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.
The comments are addressed satisfactorily.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
There are a few issues still remaining. Address these carefully.
no comments
line 148, remove the words as well as field experiment; add extra sentences in the field experiment to address that what traits collected, the methods are the same as in the glasshouse experiment, etc.
line 205 "appropriate statistical tools", what does it mean? suggested add the name of the tools used, eg non-linear regression model etc.
line 250 ANOVA analysis didn't mention in the methods section, please added sentence: ANOVA variance analysis was conducted with traits collected in the glasshouse etc. XXX. When the variance between genotypes larger than within genotypes, it would make sense to do a multi-comparison analysis.
line 253 and line 262 all the analysis didn't mention in the statistical analysis section. Your data analysis should be corresponded to your results. If you did Pearson correlation analysis, I am expecting to see a table (lower triangle correlation table, maybe) or figure to show the correlation between traits, not just narrate it.
If figures come from the similar analysis, suggested to merge into 1 figure with letters to separate.
The experiments well designed, however, the material and methods section, especially data analysis section needs clearly stated, which would help to make the manuscript logically flow.
no comments
Taking my comments into account, the authors have made changes to the article. In general I am satisfied, but there are two points that I think deserve clarification:
(1) When I referred to the scale bar, I meant the length scale bar, i.e. a reference for calculating the size of the plants, not the temperature scale. Sorry for the misunderstanding, the temperature scale is clearly visible on the left of each image.
(2) The emissivity value was not added in the Materials and Methods section, this value is usually 0.95 for vegetation.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
accepted
it is ok
accepted
The draft has been improved. However, it needs to improve the structure, figures, and tables further.
Fig 1 and 2, can you only show one fig or combine them as one fig?
Please add the table title to supplementary tables 2 and 3
Could you show raw data with location (glasshouse/field), year, replications, and stage (or time when collecting the data)? The author didn’t mention how those factors were treated in the data analysis.
Lines 145-147 are data analysis steps. Should they be included in the statistical analysis paragraph? In the methods section, the author didn’t mention the biplot used for fig6.
Line 278-289 data referred to which table/fig? Suggest adding an extra table/bar plot in the manuscript to show the traits collected in the field.
The experiment was well-designed. However, the data analysis section needs to be further improved. All the comparisons were based on the mean of the genotypes. How to generate the mean didn't reveal clearly in the data analysis section. The statistical analysis didn't mention how to deal with the replication or blocks in the design. Should the author have a correlation analysis to compare the consistency of the traits measured both in the glasshouse and field? Otherwise, why do we need to do two experiments? What is the correlation between stages or timepoint for the data collected at different growth stages? Can we have a figure to show it? Should the author have a pairwise correlation table to show the correlation among all traits?
Table 1 shows the multiple comparison test.
Could you please add the ANOVA variance table in the supplementary to show the variance between the genotypes and the variance within genotypes?
Line 241 traits association or traits correlation?
The simple linear regression model can be used to predict the relationship between two variables. It will give the slope and intercept, the r value generated from the software related to the model fitness, not the correlation between two traits. Please check the text line 243, and explain the correlation between the trait's r value, its r value, or r2?
It's an well designed experiment, however, the statistical section was weak. Comparison of the mean of the traits for each genotype didn't fully explore the data.
Suggest consulting a biometrician for the data analysis section.
Revise carefully as per the reviewer comments
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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. #]
Manikanta Chennamsetti et al. insight in the responses of some safflower genotypes to substantial reduction in soil moisture measuring and comparing transpiration efficiency, water uptake and canopy temperature depression. However, I recommend that authors adhere more literally to the objectives of their work when presenting their research in the abstract:
[Objectives: “(i) Estimate and categorize the threshold FTSW-NTR values at which the safflower genotype starts regulating transpiration and (ii) Understand the importance of surrogate traits…” (please specify) “…as a selection criterion for TE under field conditions”].
I think this is the main issue of this document. Please be clear and specific with the parameters studied from the abstract to the conclusions.
The research topic is interesting and useful especially during the adaptation of agriculture in this new context of climate change. Some authors approach this research with considerable previous experience in the effects of water stress on plants.
The introduction has sufficient background. Figures and tables should be improved: (1) please add a scale bar in Figures 1 and 2; (2) should indicate in the figure caption the number of replicates used when applicable.
Research objectives are clear in lines 84-87. I think that the experimental design is correct. Methods are well described but are incomplete regard CTD analysis. How ambient and canopy temperature were determined? By a pixel sampling? Describe it please. Value of emissivity used is important, please, add it.
The discussion is of sufficient quality. Conclusions are connected to the original research question and are supported by the results.
No additional comments.
This paper contains interesting studies on Conserved water use and temperature modulation in the canopy confer adaptation to residual moisture stress in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) . In addition, this study is significant for the experimental regions. However, this manuscript still needs improving in writing logic, and some language expression and the analysis of the discussion are not clear. It is recommended to modify the language for a better version. Moreover the discussion section is not deep enough, the sentence structure is simple, and there is much repetition.
Materials and methods:
- Please indicate why exactly genotypes, were selected.
-this part describe very well by using suitable subheadings. However, it need few of the figures for climate and the region. It is suggested to prepare good quality figs. in the revised version to enhance clarity.
-The study methods must be sound and more appropriate and Here I see your determination of the measurements t does not appear in the manuscript.please, check it.
- Equations should be numbered according to the sample.dot file and referred to in the text.
1.First of all, you can make the visualization more beautiful, such as processing the diagram again, too many tables will affect the reading experience.
2.In addition, this experiment has more than many a large amount of data, so we can explore the different variable factors in further depth, find possible relationships, conduct an exploratory study, and propose a relatively novel idea.
3.I noticed that some parts of your discussion were logically incoherent and poorly organized. Perhaps you can refine it.
4.In addition, there are places where there is a lack of punctuation, you can read it again, the format or something in the perfect a little.
5.Please indicate that different letters are representing significant differences according to Duncan’s multiple range test and add the p level in the caption of each artwork.
Title:
- It needs to be modified as suggested to to be more appropriate.
Abstract:
-it is good, but authors should consider the proposed changes for improving clarity of the content.
Abbreviations: should arrange
Introduction:
-Introduction part is appropriate but few things needed for further improvements especially study hypothesis should be added.
-Add some studies about the study with highlighting research gaps which necessitated conducting this trial.
-The purpose of the article and its significance-must be clear.
-In your introduction, I see that there are grammatical errors and formatting errors in some places, please check and revise carefully:
Conclusion:
-Improve this part with respect to formulated objectives. The conclusions must be accurate and supported by the content
References:
-Cross check the references in the text and reference cite. Few references are not as per journal style in the text as well reference section.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
The article include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. The logic between paragraphs of introduction section needs to be improved. Eg. The first paragraph is about safflower or drought?
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
In the material and methods section, line 114/line 131 shouldn’t be bold, it’s about how the traits were collected. For the experiment 1, how did you collecte the data from SPAD-520 and LICOR 6400? Time? And how many leaves to represent the reading for the genotype?
Line 120, why did you chose 10% difference of transpiration rate between WS and WW as the termination point? Please reorganize the paragraph to show step by step. Eg, first you weight the pots and calculate the TR, secondly, use the TR to determine the point of terminate the experiment, and then you convert the data to FTSW.
Line 147, experiment 2, please specify the residual moisture condition. How serious the condition is? Is it drought stress condition or just mild soil water stress condition? Was the plants development affected? Was there any rainfall and how was the temperature during the crop development? How did you record the plant height, leaf area index and total biomass. Please add more details.
In line 159, the statistical analysis, could you describe which model used in the analysis, eg the equation? Detail needed for the data analysis of exp1 and 2, especially the multi-comparison procedure to generate table 1. Eg all the alphabet in table 1, and how the R2 were calculated. Which methods used to do the comparison, traits correlation and PCA procedures? This section needs improve.
Line 167 Results section needs to be restructured to align with the methods. Suggested to results for exp1 and 2 or combined for each trait.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal
The experiment were well designed; however, the data analysis section needs to provide more detail to support the results. And the results section need to further restructure to stress the findings.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. To identify physiology traits which relate to the crop drought response is very useful.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard
The investigation have been conducted to a high technical standard and in conformity with the ethical standards in the field.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate
Methods need more information, especially the data analysis section, which will help the reslut to be reproducible by another investigator.
The research topic has novelty and is of interest to a broad audience. Combine imagine data with other physiological instruments are the focus of the high throughput phenotyping platform. Sound data analysis need to be strengthened for the manuscript. All the conclusions have to be based on robust statistical analysis. Results need to be re arranged to stress the new findings.
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.