Multi-Trait Selection Index for Superior Agronomic and Tuber Quality Traits in Bush Yam (Dioscorea praehensilis Benth.)
, Paul A. Asare 1,*, Idris I. Adejumobi 2, Michael O. Adu 1, Kingsley J. Taah 1, Samuel Adewale 2,3, Jean M. Mondo 2,4 and Paterne A. Agre 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study investigated agronomically important tuber quality traits of 162 accessions of Dioscorea praehensilis collected in Ghana. Eleven traits were analyzed, including tuber weight per plant, number of tubers per plant, tuber length, tuber width, stem diameter per plant, number of internodes before first branching, stem internode lengthy, yam mosaic virus, dry matter content, tuber flesh oxidation, and tuber flesh hardness. Principal component analysis, correlation coefficient, path coefficient, hierarchical clustering based on the Gower dissimilarity matrix, and multi-traits genotype-ideotype distance index analyses were performed. The results indicated that 24 accessions could be used as progenitors for trait introgression. The study is sound and crucial for future yam breeding and improvement in West Africa. It is recommended for publication in the journal Agronomy after minor modifications. Below are the suggestions.
1. The path coefficient analysis package should be described in the Materials and Methods.
2. Figure 5. All the accessions need to be seen in the figure and should be improved.
3. Figure 6. It should be improved that two accessions, WNDpr88 and Asamankese002, overlap in the figure.
4. Some references didn’t show doi information in the references section.
Author Response
Query 1: The path coefficient analysis package should be described in the Materials and Methods.
Response: We appreciate your suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. The description of path coefficient analysis has been included in the analysis section of the revised manuscript.
Query 2. Figure 5. All the accessions need to be seen in the figure and should be improved.
Response: Good observation. We have improved the quality of figure 5. However, since we have many genotypes we have used the lowest font and size from the package but this could not be corrected.
Query 3. Figure 6. It should be improved that two accessions, WNDpr88 and Asamankese002, overlap in the figure.
Response: Appreciate your suggestion here. We have improved the quality of the figure but we could not correct this. We looking to probably use serial numbers for the plotting but this will change the narrative in the manuscript. we appreciate your understanding.
Query 4. Some references didn’t show doi information in the references section.
Response: Thanks so much for your observation. we have provided DOI for most of the articles where applied. Some manuscripts were published with no DOI.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is not entirely clear whether there are breeding varieties of yam. If so, they should probably be used as a control.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Query 1: pay attention to the correctly use of abbreviation if Latin name of species;
Response: Thank you very much for your observation. These have been addressed in the revised manuscript
Query 2: improve the method part
Response: Thanks so much for your observation. The methodology section has been improved. The description of path coefficient analysis has been included in the data analysis section of the revised manuscript.
Query 3: avoid the parallel sentences in data description in the results parts
Response: We have addressed this in the revised manuscript accordingly.
Query 4: avoid false correlation between traits
Response: Thank you very much for your observations. This aspect has been addressed in the revised edition of the manuscript.
Query 5: improvement of Table 2 and Figure 2
Response: This has been improved in the manuscript
Query 6
The bigger question is the myriad of complex analyses of relatively simple data, what the uses of different methods of analysis are, and how they relate to each other, and what they actually mean.
The idea is since this is the first time evaluating bush yam we proposed a combination of several analyses to be able to select the best genotypes and use as progenitors.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors assessed 11 traits for 162 wild yam accessions and performed a series of analysis, then selected a set of elite accessions that could be used in breeding. It is really a correct choice of topic. however, I have some suggestions;
1,pay attention to the correctly use of abbreviation if Latin name of species;
2, improve the method part
3,avoid the parallel sentences in data description in the results parts;
4, avoid false correlation between traits;
5, improvement of Table 2 and Figure 2;
The bigger question is the myriad of complex analyses of relatively simple data, what are the uses of different methods of analysis, and how they relate to each other, and what they actually mean.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Query 1: The path coefficient analysis package should be described in the Materials and Methods.
Response: We appreciate your observation. The description of the path coefficient analysis has been included in the analysis section of the revised article.
Query 2. Figure 5. All the accessions need to be seen in the figure and should be improved.
Response: Excellent observation. The figure has been improved however, due to a large number of genotypes, We have reduced the font size to the minimum but we could not assign a visible name to all genotypes.
Query 3. Figure 6. It should be improved that two accessions, WNDpr88 and Asamankese002, overlap in the figure.
Response: Thank you. We have improved the quality of the figure ad the best figure by minimizing the font it presented. We could not address this for now. We are proposing to use serial numbers to replot the figure. However, this is an alternative.
Query 4. Some references didn’t show doi information in the references section.
Response: We have provided DOI to some references where possible as some do not have the digital object identifier (DOI) from the journal when published.
Response to Reviewer 2
Query 1: pay attention to the correctly use of abbreviation if Latin name of species;
Response: Thank you very much for your observation. These have been addressed in the revised manuscript
Query 2: improve the method part
Response: Thanks so much for your observation. The methodology section has been improved. The description of path coefficient analysis has been included in the data analysis section of the improved article.
Query 3: avoid the parallel sentences in data description in the results parts
Response: We have addressed this in the revised manuscript
Query 4: avoid false correlation between traits
Response: Thank you very much for your observations. This aspect has been addressed in the revised manuscript.
Query 5: improvement of Table 2 and Figure 2
Response: This has been improved in the manuscript
Query 6
The bigger question is the myriad of complex analyses of relatively simple data, what the uses of different methods of analysis are, and how they relate to each other, and what they actually mean.
Respose: We used several analyses here as this is the first time evaluating the bush yam ad we want to be sure of passing very good information. Also, since we are looking forward to selecting the best genotypes to be used as progenitors
