All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Your manuscript is acceptable based on the recommendation from the reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
This article analyzed the relationship ship between root morphology and grain filling under drought stress in wheat. the experiment design is reasonable. The results can provide theoretical basis for root architecture optimization, watersaving and high-yield cultivation and quality improvement in wheat. And can be accepted.
good
good
good
Please revise your manuscript according to the comments from reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
In Table 2, the p value of asterisks was missed.
In the "M&M' section, the author performed the significance analysis by using LSD method, Line144-145. As well known, LSD method is always used to detect the difference between CKand its treatment. For example, you have 4 groups, CK, treatment 1, treatment 2, treatment 3. LSD could detect the difference between CK and treatment 1,CK and treatment 2, CK and treatment 3, but not well used to tell wether treatment 1,2,3 have significant difference. We suggest the author use "Duncan method" or other methods.
Also, the author should give the p value they use (0.05 or 0.01 or other value) while calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient Line145.
no comment.
This article analyzed the relationship ship between root morphology and grain filling under drought stress in wheat. the experiment design is reasonable. The results can provide theoretical basis for root architecture optimization, watersaving and high-yield cultivation and quality improvement in wheat. And can be accepted after minor revise.
This manuscript described the morphological and structural characteristics of root morphology of root growth and caryopsis enrichment, along with their relationships, in wheat under drought stress. The data are enough to lead their conclusion and the results can provide insights into root architecture optimization and quality improvement in wheat.
well
no commet
This manuscript described the morphological and structural characteristics of root morphology of root growth and caryopsis enrichment, along with their relationships, in wheat under drought stress. The data are enough to lead their conclusion and the results can provide insights into root architecture optimization and quality improvement in wheat. Revision is required before acceptance for publication and the questions are listed as below.
1. The abstract need to be more informative. The cultivars of wheat used for the experiment and the specific value of changes in wheat traits under drought stress should be mentioned in abstract.
2. In this study, Yangmai 13 and Yannong 19 were used as materials. Please explain why select these two cultivars and describe these two cultivars in more details.
3. In this study, the control condition and drought stress were set at two different water potential (-20 and -60 kPa). Why use this treatment and is there any references supporting this?
4. Line 113, 116, 124, the font of ℃ seems to be different with the style of the whole manuscript. Please check it.
5. Line 140-141, please explain the term “relative areas of amyloplast and protein body” that was mentioned in materials and methods section in more details.
6. The botanical names in references section should be standard. Please check it.
7. In Table 2, the p-values should be given alongside the correlation coefficient to indicate significance.
8. In Figure 1, the scale bar of (A) is 8 mm in figure legend while is 8 cm in the figure. Which one is correct? Please confirm it.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.