Study on Morphological, Physiological Characteristics and Yields of Twenty-One Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivars Grown in Eastern Sub-Himalayan Plains of India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the work is interesting and necessary, because the potato ranks fourth among food crops in the world. Hence, research should be continued over a longer period of time and in various parts of the country.

The scientific analysis of the research is well presented. Materials and methods require supplementing with agrotechnical measures used in the experiment.

I present my comments below:

• Ln 2-4 - I propose to change the title of the work to "Study on morphological, physiological characteristics and yields of twenty-one potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars grown in eastern sub-Himalayan plains of India". The economics of research is closely related to the tuber yield, hence redundant in the title, and legibility will increase
• Ln 122 - what rainfall and air temperature were in the two years of research in relation to the data from the multi-year period
• Ln 123-124 - what was the content of P and K in India conditions - low, medium, high ...
• Ln 135 - which was the potato forecrop
• Ln 143 - add agrotechnical measures, which plant protection products were used in the experiment
• In Figures 1-5, the significance of features should be marked with letters a, b, c, bc ... (this will enable statistical readability)
• In Tables 1 and 4, mark the significance of features with letters a, b, c, bc ... (this will make it easier to compare the differences)
• Also pay attention to minor errors in the manuscript: spaces, periods, commas, parentheses

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s_1 comments  

Reviewer 2 Report

There is a lot of data presented in this manuscript, but this paper is basically a performance characterization of 21 different cultivars, as opposed to a manuscript with a strong experimental or theoretical focus. My overall feeling is that this manuscript would be more suited to a potato-specific journal, such as Potato Research, American Journal of Potato Research, or Potato Journal, and the associated readership. However, if this manuscript progresses with Agronomy, my comments are below.

General Comments:

1) The abstract is too long and needs to be shortened and more succinct.

2) I think this manuscript would be better served with separate Results and Discussion sections. As it is currently written, it doesn't flow very well when read. I feel this separate Results/Discussion format would provide a better way to integrate all of the results and tie everything together into a more coherent narrative. This would allow the authors to summarize the integrated contributions of structural and physiological data into the final overall yield and performance.

Specific Comments:

1) Line 52 - contributes

2) Line 80 - the Central Potato Research.....

3) Line 140 - The remaining nitrogen was given.....

4) Section 3 - As the text refers to the NAMES of cultivars, but the figures use V1, V2, V3, etc., I found myself continually looking back to the Material and Methods section to find out the corresponding number for a specific cultivar. I would suggest that in the text, when a specific cultivar is named, the authors should include the number in brackets. For example, on line 203....Kufri Arun (V14)....

5) Line 202 - significant should not be capitalized.

6) Line 212 - Figure 1 legend - What do the bars represent, SE or SD? Include a sentence to explain this (this comment is also valid for the legends for Figures 2-5).

7) Line 221 - DMC?

8) Table 1 - I would suggest that the authors include another column under the "DMC of shoot" parameter. After the 80 DAP measurement, have a column for "% of DMC remaining at 80 DAP".

Example:

Cultivar                     60 DAP     80 DAP     % remaining at 80 DAP

Kufri Chandramukhi    145.49     84.53        58.10

Kufri Pukhraj              203.97    127.21       62.37

Kufri Ashoka              152.79    113.57       74.33

etc.

On lines 233-234, the authors mention that the changes in dry weight may reflect diversion of assimilates towards tubers. I think providing this additional measurement makes it easier to visualize the change in DMC between 60-80 DAP, and could help provide an indicator of assimilate redistribution to tubers, helpful for the later discussion.

9) Lines 252 to 254 - "It was revealed from the study that the processing type cultivars showed higher LAI followed by the early and medium maturing cultivars in general." This statement is too general and not accurate. While V18 and V19 could fit this statement, V17 is constantly outperformed by the early and medium maturing cultivars, while V20 and V21 are always similar to several of the early and medium cultivars.

10) Lines 266 to 267 - "the processing type cultivars showed higher CGR value followed by early and medium maturing one." As in 9) above, this statement is not accurate. Just comparing the 60-80 DAP values for CGR, V18, V19 and V20 are similar to several medium cultivars, while V17 and V21 don't appear any higher than most of the early/medium cultivars.

11) Lines 276 to 277, and Figure 5 - It is really difficult to resolve the differences in NPR data based on the scale used in Figure 5. I would suggest putting the NPR into a separate table (or figure) with values +/- SE or SD, so it is easier to resolve values and differences.

12) Line 313 - abscisic acid

13) The authors mention G x E interactions at various points in this manuscript. There are obviously some differences in various phenotypes between different cultivars. However, I know nothing about the associated pedigrees/genetic relatedness/allelic variation between these different cultivars. If the authors know anything about this, it would be beneficial as part of the discussion to reflect on any known genetic relatedness between cultivars (any marker studies?)

As my overall feeling is that the separate Results and Discussion sections would need to be rewritten before publication, I am recommending Major Revision.

Author Response

Response to Review’s_2 Comments 

Reviewer 3 Report

Study by Das et al entitled “Study on growth, physiology, yield stability and economics of twenty-one potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars grown in eastern sub-Himalayan plains of India.” has collected considerable amount of data. Comprehensive data analysis and extensive literature review would connect the outcome with scientific reasonings and would improve the quality and scope of the work.

Major comments:

Details on agroclimatic conditions: Did authors do it by themselves, if yes it can be included in results section. If they have adopted it from some other resources, it should be cited.

Figures            What was the statistics and level of significance to compare between varieties? Similar comment for Table 1. I recommend authors to provide more details on legends about data analysis and statistics. Legends should stand on their own, so should be provided with all possible details on what each component in figure means.

Authors have recorded significant amount of data. Some of those data might be related or would influence other parameters. So, I would suggest performing more analysis (eg. correlation, multivariate analysis), as this might help in identifying the genetic or biochemical factor affecting plant performance.

Discussion looks weak. In many places it just like data presentation with no support from literatures or authors hypothesis. Authors should stress more on literature support and more importantly establish connection with scientific reasoning.

Minor comments:

English edits required: Few grammar issues!

Classification of potato varieties: Reference or citation for this classification!

P4L156           Manufacturer and country manufactured – provide details.

P4L157           Dried for how many days/hours?

P4L159           Are this the marketable classes for India? If yes provide reference? I think the class is difference for different countries, so need to be clear on that.

P5L164           Provide reference and source of this information.

Section 3.1      This section looks like results only. I could not find the discussion. I recommend authors to review the literature and provide explanation for their observation.

P7L235           Analyze and provide results from your data. I suggest authors to make a statement based on their data analysis and to present them.

Was net return considered in ranking the cultivars? I think this is the important component because price varies on size of potatoes.

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s_3 Comments

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have substantially satisfied my initial comments.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 second-round comment(s)

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially satisfied my initial comments.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your assessment for the revised version of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have done good work which have significnatly improved the manuscript. Still I felt Grammar and English edits were not seriously taken. Some examples of the English edits:

Section 2.4      Dimethomorph 50% WP 186 were applied.

P12L542         Khufri Pukhraj had maximum stomatal conductance. Khufri did not observe that, its authors that observed it. Make similar changes in other places.

Other comments:

P6L291           Authors have cited work {22}. But their study does not show this correlation because V3 is not the highest yielding cultivar, however it has high number of stems. Why did authors not perform this correlation with their data? If their study contradicts with previous studies authors should provide evidence or hypothesis or reasoning behind it.

P10L417         Authors have mentioned references 28 and 29, but how are their findings related to references. Such information must be mentioned.

P13L625         Actually…. Authors are explaining the correlation, but have authors done the analysis, if yes results should be presented in manuscript or supplementary.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 second-round comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have done good work which have significantly improved the manuscript. Still I felt Grammar and English edits were not seriously taken. Some examples of the English edits:

Section 2.4      Dimethomorph 50% WP 186 were applied.

Authors’ response: There was a grammatical error. It was rectified as suggested.

P12L542         KhufriPukhrajhad maximum stomatal conductance. Khufri did not observe that, its authors that observed it. Make similar changes in other places.

Authors’ response: The authors admit that it was written erroneously. Obviously, it was the author who recorded the observation. Considering this suggestion, the changes have been done for this case and it was followed for the entire manuscript.

Other comments:

P6L291           Authors have cited work {22}. But their study does not show this correlation because V3 is not the highest yielding cultivar, however it has high number of stems. Why did authors not perform this correlation with their data? If their study contradicts with previous studies authors should provide evidence or hypothesis or reasoning behind it.

Authors’ response: Correlation between tuber yields and number of stems were not done in our study. In our study, the correlation was performed between tuber yields and shoot DM (which is again related to stem number) which is also positively correlated.  “Why the tuber yields in V3 was not higher despite higher stem number?”-  it was discussed and justified in the MS. 

P10L417         Authors have mentioned references 28 and 29, but how are their findings related to references. Such information must be mentioned.

Authors’ response: The author elaborated that how 28 and 29 are related with our study.

P13L625         Actually…. Authors are explaining the correlation, but have authors done the analysis, if yes results should be presented in manuscript or supplementary.

Authors’ response: The analysis was done and the outcome of the analysis was previously presented in Table No. 5 of the manuscript.