Ovule Number and Flower Size in Pea (Pisum sativum L.): Variation, Heritability, and Correlation with Some Components of Productivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In Introduction. Line 25, add “of” between “one” and “the most” in “….is one the most ancient legume crops…”  2. In Materials and Methods. Plot size and fertilization were not described.  3. Line 97, revise “24 * 24*20.5 cm” to “24 cm*24 cm*20.5 cm”.  4. Line 175-177, the climate data in Table 1 and Figure 1 was recorded only for the field trial, and the precipitation data showed the dry season in 2021. However, in the glasshouse trial, plants were watered manually. Thus, “so both field and glasshouse conditions may be evaluated as stressful” might be proper. The temperature in the glasshouse was not recorded. The stressing conditions in the glasshouse is not clear.  5. Some results in Table S1 and Table S4 were shown in the text. Suggestion was given that these two tables moved into the text, but not used as supplementary files.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

First and foremost, we would like to thank you for your work on our manuscript and helpful suggestions. According to them, we added some missing details, such as size of plot or absence of fertilization. In a description of pots, units (cm) were specified.
In our opinion, glasshouse conditions can be evaluated as stressful due to heat. In lines 100-101, it is stated that in some periods air temperature in a glasshouse exceeded 30 °C.
As for supplemental data, all four supplemental tables are referenced in the text. However, they contain some primary results and are quite voluminous (especially Tables S1 and S4). In our opinion, they are not that easy to read in a text. For that reason, we would prefer to retain these data as supplements.
For your convenience, all changes in a manuscript were highlighted using MS Word editing option, so you may easily find all corrections according to your and another reviewer’s comments. Thank you again for your help and suggestions which undoubtedly improved a readability of this text.

Best wishes,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Revision of the --Manuscript Draft-- Manuscript Number: horticulturae-2264578

Title: Ovule Number and Flower Size in Pea (Pisum sativum L.): Variation, Heritability, and Correlation with Some Components of Productivity.

Type: Article

This is a manuscript under the journal "Horticulturae (ISSN 2311-7524)", presented in a well-structured form. The manuscript is scientifically sound. It is of importance for understanding a basis for breeding pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars adapted to changing climate.

The cited total references are 27. The number of self-citations is 2 (7.4%). The recent publications within the last five years are 11 and represent 40.7% of the total references: in 2022 (four references); in 2021 (five references); in 2020 (two references); in 2019 (zero references) and in 2018 (zero references). The referred publications are relevant according to the Web of Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) impacts. For example, Plants in PLANT SCIENCES - SCIE(Q1); Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science in AGRONOMY - SCIE(Q1); Crop Science and Euphytica in AGRONOMY - SCIE(Q2); J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. in HORTICULTURE - SCIE(Q3); Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences relevant in AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY - SCIE(Q4), AGRONOMY AND CROP SCIENCES – SJR(Q3); Vavilov J. Genet. Breed. relevant in AGRICULTURA AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES – SJR(Q3).

From my point of view, the manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section but the interest to the scientific community could enhance if the authors take in consideration the following topics:

I suggest to declare abbreviation in the Abstract section. LN 17.

I suggest to add information in LNs 96, 97, 102.

Moreover, I suggest the authors for improving the manuscript to take care with details that need to be accurately corrected for the whole document.

Please, consider the suggestions in the attached document.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague,

First of all, we would like to express our gratitude for your work on our manuscript and helpful suggestions. Following them, we made some changes throughout a text. For your convenience, all changes in a manuscript were highlighted using MS Word editing option, so you may easily find all corrections according to your and another reviewer’s comments.
Some details were added, such as characteristics of soil, lamps, and digital camera (lines 96-106).
As for abbreviations, we specified the one for 1000 seed mass in the Introduction. In line 117, this abbreviation is introduced for the first time in a main body of a manuscript.
Thank you again for your help and suggestions which undoubtedly improved a readability and distinctness of our text.

Best wishes,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx