Characterization of Oilseed Crop Noug (Guizotia abyssinica) Using Agro-Morphological Traits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have performed the characterization of Ethiopian Noug accessions based on agromorphological traits and assess their  genetic variation as well as to identify traits that associates with seed yield and accessions that 99 have a high yield potential for further improvement. 

They analyzed a total 10 quantitative and 6 qualitative traits in two geographical sites for their experiments. The manuscript is well written and the theme of the study is presented appropriately in the introduction section.

I have some observations for the improvisation of the manuscript.

1. The methods section might contain a framework figure of listing all the analysis/steps done in this paper.
2. I found authors have described the geographical locations very nicely. I am wondering they also must include the soil quality and type as well because soil quality might play an important role on agro morphological traits.
3. Authors have identified few accessions which showed significant potentials for cross breeding, hence it is advisable that they should perform/employ some molecular experiments to validate/gain of confidence to their phenotypic traits.
4. Statistical analysis has been performed well. I would suggest the authors to explain the significance of their finding in the discussion part and possibly the reason of their results.
5. Overall, authors should recheck their manuscript for typos, grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your critical and highly valuable comments for the betterment of our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Gebeyehu et al. concerns the morphological-agronomic characteristics of 60 landrace accessions of Guizotia abyssinica collected from different areas in Ethiopia. The Authors very well introduce in their research area, as well as the results are well documented and discussed. The research objective is in the scope of Agronomy. I just have some of the following minor comments:

Introduction: It would be good to add some literature about this species research  in other countries than Africa -  to consider

Materials and Methods: I understand it was 1 repetition (season)? In what months was the experiment conducted?

Figure 2 – Please, explain the abbreviations (Hl_R1, DZ_R1 etc.) from the legend

References should be definitely formatted (e.g. in one case journal name is an abbreviation but in another, as a full one).

Author Response

Thank you very Much for your constructive and critical comments for the betterment of our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: Characterization of oilseed crop noug (Guizotia abyssinica) using agro-morphological traits

Main comments:

In this study authors conducted the morphological characterization of 60 Ethiopian noug accessions and identified traits that are associated with seed yield. The study has only be done for one year which is insufficient for this type of research.

Authors described the mean rainfall and maximum and minimum temperatures for both the experimental sites. As these are only data for one year, it is necessary to indicate how typical this year was.

Authors used the ANOVA to determine whether there are any statistically significant differences between the means of quantitative traits. Which statistics tests did authors used to test for normality and homogeneity of variances?

In the evaluation of genetic variability, only morphological descriptors were used; the manuscript would be improved if the analysis of genetic variability based on molecular markers is performed for the 60 studied accessions. As authors say, quantitative traits are controlled by many genes and highly influenced by environmental factors. Furthermore the study has only be done for one year.

In section 2.1, plant material, authors report that accessions were collected in different agro-ecozones, however they do not indicate the number or the name of these environments; in Figure 2 and Table 3 results for four environments are presented; also in line 140 four environments are reported. Authors should indicate the name of the four environments from which the accessions come.

Certain specific comments:

Line 49: please replace “… 1.4 m to 2 m …” by  “… 1.4 to 2 m …”.

Line 74: please replace “… 1.1 tha^-1.” by “1.1 t ha^-1.”

Lines 112 and 114: please add a space between number and the symbol for Celsius degrees, ex.: “… 6 °C and 22 °C …”.

Line 118: please replace “… (3 m ´ 3 m).” by “(3 ´ 3 m).”

Line 181: please replace “…ranged from 29.6 cm to 144.7 cm…” by “ranged from 29.6 to 144.7 cm…”x

Author Response

Thank you for comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this article, the authors characterize the oilseed noug crop using agro-morphological traits. Overall, the authors have prepared a nice and attractive article. The results are well presented with vital points. However, the discussion needs significant improvement. Further, Table S1 and Table S2 are missing. Some of the comments are:

1. Probably the authors forget to upload Table S1 and S2. Would you please provide missing supplementary tables in the next version?
2. Line 137-143, please add the developer’s name and location for all the software used for data analysis.
3. Line 157, equation PCC and GCV, please provide equation using equation editor, not an image.
4. Be consistent with the writing style, i.e., analysis or analyses. Check the entire and improve the language style.
5. Line 318-336, this paragraph is the repetition of the results. Would you please stay focused on the discussion and concise the results from the discussion? In fact, 80% discussion is the repletion of the results. Thus, the discussion must be greatly improved.
6. Prepare the references according to the journal guidelines.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive and timely comments for the betterment of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors studied morphological features which are heavily influenced by environmental factors. In this kind of study two aspects are important:
i) To realize how typical the year of the trials was, in the two experimental locations; 
ii) To have morphological data on accessions for more than one year.

Authors described the mean rainfall and maximum and minimum temperatures for both the experimental sites. As these are only data for one year, it is necessary to indicate how typical this year was, in both sizes, comparatively with data from the last decades for both experimental sites.

The one-way ANOVA assumes that the population variances of the dependent variable are equal for all groups of the independent variable. If the variances are unequal, this can affect the Type I error rate. Which statistics tests did authors used to test for homogeneity of variances? 

The assumption of homogeneity of variances could be tested per example using Levene's test of equality of variances. If you don't have homogeneity of variances you shouldn't use Tukey post hoc test. 

Author Response

Thank you for comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Though the authors have addressed some issues, some minor points should be fixed at the proofing stage. Thus, I am happy with the current version.

Congratulations!

1. Line 157, equation PCV and GCV, please provide equation using equation editor, not an image. The authors did not incorporate my suggestion.
2. The authors did not make an effort the check the journal guidelines to correct the references. However, this is not important because it can be fixed later on during proofing.

Author Response

Thank you for comments. Attached herewith the revised v3 manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx