Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study developed several mutants using different doses of gamma-ray to  improve pollen ability and agronomic performance of restorer lines so as to achieve high Out-crossing Rate restorers and higher Hybrid Seed Production. Then the authors compared and analyzed the pollen fertility, agronomic characters and seed production yield, finally they proved that the method was feasible. The experiment and related results have certain guiding value and resource collection significance for breeding workers. However, more detailed research on these newly created restorers is still lacking, such as the possible linkage location, preliminary location and relevant linkage markers of the mutant gene in these lines. So, if only these materials are provided, they are not stable for breeders to use. The study in itself appeared to have a sound policy and method. Obviously, this research is not in-depth and innovative enough. Therefore, I conclude that this manuscript is very hard to be accepted as an article with novel information and originality in an international journal, Agronomy. I recommend the authors to submit this manuscript to other local journals after minor revisions.

Author Response

Academic Editor Notes

In this study were developed several mutants using different doses of gamma-ray. The target was the improvement of pollen ability and agronomic performance of restorer lines. This would result in high out-crossing rate restorers and higher hybrid seed production.  Moreover, the authors proved that the method was feasible, by comparing the pollen fertility, agronomic characters, and seed production yield. Even if the results are not very innovative, it confirm some results and has significant value for breeders since have certain guiding value and resource collection. I believe that if authors follow the majority of proposed changes of the Reviewers could be published.

Re: We would like to thank you for the time and efforts devoted to our manuscript (agronomy-1979411). We highly appreciate your positive assessment of our work and encouraging words. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions pointed out by the reviewers. We have addressed the comments of the reviewers in a point-by-point below in red color; in addition, we have highlighted all the associated changes made to the manuscript using track changes.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

 

Reviewers' Comments

Reviewer 1:

This study developed several mutants using different doses of gamma-ray to improve pollen ability and agronomic performance of restorer lines to achieve high out-crossing rate restorers and higher hybrid seed production. Then the authors compared and analyzed the pollen fertility, agronomic characters, and seed production yield, finally they proved that the method was feasible. The experiment and related results have certain guiding values and resource collection significance for breeding workers. However, more detailed research on these newly created restorers is still lacking, such as the possible linkage location, preliminary location, and relevant linkage markers of the mutant gene in these lines. So, if only these materials are provided, they are not stable for breeders to use. The study in itself appeared to have a sound policy and method. Obviously, this research is not in-depth and innovative enough. Therefore, I conclude that this manuscript is very hard to be accepted as an article with novel information and originality in an international journal, Agronomy. I recommend the authors to submit this manuscript to other local journals after minor revisions.

Re: We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for his time dedicated to our manuscript. As the Reviewer elucidated in his comment that the principal objective of the study was to evaluate the pollen ability and agronomic performance of restorer lines to achieve high out-crossing rate restorers and hybrid seed production. The Reviewer proved that the experiment and related results have certain guiding values and resource collection significance for breeding workers. On the other hand, the Reviewer requires more details on the linkage location, preliminary location, and relevant linkage markers of the mutant gene in the developed restorer lines which will be planned as prospective work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors need to see each comment made within the attached manuscript PDF (see comment boxes in yellow highlighted text in the PDF). They need to include all suggestions provided by reviewers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The authors need to see each comment made within the attached manuscript PDF (see comment boxes in yellow highlighted text in the PDF). They need to include all suggestions provided by reviewers.

Re: We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for his time devoted to our manuscript. We greatly appreciate his provided constructive comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. All comments within the attached file have been addressed in a point-by-point below in red color.

Lines  18-19: This information is suitable for the introduction section. Remove from here.

Re: The sentence has been removed as suggested (please see lines 20-22 in the revised version)

Line 25, Unit of measurements  

Re: The unit has been added (line 28)

Lines 31-33: Provide numerical values of these traits.

Re: The numerical values have been added  (lines 33-39)

Lines 38-39: Provide the numerical values of these traits.

Re: The numerical values have been added  (lines 45-47)

Introduction

Add few information what do you understand the advanced mutant restorer lines? and why their evaluation is important for enhancing outcrossing and hybrid seed production in rice.

Re: More information has been added as suggested (lines 85-95)

Line 87: “present study aims to evaluate the performance of different restorer lines and ....

Re: The sentence has been modified as suggested (lines 95-97)

Line 92: Provide the source of these plant materials or cultivars.

Re: The source has been added (lines 102-103)

Line 97: Add unit of measurement.

Re: The unit has been added (line 108)

Line 105: Add general climatic data during the experiments

Re: The meteorological data are presented in Table S1.

Line 113: Provide information on other agricultural practices such as weeding, irrigation and plant protection measures.

Re: More details have been added as suggested (lines 138-146)

Line 138: experiment instead of investigation

Re: Done as requested (line 151)

Line 149: provide formula in one line (single line) separately and needs to be indicated as  equation number

Pollen fertility =.................... (Eq. 1)

Provide references to this formula.

Re: The equation has been separated and the reference has been added (lines 163-164)

Line 163: Provide grain yield estimation formula at 14% moisture level. Provide formula in one line (single line) separately and needs to be indicated as equation number Grain yield (at 14% moisture) =..... (Eq. 2). Provide references to this formula.

Re: The formula and reference have been added as suggested (lines 178-179)

Line 166: This information should be in the materials and methods section.

Re: The sentence has been moved to the subtitle “ 2.2. Experimental Design and Agricultural Practices” (lines 125-126)

Line 171: RCBD analysis of variance

Re: The results of analysis of variance have been added (lines 188-189)

Tables: Add Mean, SD, CV(%) in the table. Provide combined mean data of 2018 and 2019 in table for each traits. What does the alphabets attached with numerical values in  column in table indicates for what information??, write in foot note in the table.

Re: The CV values have been added for each trait. The presented means of the two seasons of 2018 and 2019 as well as 2020 and 2021. After your permission, we would like to keep presenting the data of both seasons. The alphabets attached with numerical values indicate a significant difference among the means of the evaluated genotypes. A footnote has been added to all Tables (2-4). Means followed by different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD test (P < 0.05).

Line 213: Clustering of genotypes

Re: Has been replaced as suggested (line 228)

Reviewer 3 Report

 

1. Introduction: No Comments (Article is having all the required information with references)

2. Materials and methods: No comments (Clearly written content wise, easily understandable).

General suggestions: Numbering of sub heads needs reconstruction, as it is discontinued. Detail about statistical analysis is not mentioned.

Line No. 134: 2.3 Measure traits

Line No. 135: 2.3.1 Pollen and anther characteristics

Line No. 152:  2.3.2 Growth and yield characteristics

Line No. 165: 2.4 Statistical analysis

3. Result: Over all its written well

Line No. 172: 3.1. Mutant restorer lines

Line No. 197: 3.2. Hybrid seed production

Line No. 213: 3.3. Relationships among evaluated genotypes

4. Discussion: NA (Well justified with reasons) Can be divided in two paragraphs

5. Conclusions:  NA (Monotonous words can be removed)

References:

Line No. 335: Scientific name of crop should be written in Italic (I), Cajanus cajanifolius and Cajanus cajan.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Re: We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for his time devoted to our manuscript and for providing constructive criticism to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. Introduction:

No Comments (Article is having all the required information with references)

Re: Thanks for the  positive assessment

2. Materials and methods:

No comments (Clearly written content-wise, easily understandable).

Re: Thanks for the  positive assessment

General suggestions: The numbering of subheads needs reconstruction, as it is discontinued. Detail about statistical analysis is not mentioned.

Re: The numbering has been revised and modified as suggested, and more details on the statistical analysis have been added (lines 182-185).

Line No. 134: 2.3 Measure traits

Line No. 135: 2.3.1 Pollen and anther characteristics

Line No. 152:  2.3.2 Growth and yield characteristics

Line No. 165: 2.4 Statistical analysis

3. Result:

Overall it is well written

Re: Thanks for the  positive assessment

Line No. 172: 3.1. Mutant restorer lines

Line No. 197: 3.2. Hybrid seed production

Line No. 213: 3.3. Relationships among evaluated genotypes

Re: The numbering has been revised and modified

4. Discussion:

NA (Well justified with reasons) Can be divided into two paragraphs

Re: Thanks for the positive assessment. The discussion has been divided as suggested.

5. Conclusions: NA (Monotonous words can be removed)

Re: The conclusion has been revised and modified (lines 307-316)

5. References:

Line No. 335: Scientific name of the crop should be written in Italic (I), Cajanus cajanifolius and Cajanus cajan.

Re: The Scientific names have been edited as requested (line 363).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This study developed several mutants using different doses of gamma-ray to  improve pollen ability and agronomic performance of restorer lines so as to achieve high Out-crossing Rate restorers and higher Hybrid Seed Production. Then the authors compared and analyzed the pollen fertility, agronomic characters and seed production yield, finally they proved that the method was feasible. The experiment and related results have certain guiding value and resource collection significance for breeding workers. However, more detailed research on these newly created restorers is still lacking, such as the possible linkage location, preliminary location and relevant linkage markers of the mutant gene in these lines. So, if only these materials are provided, they are not stable for breeders to use. The study in itself appeared to have a sound policy and method. Obviously, this research is not in-depth and innovative enough. Therefore, I conclude that this manuscript is very hard to be accepted as an article with novel information and originality in an international journal, Agronomy. I recommend the authors to submit this manuscript to other local journals after minor revisions.