Evaluation of Indonesian Butterfly Pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) Using Stability Analysis and Sustainability Index

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper collected 35 Butterfly pea genotypes from around Indonesia. By using multiple statistical measurements and a three-year trial, they selected three superior genotypes that can be used to best produce Butterfly pea flowers. This work is very useful, but I have some considerations that require further clarification from the author.

Comments:

1.      In this study, I don’t see how the authors evaluate genotypes based on GEIs. The authors used five different statistical metrics to assess the 35 Butterfly pea genotypes. However, from the equations (2)~(5), we can see that these measurements are a mixture of multiple factors, and it’s hard to say that they were highly relevant to GEIs. In particular, as shown in Table 3 and line 151, “genetic influences are greater than GEIs for all traits”. From the Figures and Tables in the Results section, it seems that the authors only identified the optimal genotypes, but didn’t distinguish different GEI factors to affect the genotype selection in Table 2. I think the authors need to assess the performance of these genotypes under different GEIs, such as wet season and dry season.

2.      [Table 2] How do we define “wet” and “dry” season? This should be mentioned in the manuscript. In addition, for temperature, rainfall, and humidity, the mean with confidence interval values also need to be provided.

3.      [Section 2.3] The authors should not only enumerate these measurements. They also need to provide the empirical interpretations of the different values of these measurements, and compare the differences between these measurements in assessing Butterfly pea genotypes.

4.      [Table 6] The authors need to provide the criteria for selecting these genotypes for each measurement.

5.      [Table 6] I don’t think a simple intersection of these measurements is an optimal selection choice. I suggest that the authors may consider a commonly used method by defining a score to calculate the weighted summation of the five measurements and then rank the scores of the 35 genotypes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: In this study, I don’t see how the authors evaluate genotypes based on GEIs. The authors used five different statistical metrics to assess the 35 Butterfly pea genotypes. However, from the equations (2)~(5), we can see that these measurements are a mixture of multiple factors, and it’s hard to say that they were highly relevant to GEIs. In particular, as shown in Table 3 and line 151, “genetic influences are greater than GEIs for all traits”. From the Figures and Tables in the Results section, it seems that the authors only identified the optimal genotypes, but didn’t distinguish different GEI factors to affect the genotype selection in Table 2. I think the authors need to assess the performance of these genotypes under different GEIs, such as wet season and dry season.

Response: In the case of multi-environments testing (location or season), GEIs information was needed to find out whether further testing is necessary using stability analysis or not. If GEIs have a significant effect, then researchers must carry out further analysis using stability measurements to determine which genotypes are stable (the genotype response to GEIs is small) and which ones are adaptive to certain environments (genotype response to GEIs is large). In this case, we expected a genotype with small response to seasonal changes, i.e., a stable genotype. In the latest research developments, stable and high yielding genotypes are one of the main focuses, including the butterfly pea plant breeding program.

 

Comment 2: [Table 2] How do we define “wet” and “dry” season? This should be mentioned in the manuscript. In addition, for temperature, rainfall, and humidity, the mean with confidence interval values also need to be provided.

Response: To distinguish between "wet" and "dry" seasons, the number of rainy months and the average rainfall during the study were determined. We have added the average values of temperature, rainfall, and humidity along with their standard deviation values.

 

Comment 3: [Section 2.3] The authors should not only enumerate these measurements. They also need to provide the empirical interpretations of the different values of these measurements, and compare the differences between these measurements in assessing Butterfly pea genotypes.

Response: Thank you for the advice. We have added empirical information in the manuscript to determine stable and adaptive genotypes.

 

Comment 4: [Table 6] The authors need to provide the criteria for selecting these genotypes for each measurement.

Response: We have provided information/criteria for each measurement in selecting butterfly pea genotypes.

 

Comments 5: [Table 6] I don’t think a simple intersection of these measurements is an optimal selection choice. I suggest that the authors may consider a commonly used method by defining a score to calculate the weighted summation of the five measurements and then rank the scores of the 35 genotypes.

Response: We use slices from each measurement in order to determine the most ideal genotype because in some measurements it is not possible to give the ranking order of each genotype. As in the GGE biplot where the genotypes are only visible visually and are in various sectors, each of which has its characteristics. The same goes for the AMMI biplot. In addition, the measurement of SI tends to be more complicated because to determine the ideal genotype one must have an SI value with high criteria and high yields. So the ranking will be a bit more complicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the manuscript "Evaluation of Indonesian Butterfly Pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) Using Stability Analysis and Sustainability Index" by Filio et al. Research in this manuscript aims to evaluate genotypes by environment (year) interactions (GEIs) on yield and yield attributes, and evaluate Butterfly pea genotypes based on stability measurements and sustainability index (SI). Manuscript looks interesting and well written.

Comments:

- Add three more keywords, so it becomes:

  AMMI; Butterfly peas; Evaluation; GGE biplot; Sustainability, Clitoria ternatea, genotypes, flower production

- Lines 37-38 and 45-47 need reference. The following are suggestions for citing: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2022.08.005

- In Conclusion, please provide the Latin name of this flower.

- There are so many abbreviations used in this manuscript, it would be better to provide a list of abbreviations.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

I have evaluated the manuscript "Evaluation of Indonesian Butterfly Pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) Using Stability Analysis and Sustainability Index" by Filio et al. Research in this manuscript aims to evaluate genotypes by environment (year) interactions (GEIs) on yield and yield attributes, and evaluate Butterfly pea genotypes based on stability measurements and sustainability index (SI). Manuscript looks interesting and well written.

 

Comments 1: Add three more keywords, so it becomes: AMMI; Butterfly peas; Evaluation; GGE biplot; Sustainability, Clitoria ternatea, genotypes, flower production

Response: We have added three other keywords in the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Lines 37-38 and 45-47 need reference. The following are suggestions for citing: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2022.08.005

Response: We've added suggested citations.

 

Comments 3: In Conclusion, please provide the Latin name of this flower.

Response: We have added the latin name in the conclusion section.

 

Comments 3: There are so many abbreviations used in this manuscript, it would be better to provide a list of abbreviations.

Response: We have listed the abbreviations in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

please see my comments – suggestions.

 

Introduction

Please write the plant family (Fabaceae).

 

Materials and Methods

L85. Please write the number of plants per replication for each genotype.

L86. Please write the time (date) of planting. I suggest the authors to clarify the age of the plants used in the experiment.

L88. Please write the duration (in days) of each growing season and the exact time of harvest in each growing season.

L88. Please write more details for the cultivation technique (e.g., application of fertilizers, pesticides). Did the authors support by string the plants?

L93. I suggest the authors to add the mean temperature for each growing season.

 

Results

L165. Please improve the quality of the figure. The reader cannot see some genotypes.

L187. Please improve the quality of the figures. The reader cannot see some genotypes.

 

References

L370. Is the abbreviation correct?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear authors,

please see my comments – suggestions.

 

Introduction

Comment 1: Please write the plant family (Fabaceae).

Response: We have added plant family in introduction section

 

Materials and Methods

Comment 2: L85. Please write the number of plants per replication for each genotype.

Response: We have added the number of plants per replication for each genotype in the manuscript.

 

Comment 3: L86. Please write the time (date) of planting. I suggest the authors to clarify the age of the plants used in the experiment.

Response: We have added information the time of planting and revise the age of the plants used in the experiment.

 

Comment 4: L88. Please write the duration (in days) of each growing season and the exact time of harvest in each growing season.

Response: We have added information of the duration (in days) of each growing season and the exact time of harvest in each growing season.

 

Comment 5: L88. Please write more details for the cultivation technique (e.g., application of fertilizers, pesticides). Did the authors support by string the plants?

Response: We have added information on fertilizer applications to the manuscript. Yes, we string plants using bamboo stakes.

 

Comment 6: L93. I suggest the authors to add the mean temperature for each growing season.

Response: We have added the mean temperature for each growing season

 

Results

Comment 7: L165. Please improve the quality of the figure. The reader cannot see some genotypes.

Response: We have tried to re-analyze and the image quality is in accordance with the output of the software used. However, the conditions of the genotypes tested remained the same and indeed overlapped one another so that some genotypes were difficult to see visually.

Comment 8: L187. Please improve the quality of the figures. The reader cannot see some genotypes.

Response: We have tried to re-analyze and the image quality is in accordance with the output of the software used. However, the conditions of the genotypes tested remained the same and indeed overlapped one another so that some genotypes were difficult to see visually.

 

References

Comment 9: L370. Is the abbreviation correct?

Response: yes, the abbreviation is correct because we are using Mendeley software.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns.