Measurement of Dry Matter and Starch in Modern Cassava Genotypes during Long Harvest Cycles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-The focus of the study is vague. The aims should be properly articulated in the abstract and introduction.

-The potential contribution(s) of this work should be concisely expressed in one or two sentences at the last paragraph of the introduction.

-Please be clear when you mean starch (ST) as opposed to starch content.

-Include some of your most important data to help explain the key findings of this study.

-Authors should consider including a flow chart or schematic of the study design.

-Grammatical errors and typos (e.g., Line 22) are pervasive in the entire manuscript and should be thoroughly revised and corrected.

-What informed the choice of individual genotypes selected for this study?

-Authors should include the limitations associated with the current study.

 

The manuscript is well-wrtten. However, there are instances of grammatical and typographical errors. The authors are encouraged to thorougly revise the manuscript.

Author Response

Hello, we did not find any new suggestions from this reviewer. If there is any request that has been made we can work to meet it.

Reviewer 2 Report

The publication is well prepared and detailed. Not many research methods were used, but to some extent it is compensated by a detailed treatment of the research problem.
However, I have a few minor doubts:
line 120, the record may suggest that homogenized roots were transported to the laboratory - please specify the sequence of activities at the place of cultivation and in the laboratory
lines 128-130: please show how the sample was prepared
table 3: are the authors sure that all relationships were statistically significant, and not just described by R^2?

English language is very good - some small corrections may be made.

Author Response

Hello, this reviewer's questions that appear in the journal's system were already answered in the previous round of review. If there is any new request, we are available to fulfill them.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled: “Measurement of Dry Matter and Starch in Modern Cassava Genotypes During Long Harvest Cycles” is scientifically sound and interesting. The study is well-designed and hard work to collect data from the field. Please find my comments below that might help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

- Overall, English language and style are fine.

- Abstract is fine.

- Introduction:  I think the authors should give more information of nine modern genotypes of cassava which were selected in your study.

- Page 7/17, footnote of Table 3: 0,1% I think it should be 0.1%.

- Discussion:

- I think the authors should explain the limitation of each empirical equation, because I think the empirical equations from your study could not use to predict in different areas and genotypes. So, from these points, you must provide more discussion.

- I think you have to discuss in each group of genotypes also i.e., IAC group, BRS group, etc.

- I think, your study is good for bioinformatic study and hopefully that it will be useful for agriculture and industry in the area of study and the other area can adapt to use it also.

 

Cheers

Author Response

We have made the requested corrections in the previous version

Reviewer 4 Report

Measurement of Dry Matter and Starch in Modern Cassava Genotypes During Long Harvest Cycles.
Interesting article from the agricultural point of view, a lot of work developed in the field, although I still have some doubts about the methodology.
It is recommended that the authors expand the introduction with the relevant topics for the article.
The authors are asked to explain the criteria for selecting and obtaining the seeds, their characteristics, and how they were chosen.
In the results, they only predict DM and ST, they present them in graphs, because they do not present the charts for SG.
It is recommended that the authors expand the conclusions, emphasizing the importance of the proposed empirical equations that allow a better prediction of the phenomenon under study.

Measurement of Dry Matter and Starch in Modern Cassava Genotypes During Long Harvest Cycles.
Interesting article from the agricultural point of view, a lot of work developed in the field, although I still have some doubts about the methodology.
It is recommended that the authors expand the introduction with the relevant topics for the article.
The authors are asked to explain the criteria for selecting and obtaining the seeds, their characteristics, and how they were chosen.
In the results, they only predict DM and ST, they present them in graphs, because they do not present the charts for SG.
It is recommended that the authors expand the conclusions, emphasizing the importance of the proposed empirical equations that allow a better prediction of the phenomenon under study.

Author Response

Interesting article from the agricultural point of view, a lot of work developed in the field, although I still have some doubts about the methodology.

R: We can try to clarify the doubtful points of the methodology if you tell us what they are.

It is recommended that the authors expand the introduction with the relevant topics for the article.

R: We have added more relevant topics to the introduction.

The authors are asked to explain the criteria for selecting and obtaining the seeds, their characteristics, and how they were chosen.

R: We have inserted this information in the text.

In the results, they only predict DM and ST, they present them in graphs, because they do not present the charts for SG.

The predicted DM and ST contents were obtained from the relationship between measured DM and starch contents with the SG values (shown in Table 3). In the graphs, we compare predicted DM content obtained by SG method with measured DM content. In the case of ST, the same thing happened, that is, predicted ST content obtained by the SG x the measured ST content. Therefore, this relationship suggested by the reviewer is the data that generated the equations presented in Table 3. We believe that this relationship is better presented in Table 3, but if the reviewer believes that its presentation in the form of graphs is better, we can do this change in a future version.

It is recommended that the authors expand the conclusions, emphasizing the importance of the proposed empirical equations that allow a better prediction of the phenomenon under study.

R: we have inserted more information in the conclusion to expand on the study findings.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear editors, good afternoon, I thank the authors for the corrections made to the article to improve it. I only find some errors in the English edition, which were pointed out in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear editors, good afternoon, I thank the authors for the corrections made to the article to improve it. I only find some errors in the English edition, which were pointed out in the article.

Author Response

We have made all the changes suggested by the reviewer.
We are available to make other corrections if necessary.