Effects of Defoliation at Different Fertility Stages on Material Accumulation, Physiological Indices and Yield of Cotton
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe MS under review deals with defoliation treatment (0,25%,50%,75% and 100% unfolded leaves) at three stages i.e., post-fertilized (pregnant) bud, full bud and boll stage affecting dry matter accumulation, chlorophyl fluorescence parameters and stress indicator enzymes and MDA in split plot design experiment with three replications. The envisaged investigation is well thought of. However, there are many details which appear to be missing and are required to understand the work. First, the information about fully expanded leaves is missing if they also received defoliation treatment. Secondly, different treatment stages viz., post-fertilized bud, full bud and boll stage should be paired with the age (days) and leaf stage of the cotton plants. Thirdly, sampling days after treatment stages must be mentioned for each estimated morpho-physio-biochemical parameter must be mentioned in the Material & Method Section. Fourth, number of rows per plot and number of plants per row along with spacing details should also be mentioned. The usage of “pregnant” is to be replaced something like “post-fertilization” or “post-fertilized” as the case may be. I think “bud” means “reproductive bud” or “flowering bud” that should be clarified in the text.
Various sections of the MS also need revision as they are ambiguously written and failed to succinctly describe results and effectively convey the interpretation of the findings. This is because of incorrect usage of English language, particularly syntax of sentences. Hence, MS must be corrected by native English-speaking expert.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language of the MS is highly ambiguous and needs extensive editing, particularly syntax of sentences. I recommend the use of simple sentences, avoiding complex sentences, and use of the active voice in place of passive voice, particularly in Discussion and Conclusion Section. A native English speaker expert may help resolve the language issue.
Author Response
Hello, reviewer, thank you for your recognition of the manuscript. I have revised and supplemented the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. It is marked in yellow in the attachment. The full text has been polished in English.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
Thank you for submitting your manuscript concerning defoliation effects on dry matter accumulation, physiological indices (chlorophyll fluorescence, POD, SOD, and MDA), and yield of cotton. However, your manuscript must be revised before acceptance in Agriculture Journal such as:
1. Please clearly provide research background in the abstract, including an introduction mentioning the importance of defoliation treatments.
2. The abstract did not represent the research results.
3. Please add the problems that should solved in the introduction, and there should be a storyline between the paragraphs.
4. The 0 treatment should be included in the treatment because the authors mentioned 0 treatment as the control in the results. Please revise lines 92-93.
5. Please explain the plant age rather than the date in three different fertility periods (lines 91 - 92).
6. Please explain why the terminology was selected for the determination of chlorophyll fluorescence (Table 1) and provide the relation with photosynthetic rate.
7. Line 125 - 127, please provide in advance how to measure the POD, SOD, and MDA.
8. All data presented have fluctuated among the treatments at different growth stages, and there were difficult to make conclusions. Please provide clearly explanation in the manuscript of which treatments have a significant effect on each parameter observation. Thus, the manuscript becomes interesting to readers.
9. For example the effect of defoliation on POD, SOD, and MDA have fluctuated among the treatment and different defoliation stages. The results should be comprehensively discussed.
10. The captions in all figures should be mentioned in more detail.
11. Why include 1-day observation in Figures 2, 3, 4 and not 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks.
12. There was no conclusion on which treatment and growth stage had a significant effect on the dry material accumulation, physiological indices, and yield of cotton.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript was not carefully prepared, therefore my decision is major revision.
Author Response
Hi reviewer,
Thank you for recognising manuscript 2817071. I have revised and added to the manuscript based on your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the manuscript does not meet the minimum quality criteria for publication in the Agriculture journal:
The formatting structure recommended by the journal is not followed.
The information in the introduction does not follow a logical order and does not provide enough background to adequately contextualise the study. Furthermore, a hypothesis or objectives are not clearly presented.
The materials and methods do not adequately describe the conditions and how the experiment was conducted.
Figure 1 does not present any statistical analysis.
The discussion does not adequately structure the information and does not adequately integrate the results.
The English writing of the manuscript is very poor with inadequate use of punctuation and spaces and many grammatical errors in English.
Author Response
Hello reviewers,
Thank you for recognising manuscript 2817071. I have revised and added to the manuscript based on your comments and suggestions. It is marked in yellow in the annex. The English and grammar have been recorrected throughout the text. The details of the modifications are in the annex.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI checked the revised MS. However, the authors did not address the queries of the reviewer satisfactorily. For example, there was a suggestion not to use the terminology "pregnant", which is used in context with the animals. For crop plants like cotton, the term "post-fertilized bud" is rather appropriate. Further, how were defoliation treatments devised or an explanation of different percentages of defoliation? Sampling numbers and days after defoliation treatment/ stages of cotton ball developments for various parameters are also missing in the materials and methods section. The results should need to be presented as main plot effect (post-fertilization bud developmental stages), sub-plot effect (Defoliation treatments), interaction among sub-plots within each main plot separately and discussed appropriately.
The authors' response to each query must be categorically enlisted and indicated in the revised text highlighted with different colored font.
Author Response
- Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: there was a suggestion not to use the terminology "pregnant", which is used in context with the animals. For crop plants like cotton, the term "post-fertilized bud" is rather appropriate.
Response 1: All "pregnant" has been changed to "post-fertilized bud" throughout the text in red.
Comments 2: how were defoliation treatments devised or an explanation of different percentages of defoliation? Sampling numbers and days after defoliation treatment/ stages of cotton ball developments for various parameters are also missing in the materials and methods section.
Response 2: Changes and additions have been made in Materials and Methods, marked in red.
Comments 3: The results should need to be presented as main plot effect (post-fertilization bud developmental stages), sub-plot effect (Defoliation treatments), interaction among sub-plots within each main plot separately and discussed appropriately.
Response 3:New table V added.Two-factor ANOVA was utilized to study the relationship between treatment period and defoliation intensity on yield. Marked in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thank you for revising your manuscript. However, I found some of the questions were not perfectly responded. Please provide how to measure the POD, SOD, and MDA (lines 132-133), and not just mentioned using the kits. For example, the POD activity was measured by the addition of the substrate to the extracted enzymes, and the enzyme activity was expressed in a unit activity. Just a simple explanation of the method to make it easier for the reader. Furthermore, the Figure caption should be also described in more detail. Finally, the authors did not revise the conclusion, please revise the conclusion as previously suggested.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English should have moderate editing by an English editing service.
Author Response
- Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2.Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1:Please provide how to measure the POD, SOD, and MDA (lines 132-133)
Response 1:In 2.3.3. Measurement of enzyme activities and contents, the method for measuring POD, SOD, and MDA was added.
Comments 2:The authors did not revise the conclusion, please revise the conclusion as previously suggested.
Response 2:The conclusion of Part V has been added at the end of the article and is marked in red font.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved the manuscript with respect to the original version submitted. However, in my opinion, further corrections must be made before it can be accepted.
The sections into which the manuscript has been divided are not correct. Please review the authors' guidelines and structure the manuscript accordingly (introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions)
According to the materials and methods, your experiment takes into account three periods (gestational, blooming, and bud). Then, it is not understood in the results there are two fluorescence analysis tables (Table 2 with 2 periods and Table 3 with all three periods). You should justify this either in the material and methods or in the results because it is not clear when the measurements were made. Another possibility would be to clarify the titles of the tables and the names of the periods of the tables in the results.
Include a legend for the tables. For instance: values are means ± standard errors. Values followed by different letters indicate significant differences. Also include this in figure captions
Check and correct the reference formatting
Additional comments with corrections have been indicated in the manuscript (see attached file).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2.Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1:The sections into which the manuscript has been divided are not correct. Please review the authors' guidelines and structure the manuscript accordingly (introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions).
Response 1: The structure of the manuscript has been changed to five parts: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions.
Comments 2:According to the materials and methods, your experiment takes into account three periods (gestational, blooming, and bud). Then, it is not understood in the results there are two fluorescence analysis tables (Table 2 with 2 periods and Table 3 with all three periods). You should justify this either in the material and methods or in the results because it is not clear when the measurements were made. Another possibility would be to clarify the titles of the tables and the names of the periods of the tables in the results.
Response 2: Table 2. Effect of different treatments on kinetic parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence induction in cotton determined at full bud stage. This measurement period was treated only at the pregnant and full bud stage. Table 3. Effect of different treatments on kinetic parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence induction in cotton as determined during flowering. Three periods were carried out at this time.
Comments 3: Include a legend for the tables. For instance: values are means ± standard errors. Values followed by different letters indicate significant differences. Also include this in figure captions. Check and correct the reference formatting.
Response 3:The values and significance in the graphs and tables have been reformatted as requested.
Comments 4:Additional comments with corrections have been indicated in the manuscript (see attached file).
Response 4:Corrections have been made to the issues raised in the annex, such as the deletion of redundant spaces and acronyms. Marked in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
