Seed Viability, Seedling Growth and Yield in White Guinea Yam
, Agyemang Danquah 2, Asrat Asfaw 3, Pangirayi B. Tongoona 2, Eric Y. Danquah 2 and Robert Asiedu 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Lines 27: Define term: DFSG
Line 30-31: Highest stem number of stem length??? please explain this.
Line 50-52: Delete-vulnerably. How are rare and endangered plant species affecting this crop- not clear from this sentence.
Line 62-67: seems to belong to the paragraph above.
Lines 71-73: Do you mean the F1 population was segregating? If so, demonstrate that in your results.
Lines 111-112: Were the seedlings maintained at field capacity??? How did you ascertain that?
Line 109: Do you mean pregerminated? The explanation here is not clear
Line 129-131: What is T1,T2,T3....
Line 133: I have a problem with is formula. Why these 2 points in time? Please, refer to Kader, 2005 (A comparison of seed germination calculation formulae...) for standard germination abbreviations.
Line 149-151: Delete
Line 155:...(SVI) were significantly high (p<0.0001) and varied....
Line 158: Every time you use significantly, please include and alpha value
This manuscript would have made a lot of sense if you started with a table listing all the genotypes that will be evaluated and the rationale for including them. We expect F1 populations to segregate, show that in the results.
Line 183-189: table is confusing. Where does full and half sibs come from. Are there differences between families; if so, which?
Line 191-192: figures are very difficult to read. Either put them on a table and show significance or do one figure composed of 4-5 graphs that are grouped together and labelled a-d. that way you can show differences between NCI and polycross families. Secondly, your abbreviations are very long e.g. STDP should be reduced to SD.... looks more professional and good for the eye.
Overall: Could really be a good paper but needs some work.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer: Lines 27: Define term: DFSG.
Response: Done. It is defined as days to first seed germination.
Reviewer: Line 30-31: Highest stem number of stem length??? please explain this.
Response: I meant highest number of stems per plant. Individual vines or stems were counted per plant.
Reviewer: Line 50-52: Delete-vulnerably. How are rare and endangered plant species affecting this crop- not clear from this sentence.
Response: The “….rare and endangered plant species” aspect has been removed. Vulnerably has been deleted.
Reviewer: Line 62-67: seems to belong to the paragraph above.
Response: Lines 62-67 have been moved to the previous paragraph as suggested by the reviewer.
Lines 71-73: Do you mean the F1 population was segregating? If so, demonstrate that in your results. Yes..
Reviewer: Lines 111-112: Were the seedlings maintained at field capacity??? How did you ascertain that?
Response: Yes. The irrigation was done until the upper limit of water storage was attained and was visible when the excess drained through the perforations created at the sides of the polyethylene bags.
Reviewer: Line 109: Do you mean pregerminated? The explanation here is not clear.
Response: No. The seeds were germinated in perforated seedling trays.
Reviewer: Line 129-131: What is T1,T2,T3....
Response: The T1, T2,…., Tx are numbers of days from seedling or after sowing seeds corresponding to N.
Reviewer: Line 133: I have a problem with this formula. Why these 2 points in time? Please, refer to Kader, 2005 (A comparison of seed germination calculation formulae...) for standard germination abbreviations.
Response: The germination index (GI) was not calculated using only two points. The formular has been expanded.
Reviewer: Line 149-151: Delete.
Response: Lines 149-151 have been deleted.
Reviewer: Line 155:...(SVI) were significantly high (p<0.0001) and varied....
Response: Done as suggested.
Reviewer: Line 158: Every time you use significantly, please include and alpha value.
Response: Done as suggested.
This manuscript would have made a lot of sense if you started with a table listing all the genotypes that will be evaluated and the rationale for including them. We expect F1 populations to segregate, show that in the results.
Reviewer: Line 183-189: table is confusing. Where does full and half sibs come from. Are there differences between families; if so, which?
Response: The over wordiness that confounded table 1 has been resolved.
Reviewer: Line 191-192: figures are very difficult to read. Either put them on a table and show significance or do one figure composed of 4-5 graphs that are grouped together and labelled a-d. that way you can show differences between NCI and polycross families. Secondly, your abbreviations are very long e.g. STDP should be reduced to SD.... looks more professional and good for the eye.
Response: The characters of the abbreviations have been reduced as suggested.
Overall: Could really be a good paper but needs some work.
Reviewer 2 Report
see my edits and comments in the attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
see my edits and comments in the attached.
peer-review-9692913.v1.pdf
Submission Date: 16 November 2020
Date of this review: 07 Dec 2020 20:28:46
Introduction
Reviewer: Not sure whether all of Africa.
Response: Highest volume of yam is specifically in the West Africa region.
Reviewer: Can you say for all of Africa?
Response: “…………in Africa”
Reviewer: The statement “Despite its importance, the optimum potential of the crop is yet to be fully exploited” is contradictory to the importance of yam.
Response: The statement has been written as “Despite its importance, there is lack of information on seed viability, growth and yield of first filial generation white yam developed from mating designs.”
Reviewer: Rewrite the sentence “Botanical seed germination, seedling growth and developmental phases are vulnerably limited by abiotic and biotic stresses leading to high seedling mortality, intense natural selection [6,7] as well as rare and endangered plant species [8].”
Response: The statement has been written as “seed germination, growth and development are limited by abiotic and biotic stresses leading to high seedling mortality and intense natural selection [6,7].
Materials and methods
Seed germination, seedling growth and development traits…….
Reviewer: Summarize contents of the growth media in a table.
Response: The chemical properties of the two growth media have been summarized in a table as suggested by the reviewer.
Discussion
Reviewer: Delete the non-informative sentence “The high viability and seedling growth traits in some progeny-families could be related to high degree of non-dormant botanical seeds.”
Response: The statement has been deleted as suggested by reviewer.
What or which measured economic trait? Yield and attributes. I have modified the statement ‘….the measured economic trait’ to now read as “…for assessment of the studied traits.”
Conclusion
Reviewer: The polycross derived progenies possess higher phenotypic plasticity with higher potential of creating more useful variability in seedling traits is a relevant design take home message. Discussion should be more focused on this.
Response: The discussion has been revi
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 51-52: Looks out of context. Why mention biotic and abiotic stresses when they are not part of the study. I will delete that statement
Author Response
Reviewer: Line 51-52: Looks out of context. Why mention biotic and abiotic stresses when they are not part of the study. I will delete that statement.
Response: Lines 51-52 (Seed germination, growth and development are limited by abiotic and biotic stresses leading to high seedling mortality and intense natural selection [6,7]) have been deleted. The in text reference citations and references have been revised accordingly. These are traceable in red font.
