Developing Paraphalaenopsis labukensis (Shim, A. Lamb & C.L. Chan), an Orchid Endemic to Sabah, Borneo, Asymbiotic Seed Germination and In Vitro Seedling Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting and in general, is well written. However, it is necessary that the methodology be improved because the procedure of all variables is not included. It is also important to review the Duncan test because in most results there is inconsistency when presenting the letters of the test. Check the way of citing and updating part of the bibliography. The suggestions are directly included in the PDF
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer’s concerns.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Developing Rat-tailed Orchid (Paraphalaenopsis labukensis Shim, A. Lamb & C.L. Chan), an Orchid Endemic to Sabah, Borneo, Asymbiotic Seed Germination and in vitro Seedling Development”, provides preliminary results for in vitro propagation of a rare orchid, and proved that Knudson basal media works best in this case. This paper has high novelty and high potential impact.
I advise the authors to reduce the title to “Asymbiotic Seed Germination and in vitro Seedling Development of Endemic Orchid Paraphalaenopsis labukensis Shim, A. Lamb & C.L. Chan, from Sabah, Borneo”, you can insert “Rat-tailed Orchid” in key-words list, not necessary in the title.
Abstract – please do not omit to specify that this is first attempt to identify the in vitro multiplication protocol for this species, this is the greatest novelty of the paper.
The Introduction offers excellent background for the study, and is well documented.
Material and Method is explicit.
Line 174 “The results obtained in the current study are summarised in Table 1”. Why are the results presented here at Material and Method section?
Was this the assessment of development stages a specific objective? Then the duration of each stage per treatment variant should be given. If not, just enumerate them at Results “the following development stages were identified ....”
Delete lines 559-561.
General remarks
The manuscript is interesting and novel. But the chapters from the Results section are not well-connected with each other. I advise authors to help readers by providing a clear research line to follow: starting with the end of the introduction (where clear and objectives should be outlined), continuing with the Material and Method (please insert experimental design section and more clearly present the experimental variants that readers will encounter at Results), Results chapters should follow a logic that is connected with the next. Conclusions should mirror and respond to the objectives named at the end of the introduction.
Best regards.
some grammar mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer’s concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript (horticulturae-2418994) entitled " Developing Rat-tailed Orchid (Paraphalaenopsis labukensis Shim, A. Lamb & C.L. Chan), an Orchid Endemic to Sabah, Borneo, Asymbiotic Seed Germination and in vitro Seedling Development" submitted to Horticulturae, Heira Vanessa Nelson and colleagues identified the appropriate maturity stage for P. labukensis in vitro seed germinations and establish an in vitro mass propagation protocol. The result of this present study has successfully established an effective in vitro propagation protocol for this species. The writing is clear and concise and in good English. No major issues of concern, however some points or minor issues needs to be addressed to improve the quality of this manuscript.
1. For Figure 2, capsule data collected at the day of pollination (0DAP) should be analyzed in the revision. In addition, a picture to show the measurement of capsule length and diameter should be included in the revised figure 1.
2. For Figure 3, measurement of capsule length and diameter should be shown with arrows or lines in the revision.
3. For Figure 4B, faded pink is not obvious in this picture. Please replace with another representative picture.
4. For Figure 5, basal media used in this in vitro seed growth should be introduced in the revised legend.
5. For Figure 6, authors showed the P. labukensis in vitro protocorm proliferation and seedling development in KC medium here. The growth stages should be labeled in the revised figure.
6. Full names of the abbreviations IUCN, NAA, and BAP should be spelt out at their first appearance in this article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer’s concerns.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript improved considerably. However, I have small suggestions that can be incorporated into the final version. I consider that with these changes the document would be ready to publish.
My suggestions are the following:
Line 154: Previous by Hosomi ...
The two paragraphs of the statistical analysis suggest rewriting them and leaving only one because the information is repeated
FIGURE 1. Legend missing the capsule Diameter regression
Table 3. Duncan Letter is “A” for Kanudson C in 50 DAC
TABLE 4. DUNCAN LETTER FOR CW 15 IN PERCENTAGE OF PROTOCORM Proliferation is “B”. In CW10 Mean Number of New Protocorm is "A". And cw 10 percentage of necrosis is "B"
Table 6. Also check the letters of Duncan that were to change because they are not correct
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to confirm that we have carefully considered and incorporated all the comments and suggestions from the reviewers in our revised manuscript. The changes have been highlighted in the revised file for easy identification. We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript, making it more robust and well-presented
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
