The Impact of Seasonal Environments in a Tropical Savanna Climate on Forking, Leaf Area Index, and Biomass of Cassava Genotypes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. Addition corrections also were also included in the manuscript. An attached file provides the information about respond to reviewer's comments.

With our personally best regards,

Assoc. Prof. Poramate Banterng

Department Agronomy,

Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University

Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors describe the effect of different sowing periods on some biometric-productive characteristics of four cassava genotypes in a Thai environment, but the manuscript presents serious scientific and methodological flaws that prevent its publication.

In particular, the manuscript provides conclusions of very little usefulness for the reader and does not meet all the aims established. The authors in fact, after highlighting a statistically significant interaction genotype x sowing date (table 2) for all the traits analyzed, show (Table 4 and 5) and comment data on differences between genotypes within each planting date, only. Therefore, any comment that the authors report in the discussion and conclusion sections, as the differences between planting date as average and between genotypes in different planting dates (i.e. lines 195-197),  are misleading because not confirmed by statistical analysis.  Consequently, the original aims established by the authors cannot be achieved.

Moreover, the authors simply describe the results obtained, with the limitations mentioned above, without explaining and discuss the specific possible reasons determining the results (i.e. lines 182-189). On the contrary, the authors often formulate generic hypotheses, mentioning not relevant bibliographic citations.

Other aspects that need to be improved

First, the word "forking", even if sometimes used also by other authors, is not adequate, better to replace it with branching.

The introduction is repetitive and uninteresting. For example, it would have been appropriate to include the country's interest in cassava cultivation, with area cultivated, root production and the various parts of the plant utilized in the country, indicating exactly the food objective of the varieties analyzed: leaves, root or both?

Line 35: ..”average cassava yield..” yield of what?

lines 49-51 are not adequate for the introduction section.

lines 44-45, 52-53 and 55-57 are repetitive and express the same concept

Materials and methods

In general speaking, the branching character is not adequately described. The number of main stems, the number of primary and secondary branching for each variety and the relative height of each should be reported.

Line 68: indicate the number of plants per m2

Lines 73-77: the planting method must be explained more accurately

Lines 81-85: the values of soil water tension indicated by the authors to which % of field capacity (by weight) correspond?

Lines 90 and 92: the sentence “…for about 10% of…fresh weight…”what does it mean?

Line 88: how the second and third “forking” dates were measured?

Lines 89-91: the authors have to explain better the sampling modalities of the leaves.  i.e. How many leaves per plant? from the top or from the base of the main stem(s) or from the secondary ones…. the leaves were young or old? fully expanded? with or without petiole......

Table 1: The physical-chemical characteristics of the soil highlight two possible scenarios that the authors must clarify:

1) The experimental plots utilized for the different planting dates are not similar and contiguous, but different and far from each other (as evidenced by the differences for many characteristics, i.e. organic matter, P content…).  In this case, the climatic data must also correspond to each plot.

2) The experimental plots are contiguous and belong to the same soil type with very close characteristics. In this case, the values reported in table 1 are replicated values of the same soil type. In this case, the average value with relative standard error must be reported for each planting date and soil characteristic.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. Addition corrections also were also included in the manuscript. An attached file provides the information about respond to reviewer's comments.

With our personally best regards,

Assoc. Prof. Poramate Banterng

Department Agronomy,

Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University

Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions have greatly improved the manuscript. One change is still needed for clarification 

line 41: Change this sentence from "Forking of cassava involves branching, which ..."  to

  "Branching, known in cassava as 'forking', is...."

Forking doesn't involve branching it is branching.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. Addition corrections also were also included in the manuscript. An attached file provides the information about respond to reviewer's comments.

With our personally best regards,

Assoc. Prof. Poramate Banterng

Department Agronomy,

Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University

Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the manuscript on the effect of different sowing periods on some biometric-productive characteristics of four cassava genotypes in a Thai environment, but some serious scientific and methodological gaps must be solved before its publication.

A more detailed explanation is required for the statistical analysis adopted (lines 115-119)

Any comment that the authors report in the section 3.2 (lines 158-177), as the differences between planting date and among genotypes in different planting dates, are misleading because not supported by statistical analysis. Consequently, the original aims established by the authors cannot be achieved.  Please, review this section.

(lines 335-337). The authors affirm “the use of the” Rayong 9 (non-forking type) genotype could be an additional genetic resources for breeding program”.  This sentence is too generic and more in-depth considerations are necessary. The authors should argue about the genetic control and environmental effect on forking character, what kind of progeny is obtained by crossing a forking by a non-forking genotype and where, when and how it is better to grow a forking type with respect to a non-forking types with respect to sowing dates, crop management techniques adopted, environmental conditions….

Similarly, in the conclusions (lines 363-367), the authors do not provide any useful information to the readers concerning the effects of climatic conditions on the forking dates. The authors generally indicate solar radiation, minimum temperatures and daylenght as the factors that most influence the forking date, but do not provide any values or thresholds of above parameters that could affect the forking date, maybe related to some specific sowing times studied.

The text has some parts in single line spacing written.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. Addition corrections also were also included in the manuscript. An attached file provides the information about respond to reviewer's comments.

With our personally best regards,

Assoc. Prof. Poramate Banterng

Department Agronomy,

Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University

Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc