Seed Quality of Lablab Bean (Lablab purpureus) as Influenced by Seed Maturity and Drying Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed the reviewer's recommendations.

Author Response

Dear Sir / Madam

Thanks for your accepting my previous report

 

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Uma Rani Sinniah

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached ANNOTATED COPY of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:

Dear Sir/ Madam,

 

Point 1: Full form of DAA.

Response 1: Full form of DAA have been added at line 18 page 1.

Point 2: Introduction part is too long, it should be concise

Response 2:  Introduction part have been edited.

Point 3: Added ‘India’

Response 3: Country India have been added at line 37 page 1.

Point 4: Added (Naeem, et al. 2020)

Response 4: Reference no. 4 of  (Naeem, et al 2020) have been added at line 42 page 1.

Point 5: How often pesticides have been applied.

 Line Response 5: Pesticides have been applies 3 times per season as recommended. Sentences about the application have been edited at line 123 page 3.

Point 6: How much quantity of pesticides was taken?  

Response 6: 14ml of pesticides for 10 liter water as recommended. Sentences have been edited at line 124 page 3.

Point 7: Added references (Naeem et al., 2020)

Response 7: References have been added No. 4, at line 418 page 11.

Point 8: Line 431 Capitalize Each Word to lowercase 

Response 8: References has been edited No.7 at line 425 page 11.

Point 9: Line 437 Brassica oleracea L. not italic.

Response 9: Brassica oleracea L.  has been italic for references no 35 at line 491 page 12.

Point 10: Line 437 Lablab purpureus not italic.

Response 10: Lablab purpureus  has been italic for references no 37 at line 504 page 12.

Point 11: Line 518 Capital Time

Response 11: Time have changed to time for references no 41 at line 497 page 12.

Point 12: Line 518 Capital Viability and Vigour
Response 12: Viability have changed to viability and Vigour have changed to vigour for references no 41 at line 498 page 12.

Point 13: Line 522 (Vigna subterranea ( L .) Verde

Response 13: Vigna subterranea ( L .) Verde have changed to  Vigna subterranea  (L .) Verde for references no 47 at line 512 page 12.

Point 14: Line 521 ( Zea mays L.)

Response 14: ( Z. ) have changed to  (Zea mays L.) for references no 47 at line 511 page 12.

Point 15: Line 533 Jatropha curcas not italic

Response 15: Jatropha curcas has been italic for references no 51 at line 523 page 13.

 

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Uma Rani Sinniah

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the study of the submitted manuscript was to find an unambiguous indicator of Lablab bean seed maturity and determine the best method of seed drying. It comprised the morphological alteration  of pods and seeds, moisture and dry weight content at different maturity stages. Germination test,  calculation of germination index, and conductivity measurement were done to analyse the seed viability  after seeds drying.

The research problem is very interesting and the article has the potential to be useful in agronomy filed. Unfortunately the manuscript is not prepared well and in my opinion the experimental part of the manuscript should be extended.  In abstract session, Authors mentioned about the changes in protein content in seeds during their maturation, however, these results did not appear in the article. As seeds of Lablab bean are reach in protein as storage compound,  the protein content could be an excellent indicator of seeds maturity and may confirm their readiness to harvest.

Authors did not avoid a lot of mistakes and some fundamental questions arised:  

- How the correlations between the parameters of pod and seed were calculated? Some value do not indicate the strong correlation…

- Figure 2. There is no statistical analysis that allows to determine the significant differences between treatment  (freshly harvested seeds, sun and oven dried) (Fig. 2). The description of treatments are not unified- oven dried/ oven drying.

-The English revision should be done in the whole manuscript. Stylistic, grammatical and  language mistake, making the text difficult to reading. Use the future simple is not adequate (an example line 70). Line 115: “falls into” this phrasal verb is not adequate in this sentence. Line: 280: the verbless sentence.

• Line 58-59 this is obvious.
• Line 75-77 what do the authors mean by saying that the immature seeds have similar functions as mature seeds?
• Lines 71-73 It seems to be an oversimplification to say that the dehydration initiates the transition from seeds development to germination.
• Line 90-94 this sentence is too long and hard to follow.
• Line 235-238 There is no data supporting this statement.
• Line 282-296 A lot of simplifications and generalizations.
• Line 283-284 This sentence does not make sense. I suppose Authors meant the selective mRNA translation?
• Line 286 In transcription, the DNA sequence of a gene is transcribed to make an RNA molecule, so this sentence makes no sense. Emphasizing the contribution of translation to seed germination would make more sense if the Authors presented the results of protein content.
• Line 287-289 what do Authors mean saying “takes some time”?
• Line 291-292 Please modify this sentence. “Seed… is focused on” this is not the most appropriate phrase
• Line 294-297 this sentence is hard to understand.
• Line 307-308 this sentence is not consistent with the figure 2. This statement is too strong. As Authors have no evidences that the increase in EC is the result of seed critical dehydration, this sentence should sound rather like an assumption.  I understand that the second part of the sentence refers to the cited work? Please use “moisture content” or “moisture level” but not “moisture content level”.
• Line 312- previously the abbreviation “EC” was not used
• Table 3 Please use the superscript in EC unit

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

I hereby attached response reports to your comments

best regards

Prof. Dr. Uma Rani Sinniah

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Manuscript Seed Quality of Lablab Bean (Lablab purpureus) as Influenced by Seed Maturity and Drying Methods is interesting and brings new knowledge about the seed development process lablab bean.

However, I have questions for the authors:

1) why only a one-year experiment was carried out, since this is a field study. As you know, plants grown in the field are exposed to changing weather conditions, hence it was assumed in agronomics that the experiment should be repeated for at least 2 years.

2). please describe the electrical conductivity method in the Results and Discussion section.

The rest of the comments are included in the text of the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/ Madam

I hereby attached a response report according to your comments

Best Regards

Prof. Dr. Uma Rani Sinniah

Author Response File: Author Response.docx