Screening of Morphophysiological, Anatomical, and Ultrastructural Traits to Improve the Elite Genotype Selection in Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The problem that the authors decided to solve is an important environmental one, especially in the light of climate changes which can affect food availability as well as quality.
The introduction clearly presents the problem and goals the authors want to achieve with the paper. The goal stated by the authors is of high significance.
Material and methods
The description of methods applied in the study is correct and does not require any further supplementation.
Results and Discussion
The description of results, also in terms of graphic design, may be accepted. The discussion explains the meaning of the results exhaustively. It contains reference to many items of the worldwide literature. On the basis of the results analysis, the authors drew clear conclusions.
Author Response
The authors we are thankful to you and the anonymous reviewer for the crucial comments and suggestions. We have attempted to address all comments and have corrected all minor and major mistakes outlined by the reviewers. The revised sections in the manuscript are highlighted in red and the revisions corresponding to the reviewers’ comments are presented in a detailed point-by-point in this summary. Texts in blue plus horizontal lines are sentences that have disregard. By the way, the authors are thankful to the reviewers of Horticulturae for the remarks made regarding our study, and therefore present answers to the questions raised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Screening in Sugarcane (Saccharum officiarum L.) to Improve the Elite Genotype Selection- Pompelli MF, Jarma-Orozo and Rogrigues-Paez LA
It is obvious that a lot of work has gone into this study on sugarcane, however I do have some major concerns. The title should reflect more of the work done in the paper especially all the plant physiology work that has been carried out- Screening WHAT???? Title does not marry to the work that has been done.
Example: Screening a range of Physiological Traits in Sugarcane…
Introduction- This needs to be expanded more- needs to be more written on the sugarcane species itself – ploidy levels etc, and also about its importance globally as a crop- all the information given seems very localised. Where else is sugarcane grown- no mention of Australia, France, Cuba, Malaysia, US, India, China, Bangladesh, Sudan, Mexico, and Philippines!
Line 58: should be “plant breeding” not “plant breading”
Table 1 with Main characteristics needs to be better defined- does all the text refer to all the cultivars used in the study? How were these cultivars chosen?
Material and Methods- surely after leaf material is immersed initially in liquid N is then stored at -80oC not -20oC?
Line 138- should be “height”
My major concern is that only 4 cultivars were used in this study- a similar study by Zan et al 2020 PLOS ONE looking at agronomic traits used 236 species from the countries I have mentioned above. The four cultivars used in this study were from Brazil- Zan et al used 13 species from Brazil- why were there not more species used?
Were there any drought tolerant species among these 13 species that could have been used? Do the cultivars used in this study have more memorable names or common names that are more easily remembered for the reader?
Lines 210 and 211- seems to be a recurring mistake- should be early not yearly? Please correct this throughout document-lines 240, 247, and 250.
Author Response
The authors we are thankful to you and the anonymous reviewer for the crucial comments and suggestions. We have attempted to address all comments and have corrected all minor and major mistakes outlined by the reviewers. The revised sections in the manuscript are highlighted in red and the revisions corresponding to the reviewers’ comments are presented in a detailed point-by-point in this summary. Texts in blue plus horizontal line are sentences which have disregard. By the way, the authors are thankful to the reviewers of Horticulturae for the remarks made regarding our study, and therefore present answers to the questions raised.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find my remarks in the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors we are thankful to you and the anonymous reviewer for the crucial comments and suggestions. We have attempted to address all comments and have corrected all minor and major mistakes outlined by the reviewers. The revised sections in the manuscript are highlighted in red and the revisions corresponding to the reviewers’ comments are presented in a detailed point-by-point in this summary. Texts in blue plus horizontal line are sentences which have disregard. By the way, the authors are thankful to the reviewers of Horticulturae for the remarks made regarding our study, and therefore present answers to the questions raised.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Satisfied that most of my concerns have been met but for future reference I need to reiterate that 4 species is not a sufficient pool of samples to base research of this kind on.
