Breeding and Agronomic Evaluation of Jilv 20, a New Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) Cultivar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a manuscript titled “Breeding and Agronomic Evaluation of Jilv 20, a New Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) Cultivar”.

I suggest the following changes:

Materials and methods:

Authors should provide more information about the soils on which the research was conducted, such as the content of carbon, pH, texture, macroelements N, P, K et al.

It would be important to add information about the varieties used as parents in the study.

Results

The authors should provide ANOVA tables containing mean squares and degrees of freedom. A multivariate analysis (eg. AMMI, GGE Biplot) would be useful in order to show the stability and potency of the variety

References

References should be presented according the journal's instructions

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We highly appreciate the comments you made and addressed them in the attached. We also edited the manuscript accordingly when appropriate. Hope you find our responses reasonable and acceptable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript describes the outcomes of a 12-year large-scale breeding program from the initial cross to the final demonstration, involving dozens of trials at many trial sites. The manuscript is easy to read with a logical structure, the data is valuable and the research is mostly well presented. However, there are several issues in my opinion that need to be addressed before publishing.

My main point of criticism is the lack of statistical analysis in the study. It is mentioned that the multi-locations trials were sown in randomised complete block designs with 3 replications, which clearly allows a statistical analysis. However, the authors don't support any of their findings (height, yield, etc differences) with statistical data. I would expect statistics for site effects and also a comparison of the new variety with a reference/control at each site, and possible sitexvariety interaction effect.

Statistics (anova) are also needed in the seed quality evaluations.

Some more background information on the bulk and single-plant selections would be valuable, as well as relevant outcomes of the PYT and YCT trials. The manuscript should also make clear in figure 1 that this paper mostly focusses on the multi-ecological and production tests data.

For the disease resistance, there is no data given on the control line other than stating 'seriously infected'. The control line should be included in Table 3 and the discussion should address the possible effects of uneven disease pressure across the different sites and between the control and new variety.

The use of * and the other symbol in Table 1 is confusing. I believe It would be clearer if the years were added to the sowing dates rather than the * symbols, or possibly in separate (sub)columns. Also Table 1 can be expanded to include which sites were used for disease resistance assessments. There is also inconsistencies in the number of sites, it states on page 3 21 sites, but there are only 20 in Table 1 (1 northern summer site missing), then on p4 it talks about 15 multi-ecological sites.

Clarify whether the multi-ecological trial mentioned under 3.4.1 is the same as in Table 1. It appears so but the way it is represented is confusing, as this is the first time it is mentioned that there were 25 new varieties included in this trial. In Table 5 at least a control is included, but why are all others left out? Why is there no statistics presented? Why was the control not included in the previous sections?

Please make clear that CK in Table 6 the same variety as Control in Table 5. Best to be consistent and use the same headings.

So there seems to be some statistical analysis in Table 7, but as I am unfamiliar with DPS I am not able to interpret the data in this table. Please give more background on the fertility and stability parameters, is this along the lines of a Least Significant Difference (LSD) test? Adaptive sites refer to the sites in the multi-location trials I assume? Which E number is which site?

At least the first two paragraphs of the discussion should be moved to the introduction, and possibly most of the 3rd and the 6th. The discussion should be expanded as mentioned above and could also include a better discussion about the differences of the 20 sites.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We highly appreciate the comments you made and addressed them in the attached. We also edited the manuscript accordingly when appropriate. Hope you find our responses reasonable and acceptable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Although the paper talks about disease resistance, the authors only studied halo blight resistance. Mungbean has dozens of bacteria, fungi, nematodes, pests that can compromise the crop. Am I to understand that halo blight is the only disease of economic importance for all areas of China where JILV 20 has been studied? Should the authors specify what led them to focus only on this bacteriosis?

2. Tables 1. Considering the overwhelming influence of climatic factors on the evolution and spread of halo blight bacteriosis, it is necessary to include in the tables some agroclimatic data of the 21 sites where halo blight was studied. These data refer to the average annual temperature/vegetation period, amount of annual precipitation (mm)/vegetation period, number of days with precipitation in the vegetation period.

3. For halo blight resistance studies, why didn't the authors at least use a high-susceptibility and a high-resistance variety for comparison? Namely, control varieties.

4. In the conditions of the ecological crisis we are going through, it is unacceptable that among the specific objectives of reproducing a variety we do not find resistance to global climate change.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We highly appreciate the comments you made and addressed them in the attached. We also edited the manuscript accordingly when appropriate. Hope you find our responses reasonable and acceptable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have provided a revised version addressing my comments, therefore the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in agronomy.