Plant–atmosphere and soil–atmosphere temperature differences and their impact on grain yield of super hybrid rice under different irrigation conditions

Guiyuan Meng; Rongqian Zheng; Haiping Chen; Guohui Ma; Zhongwei Wei; Guohong Xiang; Jing Zhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243580

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 26, 2020
23 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Vincent Vadez, Editor PONE-D-20-26758 High Temperature Difference bewteen Rice Organs ,Soil and Atomsphere Improves Yield of Super Hybrid Rice during Grain-Filling Stage PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Vincent Vadez Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 'Conceptualization: Guiyuan Meng, Guohui Ma, Zhou Jing Funding acquisition: Guohui Ma, Zhongwei Wei Investigation: Guiyuan Meng, Rongqian Zheng, Haiping Chen, Zhongwei Wei, Guohong Xiang. Writing and editing: Haiping Chen, Guohong Xiang, Guiyuan Meng. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication' a. Please complete your Competing Interests statement to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now b. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study where lots of detailed data on specific traits like plant organ temperature were measured which linked to yield parameters in rice. However, the manuscript can’t be accepted in a present form to be published in an international journal. The whole manuscript needs a rigorous revision for several grammatical and typographical errors. On scientific aspect, (i) the study had neither raised a strong scientific hypothesis in introduction nor showed what is novel about the results in discussion. (ii) Introduction needs significant revision as it’s not to the point. (iii) Major part of discussion just repeated results instead of explaining the novelty of each result. (iv) Two super hybrid rice varieties were assessed and the reason behind the selection was their difference in release time. Apart from that there was no note on how they behaved for stress previously or what authors expect while assessing an old and a new variety. (v) Whether the results from this study works just for China or to a broader rice/ crop community, if so make a mention on (something like tropical, temperate, Mediterranean regions) Reviewer #2: Connecting non-limiting irrigation to lower soil and canopy temperature and greater yield is not particularly interesting, which isn’t necessarily a problem, but the lack of precision in connecting causality among irrigation, canopy temperatures and yield is problematic. I find this manuscript to be lacking basic physiologic rigor. Presenting figs 5 and 6 as a regression is a bit misleading because there are 4 discreet treatment resulting in different temperature differentials, not a continuous distribution. Barplots could have been used for Fig 5 and 6, as in the other figs. That the 1-3cm irrigation treatment sometimes performed better than the 8-10cm irrigation treatment suggests less water can be used. But rather than highlight this, the discussion focuses on how irrigation is associated with reduced canopy temperature and higher yield. Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion in the assertion that greater temperature difference between “plant organs” and the atmosphere resulted in higher yield, rather than being an indication of greater transpiration that likely permits greater C fixation. Another incongruous way this is stated is that temperature affects the “rates of transpiration and grain filling.” The literature cited (47 and 48) regarding the relationship between lower canopy temperature and performance are not the most appropriate. One of the references cited for the link between high temperature and reduced fertility corresponds to how elevated atmospheric temperatures can reduce pollen fertility. The other reference is a general review of photosynthesis and temperature from 1980. The role of transpiration in affecting temperature of leaf and panicle seems to have been ignored. Another problematic link is in asserting that “lower canopy relative humidity led to greater transpiration, which depleted water content in leaves and stems.” Firstly, I see no indication that transpiration was actually directly measured, neither any indication that leaf and stem water content were measured. More problematically, there seems to be some confusion in that water needed for “proper development of the panicle and seed” comes from the leaves and stems rather than the soil. In the conclusion, the comparison presented has to do with the difference between the 1-3cm of standing water treatment and the water stress treatments, while the “check” treatment with 8-10cm of standing water is ignored. How was comparing monitoring time possible if temperature and humidity were only recorded from 13:30-14:00, as stated in the methods? How is the “best monitoring time” determined? Specify why it was best, greatest differences among treatments, lowest CV within a treatment… Specific issues: Introduction: specify to what the rice has a “strong resistance” e.g. biotic, abiotic… How are vacuum negative pressure gauges different from tensiometers? At what depth were they installed? Leaf area per plot, soil coverage over time should have been reported to separate the effect of soil coverage from irrigation. “Mild stress” not “mind stress” Supporting data is not visible. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243580.r001
Revision 1
17 Nov 2020 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer 1: (i) the study had neither raised a strong scientific hypothesis in introduction nor showed what is novel about the results in discussion. The results were rearranged with emphasis on novelty. (ii) Introduction needs significant revision as it’s not to the point. The introduction has been greatly revised, trying to get to the point. (iii) Major part of discussion just repeated results instead of explaining the novelty of each result. The novelty of the results is explained in the discussion part. (iv) Two super hybrid rice varieties were assessed and the reason behind the selection was their difference in release time. Apart from that there was no note on how they behaved for stress previously or what authors expect while assessing an old and a new variety. The two varieties were selected to evaluate the performance of water deficit and yield of elite(YLY900) and old varieties(LYPJ),and promote better application(Added in text). (v) Whether the results from this study works just for China or to a broader rice/ crop community, if so make a mention on (something like tropical, temperate, Mediterranean regions) This conclusion was obtained under the test in southern Hunan provinces China. Considering that rice yield is affected by variety, climate, posters, cultivation measures and other factors, whether the result is suitable for a wider rice / crop community needs to be further explored. Reviewer 2: 1、Presenting figs 5 and 6 as a regression is a bit misleading because there are 4 discreet treatment resulting in different temperature differentials, not a continuous distribution. Barplots could have been used for Fig 5 and 6, as in the other figs. The opinions of the expert are very reasonable. According to the need of strict control of plant physiology, the temperature difference and yield regression should be continuously distributed, which requires the continuity of water gradient treatment in the experiment. Under natural ecological conditions, the temperature difference and yield distribution should have good continuity. However, according to the water demand, cultivation practice and preliminary preparation test of super rice after flowering, if the continuous water control treatment is set in the field test, the temperature difference under the similar treatment is less, but the operation intensity is increased. Field experiments are affected by many factors, such as environment, climate, cultivation and so on. Therefore, considering the effectiveness and operability, only four key water treatments, namely shallow water layer(1–3 cm), deep water layer(8–10 cm), mild water stress (−20 to −30 kPa), and severe water stress (−40 to −50 kPa), were set up to explore the change of temperature difference and its impact on yield under water control treatment. Although the correlation between temperature difference and yield was not well continuously distributed under the four key water treatments, it reflected a close correlation to a certain extent. I do this graph just to express the correlation. The original intention of the mapping is to refer to the article published by Liu on the journal “field crop research”(Relationships between grain yield and intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (IPAR) and radiation use efficiency (RUE) of three super rice varieties under different nitrogen levels).( Liu K, Yang R, Deng J, Huamg LY, Wei ZW, Ma GH, Tian XH. High radiation use efficiency improves yield in the recently developed elite hybrid rice Y-liangyou 900. Field Crops Res. 2020; 253:107804. http://doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107804) If figures 5 and 6 are made into column chart, the abscissa is the temperature difference under four different water treatments, and the ordinate is the yield, but it is actually the yield difference diagram among different water treatments (the columnar shape is the yield difference, even if the abscissa shows the temperature difference data), so it is repeated with Fig.2, Fig.3 and Fig.4. 2、 That the 1-3cm irrigation treatment sometimes performed better than the 8-10cm irrigation treatment suggests less water can be used. But rather than highlight this, the discussion focuses on how irrigation is associated with reduced canopy temperature and higher yield. Super rice has the advantage of water saving and higher yield ubder 1-3cm irrigation than that of 8-10cm irrigationt, and which is emphasized and explained in the second paragraph of the discussion. 3、Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion in the assertion that greater temperature difference between “plant organs” and the atmosphere resulted in higher yield, rather than being an indication of greater transpiration that likely permits greater C fixation. The expression that greater temperature difference between “plant organs” and the atmosphere resulted in higher yield is not appropriate. So,the subject and related contents has made appropriate revision, and expounds the possible change of transpiration caused by temperature difference, and then the impact on yield. 4、Another incongruous way this is stated is that temperature affects the “rates of transpiration and grain filling.” The literature cited (47 and 48) regarding the relationship between lower canopy temperature and performance are not the most appropriate. The expert opinion is very reasonable, and the inappropriate part has been deleted. 5、One of the references cited for the link between high temperature and reduced fertility corresponds to how elevated atmospheric temperatures can reduce pollen fertility. The other reference is a general review of photosynthesis and temperature from 1980. The role of transpiration in affecting temperature of leaf and panicle seems to have been ignored. The effects of different water treatments on transpiration and organ temperature have been explained. 6、Another problematic link is in asserting that “lower canopy relative humidity led to greater transpiration, which depleted water content in leaves and stems.” Firstly, I see no indication that transpiration was actually directly measured, neither any indication that leaf and stem water content were measured. More problematically, there seems to be some confusion in that water needed for “proper development of the panicle and seed” comes from the leaves and stems rather than the soil. After careful consideration of the experts' opinions, the revision was made. 7、How was comparing monitoring time possible if temperature and humidity were only recorded from 13:30-14:00, as stated in the methods? How is the “best monitoring time” determined? Specify why it was best, greatest differences among treatments, lowest CV within a treatment. The humidity canopy and temperature difference between leaf, panicle and atmosphere of super rice at 12:0, 12:30, 13:00, 13:30, 14:00, 14:30 and 15:00 were compared in preliminary test. It was found that 13:30-14:00 was the maximum temperature difference of each water treatment of super rice. Therefore, it can be considered that the temperature difference of this period can better reflect the soil moisture status. The canopy humidity and temperature difference between plant organs, soil and atmosphere decreased with the reduction of soil water. Under mild (MS)and severe water stress(SS), the indexes were significantly less than those of deep water irrigation(CK) . Except that the temperature difference between 12 cm soil and atmosphere was not obvious, the other indexes were significantly different between MS and SS condion. The coefficient of variation was not obvious in the same treatment. The minimum CV of temperature difference between plant organs and atmosphere was 0.02. 8、Specific issues: (1) Introduction: specify to what the rice has a “strong resistance” e.g. biotic, abiotic… Super rice is a rice variety bred by combining ideal plant type and heterosis utilization. It has the characteristics of moderate tillering, straight sword leaf, hard stem, lodging resistance and wide adaptability,and the physiological mechanism of high photosynthetic efficiency, strong root activity, source sink flow coordination, and has the genetic basis of stress resistance and disease resistance. (relevant content has been added in the introduction) (2)How are vacuum negative pressure gauges different from tensiometers? At what depth were they installed? Vacuum negative pressure gauge is based on atmospheric pressure, which is used to measure less than atmospheric pressure; it is applicable to measure the vacuum pressure of liquid and gas without explosion, crystallization, solidification, and corrosion of copper and copper alloy. Tensiometer is the use of negative pressure meter to measure soil moisture, is a practical means to study soil water movement from the perspective of energy. When there is a pressure difference between the measured soil water potential and the tensiometer, the water in the tensiometer penetrates into the measured soil until it reaches the equilibrium state. At this time, the value displayed by the pressure gauge is the soil water potential of the tested soil. In this experiment, the ceramic probe of tensiometer was fixed at soil depths of 5 cm and 12 cm respectively. (3)Leaf area per plot, soil coverage over time should have been reported to separate the effect of soil coverage from irrigation. The leaf area index (LAI) at grain filling and mature stage was plotted, and the effect of different irrigation on LAI was analyzed. (4)“Mild stress” not “mind stress” The error has been revised. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243580.r002
20 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Vincent Vadez, Editor PONE-D-20-26758R1 Plant–atmosphere and soil–atmosphere temperature differences and their impact on grain yield of super hybrid rice under different irrigation conditions PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhou, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Specifically, you need to correct the units of the grain yield results, which are often written as g m-1 instead of g m-2 (i have seen many instances in the text, in Table 2 also. Once this is completed the paper will be accepted. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Vincent Vadez Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please correct the unit of the grain yield results, which are often written as g m-1 instead of g m-2 (i have seen many instances in the text, in Table 2 also. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243580.r003
Revision 2
21 Nov 2020 Author Response 1. Please correct the unit of the grain yield results, which are often written as g m-1 instead of g m-2 (i have seen many instances in the text, in Table 2 also. The error has been revised. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243580.r004
24 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Vincent Vadez, Editor Plant–atmosphere and soil–atmosphere temperature differences and their impact on grain yield of super hybrid rice under different irrigation conditions PONE-D-20-26758R2 Dear Dr. Zhou, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Vincent Vadez Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243580.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Vincent Vadez, Editor PONE-D-20-26758R2 Plant–atmosphere and soil–atmosphere temperature differences and their impact on grain yield of super hybrid rice under different irrigation conditions Dear Dr. Zhou: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Vincent Vadez Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243580.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .