Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 56 to 59, page 2. Both sentences describe the same and should be unified.

Lines 77 to 78, page 2. Flowering time and maturity timing are not qualitative traits, please rephrase the sentence.

Lines 125 to 127, page 3. Please describe in more detail the dimensions of experimental plots and replicates.

Table 1. This table does not show Mean square values in the body. Indeed, it shows the statistical significance of the source of variation through asterisks.

 

Figure 1. Be careful to do inference with results not showing linear correlations, the scatter plots between each pair of traits did not show a linear trend among variables.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. All changes have been highlighted in red in the text. The answers of the questions are in the present document.

Reviewer 1

Lines 56 to 59, page 2. Both sentences describe the same and should be unified.

This was amended according to reviewer’s comment. Please see lines 56-59

Lines 77 to 78, page 2. Flowering time and maturity timing are not qualitative traits, please rephrase the sentence.

This sentence was rewritten as suggested. Please see line 78

Lines 125 to 127, page 3. Please describe in more detail the dimensions of experimental plots and replicates.

We incorporate more details according to reviewer’s comment. Please see lines 124-130

Table 1. This table does not show Mean square values in the body. Indeed, it shows the statistical significance of the source of variation through asterisks.

Thanks for your comment. We modified the tittle for evict misconfusion. Please see line 175

Figure 1. Be careful to do inference with results not showing linear correlations, the scatter plots between each pair of traits did not show a linear trend among variables.

We agree with the reviewer's comment. Due to this, the correlation results were presented according to their positive/negative value and level of significance.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

changes made allow for publication

Author Response

Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is about Lagenaria siceraria a minor crop with interest for food and feed, also used as rootstock for grafted watermelon. The topic is interesting since the study represents the first characterization of the morphological diversity of L. siceraria based on the collection of germplasm from different countries and the use of root system traits.

However, in my opinion, there are some aspects that authors should consider:

Material and methods.

Line 115. Specify if accessions used in the study are landraces, improved landraces, or commercial varieties.

Supplementary Table S1. The codification of the samples is confusing, is there any reason for using these codes? if not, I suggest recodificate the samples, for example reflecting the variety (siceraria or hispida), or the country of origin.

Line 122. Include information about the place where the experiment was carried out, stating the coordinates and edaphoclimatic data.

Experimental design. Only three plants per accession were evaluated and not replicates were done in the experimental field. Justify this aspect.

Results.

Line 166. 3.1. ANOVA results. I suggest replacing by: 3.1. Morpho-agronomical variability.

Line 167-171. Mention the intra-accession variability observed, since only three plants have been evaluated.

Tables 2 and 3. Since accessions are not grouped according to the country, and statistical differences between accessions in each country has been found, these tables are not accurate. It would be better to determine homogeneous groups by using Multiple/Post Hoc Group Comparisons and show the mean and SD for each accession and evaluated parameter.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable feedback. All changes have been highlighted in red in the text. The answers of the questions are in the present document.

Reviewer 3

Material and methods.

Line 115. Specify if accessions used in the study are landraces, improved landraces, or commercial varieties.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. This information was included in the line 114.

Supplementary Table S1. The codification of the samples is confusing, is there any reason for using these codes? if not, I suggest recodificate the samples, for example reflecting the variety (siceraria or hispida), or the country of origin.

We not modified the codes because these were used in previous research’s.

Line 122. Include information about the place where the experiment was carried out, stating the coordinates and edaphoclimatic data.

We agree with the reviewer’s recommendation. This information was included in this new version. Please see lines 128-130.

Experimental design. Only three plants per accession were evaluated and not replicates were done in the experimental field. Justify this aspect.

We modified the text for evict misconfusion, because we used replicates. Please see line 132.

Results.

Line 166. 3.1. ANOVA results. I suggest replacing by: 3.1. Morpho-agronomical variability.

This was amended accordingly.

Line 167-171. Mention the intra-accession variability observed, since only three plants have been evaluated.

We evaluated three plants of each replicate.

Tables 2 and 3. Since accessions are not grouped according to the country, and statistical differences between accessions in each country has been found, these tables are not accurate. It would be better to determine homogeneous groups by using Multiple/Post Hoc Group Comparisons and show the mean and SD for each accession and evaluated parameter.

Tables 2 and 3 were changed for a new table 2, which indicates the information on morpho-agronomic and root traits of each bottle gourd accessions. On the other hand, the group analyses are in Supplementary Table 2 (by agglomerative hierarchical clustering) and 3 (by variety), which indicate the mean and Post Hoc Group Comparisons analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved by the authors, who have responded to all review requirements and modified the article accordingly.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I regret to recommend the rejection of this manuscript in its current form. The study aims to assess the genetic diversity and divergence within bottle gourd accessions, yet it falls significantly short in several key aspects. The evaluation is limited to a small number of accessions, and relies exclusively on a restricted number of phenotypic traits. The absence of molecular or biochemical analyses in a time when such tools are integral to robust genetic diversity assessments is a notable deficiency. Such a limited dataset and methodological approach do not provide a comprehensive understanding of the genetic diversity within bottle gourd accessions. To make a meaningful contribution to the field, the study should incorporate a broader and more diverse range of accessions, as well as molecular and biochemical analyses, which would strengthen the validity and significance of its findings. Without these crucial components, the manuscript lacks the depth and breadth required for publication in this journal.

Minor Comments:

1-      First of all the manuscript needs moderate grammatical and structural revision and plishing. For example, in title “accession’s” should be “accessions”.

2-      Moreover, a suggestive title could be like as: Comprehensive Assessment of Genetic Diversity in Bottle Gourd Accessions: A Focus on Roots and Morpho-agronomic Traits.

 

3-      It is need to bring some comparative image of evaluated accessions regarding plant, fruit or leaf morphology.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

reference to "genetic" diversity needs to be rewritten to morphological diversity in every instance "genetic" used

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

two edits noted see attached file otherwise excellent

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting for the Lagenaria breeding program. Overall the manuscript is well-written and the results are presented clearly. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only minor changes are requested in some paragraphs.