Comparison of Yield and Important Seed Quality Traits of Selected Legume Species
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: 1990313
Title: Comparison of yield and important seed quality traits of selected legume species
The importance of leguminous crops in providing protein for humanity is indisputable. The topic is of interest to the scientific community, but minor corrections to the article are needed before publication. The authors compare their findings with those of other researchers on the topic, but allow me to suggest a few additions from recent articles: DOI:10.18805/LRF-666; DOI 10.13080/z-a.2022.109.014.
The authors should try to synthesize and highlight the main findings of the study in the conclusions section.
Evaluation: Minor Revision.
Introduction
1. Line 28 Please correct “self-supply of atmospheric nitrogen” for example: self-supply of nitrogen from atmospheric source.
Materials and methods
1. Line 95 Please use temperature instead of “thermal conditions”
2. Line 99-106 Please add the measurement methods to the soil parameters, such as humus content, phosphorous, potassium and micronutrients content.
3. Line 110 Please add the composition of the chemical Maxim 025 FS
4. Line 132 Please correct “HS2O4”!
Results
1. The 3.1 weather conditions chapter is rather short. I suggest adding how each year can be characterised in terms of the crops studied.
2. Line 169 I miss the data origin place from the title of Table 1.
3. What data can be found in the multi years column in Minimum and maximum temperature [°C] part in Table 1? It is the month’s avearage maybe. Please clarify it!
4. Line 177 Please correct “contained high protein content (393.8 g kg-1)” to “contained high protein (393.8 g kg-1)”.
5. Line 182 “demonstrated that weather had the greatest” to “demonstrated that the weather had the greatest”
6. Figure 2 and 3 Please add the title and unit to the Y axis.
7. Line 208 and other places It would be beneficial to write the data in parenthesis after the plants’ names. Example “…in soybean (1.37-1.64%) and yellow lupine (0.70-0.74%) seeds.”
8. Line 210 Please change the word “determined” to other phrase in the sentence “protein was determined in pea seeds”.
9. Line 231 Please correct “repord” to reported. (“Wondołowska-Grabowska [36] repord that”
10. Line 276 “High protein content” maybe it is Zn content! Please correct it!
11. Table 4 title “Macronutrient content” is incorrect, please correct it!
12. I think the title of chapter 3.7 should be changed.
13. Line 305-306 Please correct “cluser” to cluster.
Conclusions
1. The conclusions could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article. Maybe authors could write the most important ones into points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reported comparative yield and quality traits for six selected legume species grown in Poland. The identified yield and seed chemical composition for the legume will be potentially interesting for the utilization and production of legume resources, as well as legume breeding and cultivations. The study was clearly presented, and the conclusions were supported by multiple evidence. The figures are in sound quality. This manuscript should be suitable for publication after considering revision:
1. Lane 89-94, the scientific name of the species must be italic.
2. Lane 150, It may be “results and discussion”
3. Lane 151, 3.1 the weather condition my not be the results, and it could be put in Part 2
4. Lane 231, the “repord” should be corrected as “reported”.
5. It would be essential to discuss the overall correlation between the climate condition and the yield and seed chemical composition of these species, which will be helpful for understanding the significance of the studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear editor and authors,
I have read with interest the manuscript “Comparison of yield and important seed quality traits of selected legume species” submitted to the Agronomy journal.
It is a study focusing on legume cultivation and the parameters that regulate yield and qualitative traits. As a result, there is correlation to the journals’ scope and the manuscript has merit for publication as an original research paper.
The manuscript is generally adequately written and focused and is relatively easy to follow. I however feel that the authors did not make the best use of the produced results
Some comments for the authors.
· The introduction is not very helpful, since there is no evident structure. The scope of the study is not clearly indicated. Why were these legumes species selected? There is no information on yields, nutrient values, etc, or paragraphs dedicated for each species and its role. You cannot treat all legumes as one. The authors report: “The objective of the experiment was to demonstrate differences in seed yield and quality of selected legumes”. This is common knowledge and not a novel one.
· The statistical analyses employed do not maximize the conclusions drawn by data produced something that does not do justice to the efforts made by the authors.
· I suggest using a PCA based on the traits and years in order to showcase the relationship of legume species and the discrepancies across years. A biplot analysis would also identify which of the factors are important for the discrimination of legumes, something that is not found with the dendrogram
· Also, a correlation study would enable the evaluation of trait pairs (positive, negative, or neutral interactions).
· A heatmap/cluster analysis would also better describe the metabolites/nutrients per year across species and would
· Weather conditions are not results. It belongs to the material and methods section
The statistical analyses can be found in the following published papers (or elsewhere)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/5/1008/htm
https://www.mdpi.com/2311-7524/8/8/675
based on the above comments i recomend a major revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
dear editor and colleagues
the authors have adequately adressed my comments and i feel that the manuscript has been improved
i recommend acceptance in present form
