Genetic Variability of Eggplant Germplasm Evaluated under Open Field and Glasshouse Cropping Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It looks that some traits changed their abbreviations from the previous version. This made the revision a bit difficult. For instance abbreviations PSP and SGI dissapeared.

Only a few remarks:

On table 2 (and also table 4), the abbreviation for Sources of variation (SOV) is not needed. In fact, with so many abbreviations for traits it may increase confusion. I suggest to use the whole term "Sources of Variation" or "Factors". Revise consquently the head of the table and the foot of the table. In both table 2 and table 4

I have detected that all abbreviations of traits on tables 3 and 5 include comma (,) right after the abbreviation and before the unit used. E.G. FGI, (cm). the comma must be erased. Please revise in all traits in tables 3 and 5.

In the second part of table 3 (continuation), the number 34 appears instead 3. this is a writing mistake. Delete the 4.

On line 311, the sentence:   The least significant difference (LSD) mean comparison for vegetative traits shown in Table 5, the average number... is difficult to understand. May authors lost ARE between TRAITS and SHOWN? Otherwise, please rewrite the whole sentence.

On table 6, heritability is expressed in percentage. Usually heritability is expressed in a 0 to 1 scale. Please change the scale.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Reviewers comment: It looks that some traits changed their abbreviations from the previous version. This made the revision a bit difficult. For instance, abbreviations PSP and SGI disappeared.

Author response: In the revise version, the SGI (Stem girth) was changed to SDM (Stem diameter) for the sake of accuracy.

Reference: Throughout the manuscript

 

 

Reviewers comment: On table 2 (and also table 4), the abbreviation for Sources of variation (SOV) is not needed. In fact, with so many abbreviations for traits it may increase confusion. I suggest to use the whole term "Sources of Variation" or "Factors". Revise consequently the head of the table and the foot of the table. In both table 2 and table 4

Author response: “SOV” was changed to "Sources of Variation" and SOV was deleted from the footnote.

Reference: Table 2 and Table 4.

 

 

Reviewers comment: I have detected that all abbreviations of traits on tables 3 and 5 include comma (,) right after the abbreviation and before the unit used. E.G. FGI, (cm). the comma must be erased. Please revise in all traits in tables 3 and 5.

Author response: Commas are erased from the tables’ headings

Reference: Table 3 and Table 5.

 

 

Reviewers comment: In the second part of table 3 (continuation), the number 34 appears instead 3. this is a writing mistake. Delete the 4.

Author response: Corrected

Reference: Table 3

 

 

Reviewers comment: On line 311, the sentence:   The least significant difference (LSD) mean comparison for vegetative traits shown in Table 5, the average number... is difficult to understand. May authors lost ARE between TRAITS and SHOWN? Otherwise, please rewrite the whole sentence.

Author response: Revised accordingly.

Reference: line 311-315

 

Reviewers comment: On table 6, heritability is expressed in percentage. Usually heritability is expressed in a 0 to 1 scale. Please change the scale.

Author response: Broad sense heritability was estimated as the percentage

Reference: Line 201-203

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Styling

Suggestions:

-harmonize wording throughout the manuscript, e.g. use accessions or genotypes

e.g. please see line 29 :suggestion is to use accessions instead of germplasms

                           line 31: instead of genotypes accessions

-line 66:  I would use a morphological markers instead of singular as there are many morphological markers not few.

-line 151 and 152: sentence is not quite clear. Please rephrase it

-line 176 and 177 : suggestion is to use word accession instead of genotype

-line 202: instead of (60%) it should be (>60%)

-line 233: masterpiece should be removed. Too strong wording. Please check also the rest of the manuscript to avoid poetic expression.

1. Results and Discussion

-Line 251: check data (145.54 and 962.9). In Table 34 are different values (142.50 and 962.90)

-Line 275: Table 34 is wrong title. It should be 4.

-Line 277: type error: probabilit

For Tables 3, 34 and Table 5 (Line 329),  please check lettters that denote significant differences among accessions in column Pooled for traits FGI, DFR , TNF, AFW, NPB and PHE .They are not labelled properly. Please check all traits! Namely if you compare lowest means with added  LSD values you will find some inconsistencies in letter labelling among accessions. It turns out that some accessions are significantly different , but  if you look at letters but when you look at LSD in reality they are not different.

Line 417: For dendrogram I would suggest to use and include bootstrap values into Figure 1  to get the idea about the reliability of certain branches and robustness of  UPGMA .

Line 451: type error:  Excellence not Excellent

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

Reviewers comment: harmonize wording throughout the manuscript, e.g. use accessions or genotypes

Author response: Accessions was used throughout the manuscript as suggested.

Reference: Entire manuscript

 

 

Reviewers comment: e.g. please see line 29: suggestion is to use accessions instead of germplasms

Author response: corrected

Reference: Line 25

 

 

Reviewers comment:  line 31: instead of genotypes accessions

Author response: corrected

Reference: Line 31

 

 

Reviewers comment: line 66:  I would use a morphological marker instead of singular as there are many morphological markers not few.

Author response: revised accordingly

Reference: Line 66-68

 

 

Reviewers comment: line 151 and 152: sentence is not quite clear. Please rephrase it

Author response: revised accordingly

Reference: Line 151-153

 

 

Reviewers comment: line 176 and 177: suggestion is to use word accession instead of genotype

Author response: revised accordingly

Reference: throughout the manuscript

 

 

Reviewers comment: line 202: instead of (60%) it should be (>60%)

Author response: Corrected

Reference: Line 204

 

 

Reviewers comment: line 233: masterpiece should be removed. Too strong wording. Please check also the rest of the manuscript to avoid poetic expression.

Author response: revised

Reference: Line 232-235

 

 

Reviewers comment: Line 251: check data (145.54 and 962.9). In Table 34 are different values (142.50 and 962.90)

Author response: Corrected

Reference: Line 252

 

 

Reviewers comment:  Line 275: Table 34 is wrong title. It should be 4.

Author response: corrected in line 276 and it supposed to be continuation of Table 3

Reference: Line 276

 

Reviewers comment: Line 277: type error: probabilit

Author response: corrected

Reference: Line 278

 

 

Reviewers comment: For Tables 3, 34 and Table 5 (Line 329), please check letters that denote significant differences among accessions in column Pooled for traits FGI, DFR, TNF, AFW, NPB and PHE. They are not labelled properly. Please check all traits! Namely if you compare lowest means with added LSD values you will find some inconsistencies in letter labelling among accessions. It turns out that some accessions are significantly different, but if you look at letters but when you look at LSD in reality, they are not different.

Author response: The letters that denote significant difference and LSD values corrected and revised for all the traits

Reference: Table 3 and Table 5

 

 

Reviewers comment: Line 417: For dendrogram I would suggest to use and include bootstrap values into Figure 1 to get the idea about the reliability of certain branches and robustness of  UPGMA .

Author response: The dendrogram what constructed using NTSYS pc 2.02 software which does not include the bootstrap values

 

 

Reviewers comment: Line 451: type error:  Excellence not Excellent

Author response: Corrected

Reference: Line 451

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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 may provide useful information about the yield and growth habits of eggplant accessions under two growing conditions in Malaysia. However, there are significant questions about the methodology and interpretation of the results.  The manuscript should be edited extensively for english and clarity. The authors postulate that phenotypic diversity is indicative of genetic diversity - as evidenced by their title. This is misleading as the authors have performed no genetic diversity analyses, and instead of have looked at phenotypic variability, heritability and genetic gain. The materials and methods are not sufficiently described. It is unclear if 5 fruit from each of the 3 plants in the middle of the row were evaluated, or if 5 fruits total. There is no information regarding the size of the rows or the number of plants/row. There is no information about when the fruit were harvested. Did harvest occur on a single day across all successions, were plants harvested at maturity? The tables, as presented, are difficult to follow. For example, in Table 4, it would help to have shading or color coding to denote traits that were greater in the OP vs. the GH treatment. in Table 6, there is a l, m or h after each value. These are not useful for the reader since we have percentages, and it clutters the table.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a practical and well designed experiment for characterizing and breeding eggplants. With average value for eggplant researchers.

Abstract, Introduction and Methodological sections are quite well explained and justified. However, I have found major mistakes in Results and Discussion which prevent to be acceptable for publication on its current state.

As minor points:

on line 48 use peppers or Capsicum peppers (plural) instead of pepper. Pepper is the usual term for Piper sp., while peppers, Capsicum peppers, chile peppers, sweet peppers, etc.are used for Capsicums. on line 51 remove the "." after Solanum In Materials and Methods, please, specify which fertilizers, and treatments for pests and diseases were used (and commercial origin: Company, city, Country) Eggplant genotypes have simple codes provided by the own authors TR: Thailand Round (I guess), ML: Malaysia Long (I also guess), etc. However, Why authors have not provided more "official" codes? I am sure that MARDI Gene bank has official codes. Also the Commercial market materials should have commercial names. And even Village market materials should have more systematic codes (and which cities did they come from?). Please, be more specific with the origin and systematic of materials. This will be very useful in the future for other scientists Results and Discussion, first concern: Particularly in the first parts (3.1 and 3.2) in its too descriptive. I missed more discussion and comparison with other reports. In fact, only 3 references are provided in both subsections. Please, provide more discussion comparing with other published works. Results and Discussion, second (and very important) concern: I have detected considerable inconsistency among authors´ assertions and numbers in the tables. And consequently the discussion and conclusions may vary. I provide some examples, but the text must be checked in depth. A) Paragraph lines 254-273: In reference to Table 3, authors said that highly significant differences were found among genotypes in several traits, including PSP, while non-significant differences were found in others like SGI. However, on table 3, genotype factor appears significant in SGI  (0.49∗∗)  and non-significant in PSP (356.81ns). The same for the Cropping system factor: Authors include DFF among those where Cropping is significant, but this is not true (175.06ns). On the contrary this factor is significant in PSP (36858.45∗∗) but not mentioned so...  The same than 6 in the paragraph from lines 293 to 307, explaining the results in Table 4. "...the average number of NPB was 7.54 that ranged from 5.67 to 16.75 (?)... I have not found any 16.75 in the columns of NPB!! Another example: "Plant height (PHE) varied from 70.58 cm (26 CL) to 226.38 cm (4TR)..." (?). However, 26 CL has 54.5 cm, 86.67 cm and 73.80 cm in OP, GH and Mean, respectively!!! and 4TR has 75.25 cm, 377.5 cm and 105.60 cm in OP, GH and Mean!!! And many other similar mistakes in the same paragraph. Please revise these mistakes along the whole Results and Discussion section Also, authors must use the same number of decimals for each parameter. I mean, for instance, PHE on table 4 appears with no decimals in several genotypes, while 1 or 2 decimals in other genotype. Please, be consistent. If 2 decimals are decided for one trait, then use them in all the genotypes. If only 1 decimal, then use 1 decimal with all genotypes....