reasons, I cannot recommend the article thus submitted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. We have accepted all the comments from the reviewers, and revised the manuscript accordingly. We sincerely hope that the revised version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Best regards
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Soothar on behalf of the authors
Below are the responses to the reviewers.
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The authors of the article focused on an interesting topic that addresses the use of priming to increase wheat yields and reduce irrigation water.
Response: Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript as suggested.
- The article has a standard solution. However, I would recommend thinking about the title of the article itself.
Response: As suggested, this has been revised in the new version (Line 1). Revised title is “Drought Priming and Subsequent Irrigation Water Regimes Enhanced Grain Yield and Water Productivity of Wheat Crop”
- I also have a comment on the Abstract,
Response: Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript as suggested.
- which should include more info about the site where the trial was conducted,
Response: We have revised the manuscript as suggested in Abstract “The field trials were conducted in the research field of the Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam”.
- what type of irrigation was used, what manure rates were applied, etc.
Response: Thank you very much for the comments. We have used basin irrigation method for irrigating wheat crop. It was discussed in sub-heading 2.2. However, all the doses of fertilizers were applied as per recommendations (mentioned in the Sub-heading in 2.2). For irrigation management, basin irrigation method was used in the field.
- It would therefore be advisable to rewrite the Abstract.
Response: We have revised the manuscript as suggested in Abstract, but due words in this section, we can’t able to added the entire thing.
- Another criticism I have is the keywords, which should not match the words in the title.
Response: Thank you very much for the comments on it. In my knowledge, keywords are related to our work or research and, we have revised these.
- It would also be useful to check the abbreviations used in the text and their explanations. For example, WUE is not explained until line 150.
Response: We have revised it as suggested in the caption of Figure 11.
- It would be useful to add more information about the experimental site in Pakistan + overview map + photos of the experimental plots.
Response: This has been revised as suggested in the new version (Figure 1). However, we have run spell check and gone through the texts throughout the manuscript.
- In ch. 2.1 Treatment and experimental setup - I would recommend to describe first the experimental area and then the description of the experiment.
Response: We have already defined it, first all of we discuss experimental site/area and then describe treatments as per paper format (In material and method section).
- Line 126 Contains 2x the same sentence.
Response: This sentence had been deleted and revised as suggested in the new version.
- Line 130 is missing the unit after the formula.
Response: We have already defined these in paper (Where; Q = Discharge required (lps), T = Time of application (hour), A = Area to be irrigated (hectare), and D = Depth of irrigation to be applied (cm)).
For each irrigation event, the required depth of water was calculated by empirical equation and equation suggested by Isrealson et al., (1980). The water meters were used to measure and control the amount of irrigation water applied.
- The order of figures or table is much after the text they are tied to.
Response: Thank you, we have revised it as suggested in the new version of manuscript. Further, we have re-checked the numbers of all the tables and figures throughout the texts.
- It would also be useful to distinguish whether the research is more focused on yields or biomass volume or whether it is both. Alternatively, separate the two and comment on them. In the Discussion section I am missing more specific information on irrigation regimes.
Response: Thanks very much for the suggestions. We have tried to revise the manuscript as suggested. Thank you very much. We have polished the English again in the new version. We have accepted all the comments from the reviewers and Editor, and we tried our best to show the most interesting and new findings. Similarly, we have re-checked all the reference throughout the text in the reference section in the new version.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editorial Manager
1- Key words not to be similar of the title words
2-In abstract the numerical results must be inserted
3-Introduction is poor for Drought Priming at Vegetative Stage
4-Which experimental design is used?
5- abbreviations are not under the tables
6- Interactions between traits and water regimes must be explained more clear by explanation
Regards
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. We have accepted all the comments from the reviewers, and revised the manuscript accordingly. We sincerely hope that the revised version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Best regards
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Soothar on behalf of the authors
Below are the responses to the reviewers.
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Response: Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript as suggested.
- Key words not to be similar of the title words
Response: Thank you very much for the comments on it. In my knowledge, keywords are related to our work or research and, we have revised these.
- In abstract the numerical results must be inserted
Response: These have been revised as suggested in the new version (in last sentence of abstract). Due to the word limit (200) in the Abstract, the more numerical results were not shown in the Abstract.
- Introduction is poor for Drought Priming at Vegetative Stage
Response: As suggested, more previous studies on the drought stress at vegetative stage of crop have been added in fourth paragraph in introduction section.
- 4-Which experimental design is used?
Response: As suggested, these trials were based on a completely randomized design with three replications.
- abbreviations are not under the tables
Response: These have been revised as suggested in the new version (Figure 1).
- Interactions between traits and water regimes must be explained more clear by explanation
Response: Thank you very much for the comments. In my knowledge, our study based on single factor that’s why we can’t able to work on interactions calculated by SPSS statistically software.
In General: Thank you very much. As suggested, we have rechecked all the citations in the new version and these are useful. We have accepted all the comments from the reviewers and Editor, and we tried our best to show the most interesting and new findings.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editorial Manager
It was accepted
Regards
