Phenological Growth Stages of Abelmoschus manihot: Codification and Description According to the BBCH Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I congratulate you for the work done and the comprehensive writing of the manuscript "Phenological growth stages of Abelmoschus manihot: codification and description according to the BBCH scale"

It was a real pleasure to read the manuscript. I have no recommendation/suggestion to make. Well done!

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The manuscript entitled "Phenological growth stages of Abelmoschus manihot: codification and description according to the BBCH scale" puts in the BBCH scale in a detailed and comprehensive manner an important plant cultivated in China, Papua New Guinea, Eastern Indonesia, Nepal, Fiji, India, Sri Lanka, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, and Northern Australia.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it

address a specific gap in the field?

Considering that it is the first and only research (according to the authors) that details the phenology of this plant, I think that YES, it is original and relevant.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The BBCH scale is a standardization of the description of the growth and development of a plant, capturing the entire life period of a plant. As we stated before, it is the only phenological study for the respective species.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The only mistakes found in the article were minor (expressing and detailing the environmental conditions)

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?

Yes
6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

 

It's not necessary

Author Response

Question 1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The manuscript entitled "Phenological growth stages of Abelmoschus manihot: codification and description according to the BBCH scale" puts in the BBCH scale in a detailed and comprehensive manner an important plant cultivated in China, Papua New Guinea, Eastern Indonesia, Nepal, Fiji, India, Sri Lanka, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, and Northern Australia.

Reply 1: OK. Thanks.
Question 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it.

address a specific gap in the field?

Considering that it is the first and only research (according to the authors) that details the phenology of this plant, I think that YES, it is original and relevant.
Reply 2: OK. Thanks.

Question 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The BBCH scale is a standardization of the description of the growth and development of a plant, capturing the entire life period of a plant. As we stated before, it is the only phenological study for the respective species.

Reply 3: OK. Thanks.
Question 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? The only mistakes found in the article were minor (expressing and detailing the environmental conditions).

Reply 4: The language was improved by a native speaker, and many errors have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Question 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes.

Reply 5: OK. Thanks.
Question 6. Are the references appropriate? Yes

Reply 6: OK. Thanks.
Question 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. It's not necessary

Reply 7: OK. Thanks. Additional comments on the tables and figures have been added in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     What is the main question addressed by the research?

The authors described the applicability of the BBCH scale in order to the standardization of phenological growth  stages  A. manihot, a minor crop of relevance in Asia.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?

The A. manihot is a underutilized crop, but presents high relevance in many Asia and Eastern Europe countries. This is the first report about the phenological growth stages for this specie.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?

The manuscript is well written, the information is relevant, the data were well managed and the results were described correctly. Compared with other published material, the manuscript is above average.

  
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The manuscript does not require any improvements in methodology.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?

Yes.

6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Additional details are detached in the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of English language is fine. Small details were pointed in the manuscript

Author Response

Question 1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The authors described the applicability of the BBCH scale in order to the standardization of phenological growth  stages  A. manihot, a minor crop of relevance in Asia.

Reply 1: OK. Thanks.
Question 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? The A. manihot is a underutilized crop, but presents high relevance in many Asia and Eastern Europe countries. This is the first report about the phenological growth stages for this specie.

Reply 2: OK. Thanks.
Question 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The manuscript is well written, the information is relevant, the data were well managed and the results were described correctly. Compared with other published material, the manuscript is above average.

Reply 3:  OK. Thanks.

Question 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The manuscript does not require any improvements in methodology.

Reply 4: OK. Thanks.
Question 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes.

Reply 5: OK. Thanks.
Question 6. Are the references appropriate? Yes.

Reply 6: OK. Thanks.
Question 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Reply 7: Yes. We agree. Additional comments on the tables and figures have been added in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 8. Additional details are detached in the pdf file. Replace this keywords “BBCH scale, and phonological growth stages”, they also prepared in the title of the manuscript.

Reply 8: Yes. We agree. The keywords “BBCH scale and phonological growth stages” have been replaced in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 9. Comments on the Quality of English Language. The quality of English language is fine. Small details were pointed in the manuscript.

Reply 9: Ok. Thanks. The language was improved by a native speaker, and many corrections have been revised.

Question 10. Other comments in the manuscript

Reply 10: Ok. The typing error has been revised as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the manuscript: agronomy-2376679

Phenological growth stages of Abelmoschus manihot: codification and description according to the BBCH scale

(authors: Qian W., Hu Y., Lin X., Yu D., Jia S., Ye Y., Mao Y., Yi L. and Gao S.)

 

The manuscript presents an experimental study aimed to identify and standardize the phenological growth stages of A. manihot according to the BBCH scale.

General Comments:

The manuscript is interesting and falls fully within the scope of the Journal. The abstract is enough informative, and keywords are appropriate. The introduction provides sufficient background with an updated literature review and includes a clear definition of the study objectives. The method description is well structured, but it presents some weaknesses. In particular, the choice to monitor the phenological development of 10 seedlings out of 100 seeds per replicate and to select only five plants per replicate could not allow a very sound statistical analysis. The results section is quite well structured, but I suggest better describing Table 2, which analyses different parameters (bud, pistil, and stamen length), that allow identifying the stages despite the small sample (n=5); it is not clear if this sample refers to a single replicate or to a further sub-selection of the 15 plants (5 by replicate). In addition, I suggest checking the description of stages such as 629 and 729 in Table1, which does not match the description in the text (see specific comments) and does not appear consistent with the BBCH code definition. Finally, some pictures reported in figure 5 are not very effective for distinguishing the stages, in alternative I propose to use some schematic drawings. The discussion and the conclusions are well organized, but the main limitations of the study should be discussed: 1) the choice of a small sample for the statistical analysis of differences among phases related to the main growth stage 5 and for the analysis of fruit/seed development reported in Supplementary material (Figures S4-6); 2) the lack of similar analyses for the other main stages.

Specific comments:

Page 1, from Line 42 to the end of the manuscript: please add a space before the square brackets of the citations.

Page 2, Line 86-89: this sentence should be moved to Discussion or Conclusions.

Page 3, from Line 116 to the end of the manuscript: please check the use of the ordinal instead of the cardinal number (for example “fifth” instead of “five”), especially in Table 1.

Page 3, Line 136-139: the description of the statistical analysis is too weak to be put in a separate paragraph, furthermore I suggest rephrasing the sentence which is too similar to the text of Herraiz et al. 2015, Phenological growth stages of pepino (Solanum muricatum) according to the BBCH scale, Scientia Horticulturae, 183, 1-7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.12.008. I don't understand the use of the term “clones” since your experimental design does not consider clones but is based on seeds “collected from the natural populations” (Page 3, Line 103).

Page 4, Table 1: please verify the description of stages such as 629 “19 or more flowers opening and fruit set on the side stem” and 729 “19th or more fruits on the side shoots reach the final size”, which does not match the description in the text (Page 12, Line 315 “ Stage 629 represents that 9th and/or more flowers open…” and Page 14, Line 344 “Stage 729 represents 9th and/or 344 more fruits reaching the final size”) and does not appear consistent with the BBCH code definition.

Page 9, Figure 5: the pictures b, e and f-i are not very effective for distinguishing the stages.

Page 10, Line 193-196: the text describes Figure 2, not Figure 1 as indicated in brackets.

Page 12, Table 2: I suggest describing Table 2 better in the text, because it is quite complex, and the results of the statistical analysis are not explained in the text. Furthermore, the table is cited several times (Page 11, Lines 262, 273, 283, 285; Page 12 Lines 287, 289, 292), without providing any indication. In addition, it is not clear if the sample (n=5) refers to a single replicate or to a further sub-selection of the 15 plants (5 by replicate), consequently you should explain better if the significant (or not) differences were calculated basing on 5 or 15 plants.

Page 14, Figure 7: the acronym “DAF” should be spelled out.

Page 19, Line 581: please check the use of “standardise” instead of the previously use of “standardize”; American English or UK English are fine so long as there is consistency (see guidelines for authors)

Page 19, Line 607-712: please remove double numbering of citations.

Author Response

Question 1: The manuscript is interesting and falls fully within the scope of the Journal. The abstract is enough informative, and keywords are appropriate. The introduction provides sufficient background with an updated literature review and includes a clear definition of the study objectives. The method description is well structured, but it presents some weaknesses. In particular, the choice to monitor the phenological development of 10 seedlings out of 100 seeds per replicate and to select only five plants per replicate could not allow a very sound statistical analysis. The results section is quite well structured, but I suggest better describing Table 2, which analyses different parameters (bud, pistil, and stamen length), that allow identifying the stages despite the small sample (n=5); it is not clear if this sample refers to a single replicate or to a further sub-selection of the 15 plants (5 by replicate). In addition, I suggest checking the description of stages such as 629 and 729 in Table1, which does not match the description in the text (see specific comments) and does not appear consistent with the BBCH code definition. Finally, some pictures reported in figure 5 are not very effective for distinguishing the stages, in alternative I propose to use some schematic drawings. The discussion and the conclusions are well organized, but the main limitations of the study should be discussed: 1) the choice of a small sample for the statistical analysis of differences among phases related to the main growth stage 5 and for the analysis of fruit/seed development reported in Supplementary material (Figures S4-6); 2) the lack of similar analyses for the other main stages.

Reply 1: Ok. We agree. We greatly appreciate both your help for concerning improvement to this paper. We had revised our manuscript according to your advices. Moreover, please find following the answer to reviewers' comments.

Specific comments:

Question 1: Page 1, from Line 42 to the end of the manuscript: please add a space before the square brackets of the citations.

Reply 1: Ok. We agree. The typing error has been revised.

Question 2: Page 2, Line 86-89: this sentence should be moved to Discussion or Conclusions.

Reply 2: Ok. We agree with the reviewer. This sentence has been moved to Discussion or Conclusions in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 3: Page 3, from Line 116 to the end of the manuscript: please check the use of the ordinal instead of the cardinal number (for example “fifth” instead of “five”), especially in Table 1.

Reply 3: Ok. We agree. The typing error has been revised.

Question 4: Page 3, Line 136-139: the description of the statistical analysis is too weak to be put in a separate paragraph, furthermore I suggest rephrasing the sentence which is too similar to the text of Herraiz et al. 2015, Phenological growth stages of pepino (Solanum muricatum) according to the BBCH scale, Scientia Horticulturae, 183, 1-7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.12.008. I don't understand the use of the term “clones” since your experimental design does not consider clones but is based on seeds “collected from the natural populations” (Page 3, Line 103). Reply 4: Ok. We agree with the reviewer. The use of the term “clones” has been revised in the revised manuscript. The description of the statistical analysis in the chapter of M&M has been revised as suggested. The sentence was rewrite as following: All treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design with three replicates. Data were expressed as means ± SD. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test were performed using Waller-Duncan multiinterval test using SPSS26.0 software (IBM^® Corporation, USA). The minimum significant difference (LSD) in ANOVA test was applied to analyze the significant difference. Statistical significance was set 95% confidence level (p<0.05).

Question 5: Page 4, Table 1: please verify the description of stages such as 629 “19 or more flowers opening and fruit set on the side stem” and 729 “19th or more fruits on the side shoots reach the final size”, which does not match the description in the text (Page 12, Line 315 “ Stage 629 represents that 9th and/or more flowers open…” and Page 14, Line 344 “Stage 729 represents 9th and/or 344 more fruits reaching the final size”) and does not appear consistent with the BBCH code definition.

Reply 5: Ok. Thanks. Our apologies for our careless. We appreciate the comment. The description in the text on 629 “19 or more flowers opening and fruit set on the side stem” and 729 “19th or more fruits on the side shoots reach the final size”, have been revised in the revised manuscript as suggested. The text of Page 14, Line 344 “Stage 729 represents 9th and/or 344 more fruits reaching the final size”) has been revised as suggested.

Question 6: Page 9, Figure 5: the pictures b, e and f-i are not very effective for distinguishing the stages.

Reply 6: Ok. We agree with the reviewer. The Figure 5 has been improved in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 7: Page 10, Line 193-196: the text describes Figure 2, not Figure 1 as indicated in brackets.

Reply 7: Ok. Thanks. The typing error has been revised.

Question 8: Page 12, Table 2: I suggest describing Table 2 better in the text, because it is quite complex, and the results of the statistical analysis are not explained in the text. Furthermore, the table is cited several times (Page 11, Reply 8: Ok. We agree with the reviewer. The detailed descriptions on Table 2 have been added in the revised manuscript as suggested. The results of the statistical analysis have been added as suggested. Some position of Table 2 has been deleted in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 9: Lines 262, 273, 283, 285; Page 12 Lines 287, 289, 292), without providing any indication. In addition, it is not clear if the sample (n=5) refers to a single replicate or to a further sub-selection of the 15 plants (5 by replicate), consequently you should explain better if the significant (or not) differences were calculated basing on 5 or 15 plants.

Reply 9: Ok. Thanks. The indication of References has been added at Lines 262, 273, 283, 285; Page 12 Lines 287, 289, 292 in the revised manuscript as suggested. The sample (n=5) refers to "At each observation, five representative plants were selected, and five flower buds were tagged and selected on main stem of each plant.". Moreover, the characterize flower bud development in the chapter of M&M has been rewrite as following: In order to characterize flower bud development and establish a numeric scale, buds were collected at different development stages. When first floral bud on main stem was visible (about 4 mm in length, 3 mm in width), we defined it as Stage 500, and begin to collect it. At each observation, five representative plants were selected, and five flower buds were tagged and selected on main stem of each plant. The external morphology of each bud was measured using an electronic vernier caliper,and dissected and photographed with a Leica L2 stereomicroscope equipped with Nikon D7500.

Question 10: Page 14, Figure 7: the acronym “DAF” should be spelled out.

Reply 10: Ok. Thanks. The full name of acronym “DAF” has been added in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 11: Page 19, Line 581: please check the use of “standardise” instead of the previously use of “standardize”; American English or UK English are fine so long as there is consistency (see guidelines for authors)

Reply 11: Ok. Thanks. The use of “standardise” has been corrected in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 12: Page 19, Line 607-712: please remove double numbering of citations.

Reply 12: Ok. Thanks. The double numbering of citations has been deleted in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 13 (x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Reply 13: Ok. Thanks. The language was improved by a native speaker, and many corrections have been revised.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Editor,

 The manuscript is a description of the phenological growth stages of Abelmoschus manihot based on the BBCH scale. My observations are below and in the text. I did not check for plagiarism.

 Introduction:

The description o the species is too lengthy.

 M&M:

The number code presented is not consistent between stages and must be review. Observations were made to the text.

 Results:

Numbers code must be corrected according to the new number code (M&), captions must be included, scale bars, statistics must be clarified.

 Discussion:

Too wordy. Must be reduced and the language checked. Ex:

Stage 95/905 referred to 50% of leaves brownish and basal leaves fall. When all leaves fall the stage  97/907 was reached (Figure 5i). When this stage finished, the overground parts were dead and dry. The other part that remains is root, which will be harvested or will sprout in the next year.

- How 50% of the leaves were estimated?

The style of the discussion is very much the same o the results. Most times citation of figures are not appropriate here.

 References:

Some species names are not in italic. Some references are not in accordance to the journal rules.

Too many references. Some 5-10% can be removed.

 Best regards

Some language review is recommended.

Author Response

Question 1:  Introduction: The description of the species is too lengthy.

Reply 1: OK. We agree with the reviewer. The description of A. manihot in Introduction has been shortened.

Question 2: M&M: The number code presented is not consistent between stages and must be review. Observations were made to the text.

Reply 2: OK. Thanks. The number code of different stages has been reviewed in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 3:  Results: Numbers code must be corrected according to the new number code (M&M), captions must be included, scale bars, statistics must be clarified.

Reply 3: OK. Thanks. Numbers code has been corrected according to the new number code, and captions have been included. Moreover, the scale bars, and statistics have been clarified as suggested.

Question 4:   Discussion: Too wordy. Must be reduced and the language checked. Ex: Stage 95/905 referred to 50% of leaves brownish and basal leaves fall. When all leaves fall the stage  97/907 was reached (Figure 5i). When this stage finished, the overground parts were dead and dry. The other part that remains is root, which will be harvested or will sprout in the next year.

Reply 4: OK. Thanks. The sentences in the Discussion have been rewrite as following: Stage 91/901 began with 10% of leaves brownish and basal leaves fall(Figure 5g). Stage 95/905 represented 50% of leaves fall. Stage 97/907 represented all leaves fall and the withered and died aboveground parts, indicating the end of annual growth cycle in A. manihot (Figure 5h). When this stage finished, the roots were ready to harvest and/or used as propagated organs.

Question 5:- How 50% of the leaves were estimated?

Reply 5: OK. Thanks. 50% of the leaves on the main shoot and side shoot fall, defining 50% of the leaves fall. The text has been revised in the revised manuscript.

Question 6: The style of the discussion is very much the same of the results. Most times citation of figures are not appropriate here.

Reply 6: OK. Thanks. The same of the results in the chapter of discussion has been deleted and/or rewrite in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 7: References: Some species names are not in italic. Some references are not in accordance to the journal rules.

Reply 7: OK. Thanks. The style of references has been revised according to the editorial requirements of the journal Agronomy as suggested. All Latin names species in italics have been added as suggested.

Question 8: Too many references. Some 5-10% can be removed.

Reply 8: Ok. Thanks. Some references have been deleted in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 9: Comments on the Quality of English Language. Some language review is recommended. (x) Minor editing of English language required

Reply 9: Ok. Thanks. The language was improved by a native speaker, and many corrections have been revised.

Reviewer 5 Report

The purpose of the authors' work was to describe the main and key stages of A. manihot growth according to the BBCH scale from germination/bud development to aging under controlled and/or field conditions. This study is very important because of the experiment conducted, which scientific value, while the results obtained have a practical dimension. This study firstly contributes to the description of standardization of phenological growth stages, quantitative analysis of flower and fruit development, and secondly provides knowledge for A. manihot growers about the timing of nutrient supply, disease and pest control and also flower, fruit management and informs about the harvest date.  Nowadays, knowledge of developmental phases is essential for proper management of the entire agrotechnology, as cultivation recommendations increasingly refer to BBCH phases.
 

Abstract

raises no major concerns.

Introduction:

The introduction properly presents the problem and purpose of the work.

Conclusions

Conclusions should contain more content relevant to the research topic, i.e. the results of the obtained research. Please
supplement.

Material and methods

Due to the agricultural nature of the journal, I would very much like to ask you to supplement this part of the paper with a brief description of the meteorological conditions that prevailed during the years of the study and a brief description of the quality of the soil on which A. manihot.

References

The selection of literature is correct. However, it was noted that in all the literature items there is an inconsistency of the
the notation of references with the guidelines in effect in the journal Agronomy, so please very much adjust the notations to the
editorial requirements of the journal. Also, please put all Latin names
species in italics.

The paper requires minor linguistic corrections.

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Question 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The purpose of the authors' work was to describe the main and key stages of A. manihot growth according to the BBCH scale from germination/bud development to aging under controlled and/or field conditions. This study is very important because of the experiment conducted, which scientific value, while the results obtained have a practical dimension. This study firstly contributes to the description of standardization of phenological growth stages, quantitative analysis of flower and fruit development, and secondly provides knowledge for A. manihot growers about the timing of nutrient supply, disease and pest control and also flower, fruit management and informs about the harvest date.  Nowadays, knowledge of developmental phases is essential for proper management of the entire agrotechnology, as cultivation recommendations increasingly refer to BBCH phases.
 Reply 1:  OK. Thanks.

Question 2: Abstract: raises no major concerns.

Reply 2: OK. Thanks. The chapter of Abstract has been rewrite in the revised manuscript.

Question 3: Introduction: The introduction properly presents the problem and purpose of the work.

Reply 3: OK. Thanks.

Question 4: Conclusions Conclusions should contain more content relevant to the research topic, i.e. the results of the obtained research. Please supplement.
Reply 4: OK. Thanks. The chapter of Conclusions has been rewrite in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 5: Material and methods: Due to the agricultural nature of the journal, I would very much like to ask you to supplement this part of the paper with a brief description of the meteorological conditions that prevailed during the years of the study and a brief description of the quality of the soil on which A. manihot.

Reply 5: OK. Thanks. A brief description of the quality of the soil has been added in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 6: References: The selection of literature is correct. However, it was noted that in all the literature items there is an inconsistency of the notation of references with the guidelines in effect in the journal Agronomy, so please very much adjust the notations to the editorial requirements of the journal. Also, please put all Latin names species in italics.
Reply 6: OK. Thanks. The style of references has been revised according to the editorial requirements of the journal Agronomy as suggested. All Latin names species in italics have been added as suggested.

Question 7: The paper requires minor linguistic corrections.

Reply 7: OK. Thanks. The linguistic corrections were revised in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Question 8: Comments on the Quality of English Language. Minor editing of English language required.

Reply 8: OK. Thanks. The language was improved by a native speaker.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have prepared the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's comments and it may be published in the journal Agronomy