Breeding Aspects of Selected Ornamental Bulbous Crops
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an impressive and extensive review of this field and in my opinion is highly worthy of publication. There are many, but minor, English transgressions, for example, just in the first sentence of the abstract "...and as well as...", and there are many others. I do to know the policy of the journal and how these should be corrected, or if it is even necessary to correct them. I leave that to the journal and authors. (I have selected "accept in present form").
Figure 4 has an error. The "Lily Looks series" was not bred by Royal van Zanten. The plants in this series come from Mak Breeding. Furthermore, van Zanten does not even commercially distribute the bulbs.
As a personal opinion, and in no way a criticism of the manuscript, I wish there was more emphasis on breeding for garden attributed. It is not specifically stated (that I could find, but I could have easily missed it), but nearly all breeding in the main geophyte general (especially tulip and lily) is for greenhouse cut flower production, and anything that falls through the cracks and that might be a decent garden plant might find a possible life there. Narcissus is an exception as the majority of the effort is probably in gardens (or pots suggesting here that the authors be compelled to consider this, it is merely my own observation.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your critical reviewing and the valuable comments. According to the comments, we have modified and corrected our review. We believe this revised version will be acceptable for publication in Agronomy.
1) This is an impressive and extensive review of this field and in my opinion is highly worthy of publication. There are many, but minor, English transgressions, for example, just in the first sentence of the abstract "...and as well as...", and there are many others. I do to know the policy of the journal and how these should be corrected, or if it is even necessary to correct them. I leave that to the journal and authors. (I have selected "accept in present form").
Response: Review has been professionally proofread by Proof Reading Service.
2) Figure 4 has an error. The "Lily Looks series" was not bred by Royal van Zanten. The plants in this series come from Mak Breeding. Furthermore, van Zanten does not even commercially distribute the bulbs.
Response: We have corrected our mistake in the caption of Figure 4. In fact, the breeder of the Lily Looks series is Mak Breeding b.v.
3) As a personal opinion, and in no way a criticism of the manuscript, I wish there was more emphasis on breeding for garden attributed. It is not specifically stated (that I could find, but I could have easily missed it), but nearly all breeding in the main geophyte general (especially tulip and lily) is for greenhouse cut flower production, and anything that falls through the cracks and that might be a decent garden plant might find a possible life there. Narcissus is an exception as the majority of the effort is probably in gardens (or pots suggesting here that the authors be compelled to consider this, it is merely my own observation.
Response: Thank you for your personal opinion. Indeed, for the most important geophytes, breeding aimed at traits that determine the quality of cut flowers is dominant. However, even for lilies or tulips there is breeding directed towards garden applications. We write a little about this in our article giving examples of creating new garden hybrids of OT group lilies, which are popular in gardens as tree lilies. We also write about new forms and shapes of tulip flowers that are dedicated to growing in gardens rather than forcing.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting and the manuscript appears to offer a broad review of the subject matter, with a nice touch of history. Perhaps it is a good idea to place it in a journal such as Agronomy, as opposed to something strictly horticultural. It would seem more natural to publish this in a more horticulture-oriented outlet, but this decision belongs both to the authors and the Editor. Here it may be read by a much wider audience.
As much as I enjoyed the subject matter, reading was a form of torture. Writing is atrocious. The manuscript requires much (very very much) serious editorial work. Essentially every sentence here needs correction. At first I thought of making suggestions but it would be useless. This thing MUST be re-written in proper English, from start to finish, and I do not see a way around it.
There are many curious and confusing statements, at times outright contradictions. The first one in order of appearance is the issue of Hippeastrum vs. Amaryllis. Please, make an effort to straighten this out.
Line 35: hipeastrum (amaryllis) (Hippeastrum)
Line 46: Hippeastrum (commonly known as amaryllis in the global market.....
Line 65: Hippeastrum propagated by seeds flower first time after 2-3 years [23], and Amaryllis propagated by seeds need.....
Line 95: The genus Hippeastrum (Amaryllidaceae) belonged to the genus Amaryllis ....
So what? Are the two one and the same or are these different?
The ploidy issues (terminology, usage) are a big mess. I have never heard of MAB ("molecular assisted breeding") and I teach a plant breeding class. The term I am familiar with is MAS or "marker assisted selection".
The list could go on and on. Once this article is edited and proper terminology is used, preferably by someone familiar with the subject matter, many of these problems will disappear. My guess is, two much translation was done by word substitution (English for Polish), at times with poor results (for example "to receive"" vs. "to obtain"; the same word in Polish but not quite in English. This requires VERY serious editing in proper English.
Overall, I think this is an interesting review.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your critical reviewing and the valuable comments. According to the comments, we have modified and corrected our review. We believe this revised version will be acceptable for publication in Agronomy.
1) The topic is interesting and the manuscript appears to offer a broad review of the subject matter, with a nice touch of history. Perhaps it is a good idea to place it in a journal such as Agronomy, as opposed to something strictly horticultural. It would seem more natural to publish this in a more horticulture-oriented outlet, but this decision belongs both to the authors and the Editor. Here it may be read by a much wider audience.
As much as I enjoyed the subject matter, reading was a form of torture. Writing is atrocious. The manuscript requires much (very very much) serious editorial work. Essentially every sentence here needs correction. At first I thought of making suggestions but it would be useless. This thing MUST be re-written in proper English, from start to finish, and I do not see a way around it.
Response: Review has been professionally proofread by Proof Reading Service.
2) There are many curious and confusing statements, at times outright contradictions. The first one in order of appearance is the issue of Hippeastrum vs. Amaryllis. Please, make an effort to straighten this out.
Line 35: hipeastrum (amaryllis) (Hippeastrum)
Response: we corrected this fragment as “hipeastrum (Hippeastrum)”
Line 46: Hippeastrum (commonly known as amaryllis in the global market.....
Response: We decided to leave this sentence because in fact on the world markets the bulbs, potted plants and flowers of Hippeastrum are offered commercially under the trade name amaryllis. In fact, Hippeastrum and Amaryllis are currently two different botanical types. Nevertheless, until 1987 Hippeastrum was included in the botanical genus Amaryllis, which still results in naming confusion. From a scientific point of view, our article is about the botanical genus Hippeastrum.
Line 65: Hippeastrum propagated by seeds flower first time after 2-3 years [23], and Amaryllis propagated by seeds need.....
Response: In the sentence “The species of Hippeastrum propagated by seeds flower first time after 2-3 years [23], while the genus Amaryllis propagated by seeds need 5-6 years for producing first flowers” we give two examples of separate botanical genera.
Line 95: The genus Hippeastrum (Amaryllidaceae) belonged to the genus Amaryllis ....
So what? Are the two one and the same or are these different?
Response: As we wrote above, in our review we write about the botanical genus Hippeastrum, which is different from the botanical genus Amaryllis. In the market, the names of both genera are used interchangeably in common usage, and even more often Hippeastrum is referred to as Amaryllis. However, we have corrected this sentence (“The genus Hippeastrum (Amaryllidaceae) belonged to the genus Amaryllis” ….) slightly to make it more clear that the genus Hippeastrum and the genus Amaryllis are currently two different botanical genera.
3) The ploidy issues (terminology, usage) are a big mess. I have never heard of MAB ("molecular assisted breeding") and I teach a plant breeding class. The term I am familiar with is MAS or "marker assisted selection".
Response: Thank you for the commend. In our review we used abbreviations commonly used in the scientific papers. MAB is correct abbreviation for marker-assisted breeding or molecular breeding while MABC is used for marker-assisted backcrossing and GAB Genomics-Assisted Breeding. Please see some example references which used MAB abbreviation for marker-assisted breeding:
Yoon J.B. et al. (2015) Marker-Assisted Breeding. In: Koh HJ., Kwon SY., Thomson M. (eds) Current Technologies in Plant Molecular Breeding. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9996-6_4
Jiang GL. (2015) Molecular Marker-Assisted Breeding: A Plant Breeder’s Review. In: Al-Khayri J., Jain S., Johnson D. (eds) Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Breeding, Biotechnology and Molecular Tools. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22521-0_15
Gous Miah et al. A Review of Microsatellite Markers and Their Applications in Rice Breeding Programs to Improve Blast Disease Resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 22499-22528; doi:10.3390/ijms141122499
M.J.M. Smuldersa , M. Vukosavljev, A. Shahin, W.E. van de Weg and P. Arens (2012) High Throughput Marker Development and Application in Horticultural Crops. Hort. 961, ISHS
Laurens et al. Horticulture Research (2018) An integrated approach for increasing breeding efficiency in apple and peach in Europe. 5:11 DOI 10.1038/s41438-018-0016-3
Phing Lau WC, Latif MA, Y Rafii M, Ismail MR, Puteh A. Advances to improve the eating and cooking qualities of rice by marker-assisted breeding. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2016;36(1):87-98. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2014.923987. Epub 2014 Jun 17. PMID: 24937109.
The list could go on and on. Once this article is edited and proper terminology is used, preferably by someone familiar with the subject matter, many of these problems will disappear. My guess is, two much translation was done by word substitution (English for Polish), at times with poor results (for example "to receive"" vs. "to obtain"; the same word in Polish but not quite in English. This requires VERY serious editing in proper English.
Response: Review has been professionally proofread by Proof Reading Service.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript reviewed the origin, diversity and breeding of four ornamental geophytes, i.e. Lilium, Tulipa, Narcissus and Hippeastrum. The authors indicated a number of cultivars have been produced for these four species, and new molecular and cytogenetic techniques are being applied to breeding process. The content of the manuscript is fruitful, and some writing styles should be revised. (i) The genus name should be italic, especially in page 1 to 3, and the family name should be upright letters, such as Amaryllidaceae (Line 95, 121, 205 and 219), Liliaceae (Line 111 and 137). (ii) Table 1 and Table 2 should be three-line table, and the letters of one word should be in the same row. (iii) Line 528, “They” should be “Their”. (iv) The writing style of each article listed in References should be checked according to the requested style by the journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your critical reviewing and the valuable comments. According to the comments, we have modified and corrected our review. We believe this revised version will be acceptable for publication in Agronomy.
Ad. "The content of the manuscript is fruitful, and some writing styles should be revised."
Response: To clarify our review, English was modified by Proof Reading Service.
(i) The genus name should be italic, especially in page 1 to 3, and the family name should be upright letters, such as Amaryllidaceae (Line 95, 121, 205 and 219), Liliaceae (Line 111 and 137).
Response: We do not use italics when writing plant genus names when they are lowercase. This is then a common name (not a Latin name) and is acceptable for narcissus and for hipeastrum. In the latter case, the common name is also written with one "p" rather than two. Latin family names such as Amaryllidaceae and Liliaceae we changed into non italic style, according to journal’s guidelines.
(ii) Table 1 and Table 2 should be three-line table, and the letters of one word should be in the same row.
Response: We modified Table 1 and Table 2.
(iii) Line 528, “They” should be “Their”.
Response: The error has been corrected
(iv) The writing style of each article listed in References should be checked according to the requested style by the journal.
Response: We re-checked the entire list of references and corrected any inaccuracies according to the journal's guidelines.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My previous comments stand. I still read the paper with considerable interest, with some difficulty and with great annoyance. Such a wonderful and interesting topic being tortured by bad writing. Some light editing is not going to change it. In this version English was improved, somewhat; writing was not. In my opinion, the whole thing should be re-written, in places reorganized. Here is my example of the Abstract. Mind you, I tried not to introduce anything new or different to it; just re-do the existing text (well, I added one short comment on curios).
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the origin, genetic diversity, as well as of the methods and trends in breeding of ornamental geophytes that include Lilium, Tulipa, Narcissus and Hippeastrum. Historically, breeders have been interested in a wide range of traits, such as resistance to diseases, flower pigmentation and shape, long flowering, and long vase –life, never ignoring various novelties and the curiosity factor among consumers. Despite generally slow breeding progress, due primarily to a long juvenile stage, a great variety of cultivars have been generated over the last century by classical breeding. Currently, the breeding process has been accelerated by various modern techniques, including in vitro propagation and molecular cytogenetics. In the later, genomic in situ hybridization is frequently used for genome discrimination in wide hybrids, and to assess the extent of intergenomic introgressions and recombination in backcross progenies. Several DNA marker techniques are being used to verify the hybrid status, to monitor cultivar identity, to assess genetic diversity, to confirm the genetic fidelity of the in vitro propagated plants, and for the construction of high-density linkage maps. Recently, a range of new plant breeding technologies, such as cisgenetics and genome editing have been introduced, to improve various traits of importance in ornamental geophytes. The article presents breeding trends and various novelties, and lists new cultivars registered by international authorities during the last five 5 years.
