Grain Quality Affected by Introducing Photorespiratory Bypasses into Rice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

- In general, this manuscript has a valuable topic. The manuscript is well written. The English language and style are fine except for moderate English language check required. The experimental design is adequate.

-There are some MINOR comments.

Detailed comments:

In general, please avoid using the personal pronouns such as we, our, … and use the third party in active voice if needed.

For example, line 16: we primarily determined, Line 256: (In our present work); and more

Title:

The title is ok but I think no need for as in the title:

Grain quality as affected by introducing photorespiratory

Abstract:

The aim of the study was not clearly stated. Please state the exact aim or objective of the study.

-Add some significant findings in values in this section

Keywords:

The keywords list was carefully and accurately chosen.

Introduction:

This section does not provide enough background about the topic. It needs to be elongated and enriched.

Materials and Methods:

The experimental design was appropriate to the current study. The methodology was adequately described

Results:

In general, the data is very interesting. It is well presented.

-Figure 1. In the legend, the statistical analysis must be followed by be followed by the sentence that different letters indicates a significant difference. This rule should be applied for all figures and tables

-Line 169: no significant differences were observed in RVA curve !!!...Please explain what you mean by this sentence?

Discussion:

This section is well written, and data is well discussed.

Conclusion:

This section is missing. Although it is not required, the author is strongly advised to add this section and make sure it provides a good conclusion for the study and includes the significant findings.

References:

The authors provided enough UpToDate citations.

*I am convinced that this manuscript is very valuable and will be suitable to be published in Agronomy after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript from Zhang et al titled “Grain quality as affected by introducing photorespiratory bypasses into rice” (agronomy-1607557) present an analysis of the grain quality of photorespiratory bypassed rice. The research article is clear, well written and present original results on quality grain from photorespiratory bypassed rice, a research area that have not been explored yet. For these reasons, I recommend to accept the article with minor revisions.

Comments:

L2: “Grain quality as affected by introducing photorespiratory bypasses into rice”, the “as” should be removed

L64-65: “Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers also contributes to poor eating and cooking quality of  the rice grain, such as hard texture, dull color, and less sticky.”  I guess that a less sticky rice correspond to a low quality rice in Asia but in other part of the world, non-sticky rice could be preferred. Even if it is obvious, the author should maybe precise the use of this rice or the consumer market.

L99 and all the figures: Even if in the materials and methods precise that “A randomized block design with four replicates was arranged for field trials under natural conditions with a planting density of 15 x 15 cm per plant in 100 a 25 m2 (5 x 5 m) plot.”, the experimental design is never clear in the materials and methods and in all the figure legends. For example, in the legend of Figure 1, there is no precision about the number of repetition and the number of sample. Moreover, there is no precision about the material used, how many grain or which weight? How many plants? We should find all these data in the materials and methods and in the figure legends.

L141: the author do not explain why they choose the line GOC number 4 and line GCGT number 20 respectively from Shen et al, 2019 and Wang et al, 2020. It is indeed important as GCGT20 is really different form other transgenic lines 9, 12 and 17 from Wang et al, 2020 in term of sucrose and starch content.

L157 and figure 2C: If we believe the statistical analysis, the difference of 35.8% between WT and GOC4 is not significant.

L169: Could you please explain what is a RVA curve?

L460-461 and L464-465: Agronomy is an international journal, please do not use article written in another language than English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx