Interspecific Hardy Geranium Progenies: Morphological Characterization and Genetic Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented by Mehrdad Akbarzadeh et al. focus on the results of interspecific hybridization of different Geranium species; and genetic and morphological evaluation of their progenies. The topic of this research is of a great importance, and all these results can help in new breeding programs and ongoing breeding works. This work presented valuable methods and useful information. These studies and knowledges are required for the further practical use of hybrids/cultivars/species in ornamental plant breeding, overcome the barriers and recommend solutions of interspecific hybridization.

Very comprehensive, detailed analyses and evaluations were presented in the manuscript, the authors have put a lot of care and attention into this paper. I suggest some details that should be improved:

 

Introduction

Line 31. „within or between plant species” Please, insert ’plant’.

Line 45. ‘such as hardiness, extended flowering” – What kind of hardiness? Please, insert it!

Why interspecific hybridization is necessary in this Genus, please, describe the problems as well? What is the main aim of the hybridization in this Genus?

I miss a longer description about the Geranium genus. Please, consider it and insert this information!

Authors tested different medium used for embryo rescue and received results are very useful and valuable! I suggest writing a short paragraph about the importance of this.

 

Material and methods

Line 59. ‘2.1. Plant materials’ part: I suggest inserting a short paragraph about the characterization of used species and cultivars. Adding some photos would also be nice.

Line 173. ‘2.7. Statistical analysis’ part: Please, clarify “SPSS version 29” (e.g. IBM SPSS for Windows^TM 29 (IBM, New York, NY, USA)).

 

Results

In my opinion this is a well written parts and including valuable results and information.

 

Discussion

Line 396. “Pelargonium” italic

 

Conclusion

Do authors have any further plans? If yes, I suggest inserting some sentences about the future prospect in the ms.

 

Table S1.

Please correct ’Submenu Geranium’ to ’Subgenus Geranium’

 

After the required improvement, I suggest publishing the paper in Horticulturae.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper "Interspecific Hardy Geranium Progenies: Morphological Characterization and Genetic Evaluation", the research is meaningful, several issues need addressing:

 

1. Line 20: The term AFLP is mentioned for the first time and should be presented in its full form.
2. Lines 22-23: The statement "Morphological assessment of the flowers and leaves of the seedlings provided further confirmation of their F1 hybrid status" lacks specific information. Details should be provided to clarify.
3. Line 61: The format of the references is incorrect.
4. Figure 3 is visually unappealing and should be enhanced to improve its presentation quality.
5. AFLP analysis typically includes gel electrophoresis images, which are currently absent from the manuscript. At minimum, these should be included in the supplementary materials.
6. Pollen fertility assessments should be supported by images to provide visual evidence of the findings.
7. Figure 6: The photo of Geranium G49 leaves should be replaced. In its current form, the leaf appears to be affected by either a virus or bacterial infection.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has already answered my question, and I have no further questions.