Estimation of Heterosis and Combining Ability for Improving Yield, Sweetness, Carotenoid and Antioxidant Qualities in Pumpkin Hybrids (Cucurbita moschata Duch. Ex Poir.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

When I read the title of the manuscript I was excited for the content, but this one really disappointed me. The introduction is probably the best quality of the entire article. Regarding the material, it would be appropriate to add why this material was chosen in the first place, because the choice of material is important for the assessment of GCA and SCA. The methodological part is problematic, where references and information about modification are provided for analytical methods. Subsequently, the entire procedure is described. Only the modification should be properly described. The information on the number of repetitions of analyzes is completely missing (How many of technical replication?). The Results part is processed very problematically and mainly in a confusing way, where the authors decided to project almost 100% of all the numerical data from the tables and graphs into the text, so it is very difficult to navigate in this part, because the information is very often duplicated. Many tables and graphs could be part of the appendices. The discussion is also very problematic, because the authors very often resort to the statement - "the same values", "lower and higher values" were found by other authors, but they do not think about the possible reasons. The discussion should be critical. Another problem is the choice of works for comparison, e.g. why do the authors compare the results with barley, wheat, tomatoes, papaya, maize etc. I would expect that the information obtained will be used as a priority and only for cucurbit plants! According to the WoS or Scopus databases, there are plenty of publications in the recent period. A comparison with these current publications could help the authors define newness in knowledge that is missing from the current manuscript. Not all tables and graphs are self-explanatory, i.e. contain a legend for abbreviations. The text would deserve correction of the English language by a native speaker or a commercial subject to remove typos. I would also recommend authors to respect the standards in writing professional names, e.g. Latin names in italics, etc. It is also appropriate to correct the format of journal names in the References section. In its current form, I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication, but its rejection (despite the large amount of data obtained by the authors - however, these must be adequately scientifically presented and discussed).

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 1

Reviewer 2 Report

Horticulture-1855488

Comments for authors

Authors of pumpkin hybrids studied the yield, soluble solid content, carotenoids of crop and antioxidant activity by crossing seven parent varieties of diallel mating. The magnitude of heterosis is influenced not only by the genetic background of the parents but also by their responses to the environment (genotypes x environments interaction).

The methodological part is well developed however the description of growing conditions (precipitation, temperature) is missing. The environment including drought and temperatures stress affects the synthesis of carotenoids which reduce the selection efficiency in breeding. Results in this regard have also been shown in other plant species (Nemeskéri 2006) so I propose to expand the literature review.

-Figure 2 is incomplete. I recommend re-editing it: on the right, specify what the % refers to. No explanation of the red line in the text.

-The heterosis magnitude of carotenoids and antioxidant activity in MPH, BPH and SH could be presented as done in Figure 4 and 5. The title contained these properties but there are few reviews and comparison in the manuscript.

-When evaluating the tables, in many cases the reported data does not match the data in the tables. The following shall be checked:

292 line: P3xP2 (313.37) does not match SNPF in Table 4

302 line: Lacks P4 carotenoid content.  2.7 mg 100g-1 is good?

305 line: P1xP6 (2.37 mg 100g-1) value is found at P1xP7 in Table4.

309 line: P6xP7 (64.67%) this is at P6xP5 crossing (Table4)

384 line: P6 (0.43) this is not in Table7.

In subsection 4 and 5, the long sentences should be changed to simpler ones: e.g.  first list the extreme values of the SCA effect for the given properties and then in another sentence the best combinations should be highlighted e.g. 385-388 lines and through the evaluation of Table7, 430-434 lines and through for Table8.

565-569 lines: this sentence is too long. Which part was your own result? 

Others

Typing and drafting errors:

71 line: ”hybrids ha a 15-25%” What does it mean?

100 line: “at field 10” Does this mean different experimental areas?

160 line: the correct abbreviation of gram is g and not gm. Thus

mg 100 g-1 should be written throughout the manuscript mg 100 gm-1 instead of

210 line: check the formula: not in formula number of parents i.e. n

292 line:” number of seeds per fruit?” is that correct?

303 line: “had lowest” I think the correct largest

338-339 the sentence not completed

397-398 is listed in the dry mater content evaluating and 404-408 line is also listed below check it. Dry mater content can be evaluated alone and the carotenoids and antioxidants content can be evaluated together. 

Does not match reference list:

525 line: Minaxi Sharma & Bhat [44]

583 line: Abdein et al. [22]

612 line: Hatwal et al. [39] 

Introduction and Discussion section could be expanded by results relating the subject such as Nemeskéri E (2006) Breeding strategy for improvement of colour quality and carotenoid levels in dry pea seeds. Commun. Biometry Crop Sci. 1 (1), 49-55.

 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not prepare answers to the reviewer's comments (they are not available online), and due to the amount of red text, it is very difficult to assess the modifications and their level. Yes, articles other than gourd plants have been removed from the text. However, the declaration of novelty in knowledge is not always obvious. E.g. by engaging in the discussion of references (48 and 67), which are of a general nature and originate from 1977, respectively 1974? Lines 878-879 (39) reveals information that was not the subject of the study. I also recommend a careful check of the units used, e.g. lines 466-469 are three different formats of one unit. In Figure 1, the wrong unit is kilograms with a capital K! The text must be checked very carefully to remove errors, and the Discussion section must clearly declare the novelty in knowledge, i.e. also using current literary sources and scientific studies. It is also appropriate to process responses to the reviewer's comments and questions for further review. I am currently recommending the manuscript for publication after major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors accepted all my comments, the manuscript can be published.