The Leafy-Stem-Buried Etiolation Contributed to the High Efficiency of Rootstock Vegetative Propagation in Avocado (Persea americana)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors tested different conditions to test the rootstock vegetative propagation in Avocado. I think the study is interesting and well written but i have some major and minor points to be addressed.
Major points:
1.- It is very difficult to determine the novelty of this study considering that as authors say "About half a century ago, successful avocado rooting of cuttings using etiolation were reported"and there are many papers about avocado rootstock propagation that include an etiolation step. Authors never highlight the novelty of the work. I strongly suggest to improve the manuscript trying to highlight the novelty of the study.
2.- The results shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 is the same shown in Figure 5. Different statistical analyzes but the same data. I suggest to join both statistical analyzes in Figure 5 and to send the tables to supplementary information.
3.- The statistical information about the multiple difference analysis for different factors and levels in stem-buried etiolation treatment (section 3.7) are not shown. Just as an example: In lines 233-234 is declared: "The range analysis showed that for both in situ rooting and re-cutting, the most important factor affecting rooting rate of both cultivars was PGR concentration (Tables 2-5)". But in Tables 2-5 there is not information about this range analysis.
4.- There are not figure legends that properly explain each figure.
5.- It is necessary to change the order of figures 4 because Figure 4B1 is explained before Figure A and without a figure legend that properly explain each figure it results very confusing.
Minor points
Please check the attached file. But a frequent format mistake is the extra space between words for example in the title the extra space between "of" and "Rootstock".
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented very interesting and complicated research on the propagation of two avocado rootstocks. However, the different levels of individual factors (substrates, rooting aids, their exposure time, and additionally etiolation) need to be explained more clearly in the methodology. The authors did not exercise due care in the editorial preparation of the text of the publication, numerous errors were marked in yellow in the publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The level of English is sufficient.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBadly written manuscript making reading very difficult. This is due to English language but also due to the complicated presentation of results.
The experimental design is completely wrong, as auxins, concentrations and dipping duration are intermingled without any reference to previous work and logic.
L23, L72 you are using rootstocks; the word cultivar is used for varieties used to produce fruit. The rootstocks are varieties.
L25 you say here cuttings and not buds, your cuttings were not buds.
Never mentioned the varieties before the end of the abstract, you must move the dipping duration before cutting size. The Abstract needs some changes to be read smoothly.
L40 which is the difference between salt and alkali?
L63 change the sentence in something meaningful
L68-69 but your etiolation method plus all other treatments is not easy or technically applicable for mass rootstock production. After 4-5 pages of the manuscript we realize that etiolation for you is the cuttings remain in darkness horizontally and not etiolated on the mother plant as etiolation is usually used. So, this is not etiolation as we know it. You removed the leaves and left the cuttings in deep substrate in the dark.
L81 you say you did the experiments in 2019 and you have climatic data from 2018.
L89 the shed is what? You were talking about greenhouse up to now.
L95-96 you talk about different media and then you have only one medium and how does it turn to mud?
Table 1: you soaked the whole cutting in the case of the horizontal lay out or only the base? And keeping for 1 or 2 hours in auxin solution may cause toxicities. And why did you use different auxins besides IBA, which is the classic and only auxin used in cuttings’ rooting?
L98-99 very bad English writing
L107 what is the difference between shoots and stems?
Table 1 what is the reason for using 100 ppm, when you have semi-hardwood or woody cuttings?
L122, 124 what is budding? Growth from buds? Shoot?
L127-128 why did you do this?
L149 only for the certain varieties, not for all avocado germplasm
L150 you used different substances, and you had previous published works. Why did you do these treatments?
L155 as long as a shoot (not bud) grows in the dark, it is etiolated, nothing else.
Table 2 Finally you have only certain treatment combinations and all. How did you choose which ones to use? And, of course, IBA at 2500 ppm was the successful treatment, what else? Do you realize the toxicity you may have caused using long dipping times? But it is not only dipping time, it is also very low IBA. The same for Table 3.
Tables 4 and 5: but re-cutting decreased rooting and rooting quality compared to stuck to mother cutting.
L276-277 unclear part of sentence and no connection between auxins and parenchyma cells or photosynthesis
L277-278 enhanced decreased from what?
L286 but oxidases include IAA oxidase which destroys IAA. How do oxidases help rooting?
L303-307 useless historical review on auxins
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
the English is bad in some cases and incomprehensible in other cases. Some parts are relatively readable. In general, very difficult to comprehend.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the revised version is better than the original and I only have some minor comments:
1.- Line 132: "The the factors were".
2.- Lines 168-179: These lines are in italics.
3.- Line 238: "Leverl".
4.- Line 264: "2023)," are underlined.
5.- Line 297: "indolebcetic".
6.- Line 361: "Under these condition"
7.- The legends of figures 3 and 4 legend are separated.
8.- The format of the supplementary tables are confusing.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I think the quality of English is fine
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTo my opinion you did not understand or did not answer the following comments correctly:
how does it turn to mud?
L98-99 very bad English writing
what is the difference between shoots and stems
for using 100 ppm
as a shoot (not bud) grows in the dark, it is etiolated (bud and shoot keep confused)
but re-cutting decreased rooting and rooting quality compared to stuck to mother cutting
but oxidases include IAA oxidase which destroys IAA
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
