Environmental and Regional Effects on Fiber Quality of Cotton Cultivated in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper seems intersting. It is also well writtrn. The only concern for me is the novelty of the research. Please improve the discussion and conclusion to show the novelty more clearly.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

There is always room for improvement in the way a work is presented and in particular in the promotion of the novelty of the research, as you are rightly concerned.

However, since there were no comments from the other two reviewers on the matter, we would like to keep the original text, feeling that both necessity and novelty of our work are adequately analyzed in the introduction as well as latter on in the conclusions, which respond respectively to the questions raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is my pleasure to know the detailed cotton production information in Greece. This study analyzed more than 20,000 fiber samples collected across the major cotton-producing regions of Greece and revealed that the environmental effect and the effect of interaction between environment and season was a very important source of variance for almost all the traits investigated. I have two questions about this study.

1. How many genotypes were used in this study?
2. Is the fiber property data collected from a common population in different environments? If not, how did the authors eliminate the genetic effect to conclude that the environmental effect is the most important source of phenotype variations?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your comments.

1.How many genotypes were used in this study?

Author response:

In the present study, more than 20,000 samples originated from over 30 different genotypes were examined.

That is, as many as the commercial varieties of cotton that are available in the Greek market, cultivated by growers and finally delivered to the cotton gin mills.

2. 
   Is the fiber property data collected from a common population in different environments? If not, how did the authors eliminate the genetic effect to conclude that the environmental effect is the most important source of phenotype variations?

Author response:

Reviewer’s observation that there is possibly a genetic effect on the phenotype and therefore on the fiber quality characteristics studied. is very correct.

However, the analyzed samples were not originated from sampling by variety, but from repeated sampling in the cotton gin warehouses, categorized only by geographical area. In other words, the samples were obtained after mixing the genotypes in the warehouses of the ginners upon receipt of the product.

The very large number of samples combined with the consistent percentage of each genotype in the mixture sampled, in all regions (derived from market share analysis data for each commercial variety by region - data not shown in this study), allows samples to be treated as if they originated from a single population that came from a mass selection.

In line 133 the corresponding addition in the text was made: "Factor 'Genotype' was not analyzed since no varietal separation was performed prior to sampling. Data were treated as originated from a single population.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Specific comments on the manuscript: “Environmental and Regional Effects on Fiber Quality of Cotton Cultivated in Greece”

There is a consider amount to unnecessary information in the Introduction; background information on cotton that does not need to be included in a research paper like this one. The Introduction could easily be reduced in length by one-half or more, along with many of the references, without a loss in essential information for this study.

Beginning at line 128, the author write: “Measurements were carried out via an Uster HVI 1000 accurate fiber classification system (Zellweger Uster Inc., Uster, Switzerland)” followed by nine bullet points and an equation. This is does not follow the journal’s guidelines on how to present equations and is a questionable means of communicating research methods.

Beginning at line 155, the authors describe their statistical procedures as: “Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS software (SPSS Inc. 155 version 22.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Significant differences between means were determined by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test (HSD) at two levels of significance (p=0.05 and p=0.01) [34].” Typically, researchers choose an alpha value, use the ANOVA to determine if there is statistical significance, and then run the mean separation test only if that p value is reached. Letters are then used to differentiate treatments from each other. In the figures that follow, I don’t see anywhere where the authors have actually differentiated between the two p-values in presenting their findings. All are “p ≤ 0.05.” So, why was the additional p-value mentioned in the methods at all?

Many of the tables are cumbersome and difficult to read without effort. Either too much information is included or the formatting and/or font size gives them a cramped or crowded appearance.

In Table 3, why are three asterisks used for statistical significance (*** significant at (p ≤ 0.05)) rather than just one?

In Table 4 and Table 5, the column with the Tukey value is not necessary when the authors have already used letters to differentiate values that a statistically different.

In Figures, 1, 2, 3 and 4, the image quality is poor. Can the authors use graphs with higher resolution?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for your comments.

Specific comments on the manuscript: “Environmental and Regional Effects on Fiber Quality of Cotton Cultivated in Greece”

There is a consider amount to unnecessary information in the Introduction; background information on cotton that does not need to be included in a research paper like this one. The Introduction could easily be reduced in length by one-half or more, along with many of the references, without a loss in essential information for this study.

Author response: We agree with this comment. Corrections have been made in the Introduction.

Beginning at line 128, the author write: “Measurements were carried out via an Uster HVI 1000 accurate fiber classification system (Zellweger Uster Inc., Uster, Switzerland)” followed by nine bullet points and an equation. This is does not follow the journal’s guidelines on how to present equations and is a questionable means of communicating research methods.

Author response: We agree with this comment. The guidelines of the journal were followed.

Beginning at line 155, the authors describe their statistical procedures as: “Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS software (SPSS Inc. 155 version 22.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Significant differences between means were determined by Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test (HSD) at two levels of significance (p=0.05 and p=0.01) [34].” Typically, researchers choose an alpha value, use the ANOVA to determine if there is statistical significance, and then run the mean separation test only if that p value is reached. Letters are then used to differentiate treatments from each other. In the figures that follow, I don’t see anywhere where the authors have actually differentiated between the two p-values in presenting their findings. All are “p ≤ 0.05.” So, why was the additional p-value mentioned in the methods at all?

Author response: We agree with this comment. This was the approach followed as very correctly described by the reviewer. An omission on table’s footnotes concerning significances on both p values (p≤ 0.05 and p≤ 0.01) was reasonable raised this question. Headings and Footnotes in all tables were corrected in order to be more self-expandatory and in accordance with the analysis described in materials and methods

 

Many of the tables are cumbersome and difficult to read without effort. Either too much information is included or the formatting and/or font size gives them a cramped or crowded appearance.

Author response: We agree with this comment. The appearance of the three tables (Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5) have been revised aiming at a simpler data presentation, easier comprehension and less crowded appearance. Headings and Footnotes in all tables were corrected as explained above

 

In Table 3, why are three asterisks used for statistical significance (*** significant at (p ≤ 0.05)) rather than just one?

Author response: Correctly pointed out. Corrections have been made in Table’s Text.

 

In Table 4 and Table 5, the column with the Tukey value is not necessary when the authors have already used letters to differentiate values that a statistically different.

Author response: We agree with this comment. The column with the Tukey value has been removed from Table 4 and Table 5, according to the reviewer’s suggestion

 

In Figures, 1, 2, 3 and 4, the image quality is poor. Can the authors use graphs with higher resolution?

Author response: Unfortunately, graphs are exported automatically by the used software. Nevertheless, a new attempt was made to enhance resolution ensuring minimum printing quality. Even so the specific graphs do not include numeric values that would be difficult to read but grouping and ranking of the environments and traits that are visualized at an accepted level even with lower resolution in our opinion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I see the responses from the author describing the changes they've made but the two versions (v1 and v2) are identical.