Characterisation of Selected Mungbean Genotypes for Tolerance to Waterlogging Stress at Pod Filling Stage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

#General

The work developed by Ikram and collaborators, addresses carefully the effects of waterlogging on mungbean genotypes. The methods seem to be well applied, and the results are interesting. However, I noticed few things that could/should be improved, which I list below.

 

Therefore, the authors should pay more effort to highlight the significance of this research in the abstract and conclusion sections and to show what gap they aim to fill

The reference list is a little old, please insert bibliography of 2020-2022, especially regarding the introduction and discussion sections.

 

 

In all text, correct the term “chlorophyll fluorescence” to “chlorophyll a fluorescence”.

 

Introduction

Lines: 78-81: The sentence is awkward.

 

materials

Lines: 200-202: it is not clear how you measured this; leaf clips were not used?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated this manuscript (agronomy-1687818) entitled “Screening of Mungbean Genotypes for Tolerance to Waterlogging Stress at Pod Filling Stage” submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. The theme of this study is interesting and falls within the scope of journal as well. However, in its current form, manuscript has several issues given below.

1. The authors conducted a pot study to screen out mungbean genotypes for waterlogging stress tolerance. They have used only five genotypes which are not enough in such studies. More number of genotypes are recommended in screening studies in order to get some valid information.
2. The authors used only 2 kg soil in each pot and mungbean was grown from sowing to maturity. In such small volume of soil, plants cannot express their full potential.
3. Data analysis seems not ok. Although the authors stated that they have checked individual and interactive effects but the data interpreted in all tables and Figs indicate that five genotypes were statistically analyzed independently under normal and waterlogged conditions for all recorded traits, which is wrong. The authors should conduct two-way ANOVA and interpret interactive results rather than individual effects.
4. Data interpreted in Figs and tables also indicate that all genotypes have same lettering for many traits which indicate non-significant effect; the authors exclude all such traits and focus only on traits which are significantly affected by applied treatments.
5. I am not satisfied with the findings of authors. For instance, the authors divided the genotypes into sensitive, moderate and tolerant genotypes. See Table 1, all genotypes have same leaf #, plant height, leaf, stem, root and total aboveground dry biomass, pod weight, 100-seed weight, seed yield and harvest index under control and water-logged conditions. The effect of other traits like photosynthesis etc. is depicted in terms of growth and yield. If all genotypes behaved similarly with respect to growth and yield related traits under normal and waterlogged conditions, then nothing is in this study to publish. I am surprised how authors divided genotypes into three categories.
6. Field capacity term is used for field studies and water holding capacity is recommended for pot studies.
7. In case of pot studies, units should be mg/kg of soil rather than kg/ha.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have evaluated the revised draft of manuscript (agronomy-1687818) entitled “Screening of Mungbean Genotypes for Tolerance to Waterlogging Stress at Pod Filling Stage” submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. There is a little bit improvement in the manuscript but the main concerns are still existing; therefore, the manuscript cannot be considered for publication.

1. In response to comment 1 (The authors conducted a pot study to screen out mungbean genotypes for waterlogging stress tolerance. They have used only five genotypes which are not enough in such studies. More number of genotypes are recommended in screening studies in order to get some valid information), the authors stated that “Initial field screening of 25 Agriventis mungbean genotypes was carried out in Central and North Queensland, Australia (preliminary trials; in house reports) from 2017 and 2019 under optimum growth conditions. They were developed by crossing high yielding parental genotypes primarily bred to cope with the harsh climatic conditions. From the initial field screening, four genotypes were selected based on their consistent higher seed yield”.

When consistent high yielding genotypes were selected then they have to perform similarly. Therefore, such results are obtained in this study that genotypes behaved similarly for most of the traits recorded. In such studies, the authors have to use divergent genotypes (tolerant, sensitives ones) to get some useful information.

2. In response to comment 3 (Data analysis seems not ok. Although the authors stated that they have checked individual and interactive effects, but the data interpreted in all tables and Figs indicate that five genotypes were statistically analyzed independently under normal and waterlogged conditions for all recorded traits, which is wrong. The authors should conduct two-way ANOVA and interpret interactive results rather than individual effects), the authors answered that “Two-way ANOVA was conducted, and interactive effect were displayed in Fig and Tables”.

However, data presented in all Figs still unveiled those five genotypes were analyzed separately under control and water-logged conditions.

• In response to comment 4 (Data interpreted in Figs and tables also indicate that all genotypes have same lettering for many traits which indicate non-significant effect; the authors exclude all such traits and focus only on traits which are significantly affected by applied treatments), the authors stated that “Incorporated all the traits now (significant and non-significant effects

I am not satisfied with the response of authors.

4. In response to comment 5 (I am not satisfied with the findings of authors. For instance, the authors divided the genotypes into sensitive, moderate and tolerant genotypes. See Table 1, all genotypes have same leaf #, plant height, leaf, stem, root and total aboveground dry biomass, pod weight, 100-seed weight, seed yield and harvest index under control and water-logged conditions. The effect of other traits like photosynthesis etc. is depicted in terms of growth and yield. If all genotypes behaved similarly with respect to growth and yield related traits under normal and waterlogged conditions, then nothing is in this study to publish. I am surprised how authors divided genotypes into three categories.), the authors stated that “I have removed the table of ranking and added a new table reflecting only % decline in seed yield under waterlogging stress compared to control treatment”.

I am not satisfied with this response. Table 2 is given without statistical analysis. Most importantly “Check genotype” observed only 13% (the lowest reduction) yield reduction under water-logged conditions compared with all 04 high yielding genotypes used in this study. Therefore, nothing is novel in this study is to publish or recommend.

5. Based on results of this study, no concrete conclusion or recommendation is given in abstract or conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf