Approaches and Advantages of Increased Crop Genetic Diversity in the Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Top of Form

In this article the authors provide assessment of crop genetic approaches to diversify the field crops. Although the manuscript is prepared well and carries scientific value. It could be further benefitted by careful revision and editing. I recommend some revisions prior to consideration for publication.

Some comments:

Line #9: “Crop genetic diversity is most…” should be “Crop genetic diversity is most significant…” or some similar adjectives. Same is true for Line #52.

No need to cite reference in abstract.

Table 1 caption should go with the table (keep it on same page).

If authors could provide relevant references to the Table 1 (even better for each row, that would be great addition).

From figure it is not clear how it is diverse vs uniform.

For table 3 as well, author could consider to provide references.

In Figure 2, except 2C, other sub-figures do not provide significant information.

Authors could update relevant studies on genetic diversity on some key crops-- PMID: 34975291 and PMID: 35562398

 

 

Line #9:

 

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The major issues raised by the reviewer have been correctly addressed by the authors

Author Response

I could not see comments to response

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The paper was well reviewed

Author Response

Thanks esteemed reviewer for accepting. Comments are not there to response.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the manuscript describes a significant genetic method for improvement of plants. Although, manuscript is supported with sound scientific evidence, it needs careful revision with following points:

 

First, author need to revise some of the recent literature on the molecular markers for genetic improvement. I recommend some SSR/RAPD applications that could be included to enrich introduction and discussion section of this manuscript. For example,

Multiplex molecular marker-assisted analysis of significant pathogens of cotton (Gossypium sp.), 2022; Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2022.102557 (Cotton);  Assessment of genetic diversity and volatile content of commercially grown banana (Musa spp.) cultivars, Hinge et al., Scientific Reports, 2022; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11992-1 (Banana); Microsatellite analysis to differentiate clones of Thompson seedless grapevine, Upadhyay et al., 2010, Ind Journal of Horticulture, Volume 67 Issue 2 Pages 260-263.

 

Figure 2D. Could be removed, does not look relevant for this study.

 

Line 191 onwards- need better organization, the bullet points could be removed and information could be included as meaningful paragraphs.

 

 

 

Additional figures and data could be included to provide key outputs of genetic improvements and signify the key emphasis on molecular markers.

Author Response

I am very pleased to get feedback from you. My observations are 1. this paper is based on phenotype and farmer practices on use of genetic diversity. I would try to link the introduction section with molecular markers, 2. Figure 2D: this is field trial of growing 50 rice landraces together and I have revised the caption. 3. Line 191 onwards: I have revised as per the suggestion, 4. additional figure and data: molecular based information might not be relevant however, I will see if possible.

Reviewer 2 Report

The scientists examined the value of preserving agricultural genetic variety in the fields using around 35 approaches, but only two of them—crop mixture and evolutionary participatory breeding—were explained to some extent in depth (EPB). The data are presented in a very anecdotal manner without a qualitative approach. The authors present results for only a few locations and generalized their conclusions for all of Nepal. In this sense, the authors should invest more in describing and analyzing how frequent or extend the 35 approaches they exposed in farmers' fields of Nepal are. Taking into consideration this suggestion, the readers could judge the relative merits of the approaches evaluated to warrant crop genetic diversity in the field and their importance for Nepal farmers.

Author Response

I am pleased to get feedback and would like to thank. This paper is trying to document the traditional and advanced practices applied in different crops over the different sites. I have revised substantially as per your suggestions. Major bases are field survey and farmers responses, therefore, there is a lacking of data. Very brief description of each approaches have been explained. Major concern in current agricultural system is the ignorance of approaches that increase diversity in the fields

Reviewer 3 Report

lines 47:Please write the full meaning of the acronym. 

In each Approaches for increasing crop diversity in the fields, table 1, please insert species or groups for which is studied and add, if there is bibliography.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. I have revised substantially as per your suggestions. In table 1, I have added crop groups being used with this appraoche. These information are mostly based on farmer's practices and responses, therefore bibligraphy is not available.