Variation of Morphological Traits and Quality Indices of Micropropagated Melia volkensii Gürke Clones before Field Planting
, Titus Magomere 2, Jackson Mulatya 3, Jan Vandenabeele 4, Florence Olubayo 2, Guy Smagghe 1 and Stefaan P. O. Werbrouck 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is scientifically interesting and offers a wide evaluation of the variations in the main morphological traits and quality indices of 13 micropropagated clones of Melia volkensii.
The introduction gives a rapid state of the art, which could be expanded, on Melia volkensii.
The Materials and method are detailed and the amount of evaluations done gives power to the manuscript.
Nevertheless, I invite the authors to be consistent on how they report the clones at lines 75 and 77 with the rest of the manuscript (Capital letter).
In Materials and method. sub-chapter 2.4, I kindly ask to the authors to re-arrange the paragraph in order to have the description of the measurement close to the first citation of the parameter itself.
The Results are clear.
Nevertheless, I ask the authors to better explain the sentence at lines 152-153 considering that in sub-chapter 4.1 of Discussion the value of survival is different.
If possible, I invite the authors to re-organize the Table presenting parameters and results in the same order used in Materials and method.
In Table 1, particularly in the Legend, the same info are reported at lines 184-186 and at lines 189-190, even though the parameters are contained in the second part of the table.
In Table 2, the parameter RD is not reported in the Legend.
At the beginning of the sub-chapter 3.4, in the description of the Results, the authors do not use the abbreviation to identify the parameters; conversely to what they have been done in almost the whole manuscript. Please be consistent.
In Table 4, please give more info on the Legend.
Discussions and conclusions are appropriate.
As highlighted for the sub-chapter 3.4, I kindly invite the Authors to use the abbreviations in sub-chapter 4.5 and in 5. Conclusion.
I kindly invite the authors to check the spelling because there are some errors due to a lack of consistency in the manuscript.
General and minor revisions of English are suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study “Variation of morphological traits and quality indices of micropropagated Melia volkensii clones before field planting” explores the variations in survival rate, shoot characteristics, root traits, and biomass features between 13 clones of Melia volkensii. Some other quality indices such as DQI, root dry weight ratio, sturdiness quotient were estimated and showed a large variations. Correlation analysis revealed that a good quality clone could be recognized by the higher stem diameter, plant biomass, root diameter, and collar diameter with a low shoot to roots ratio of its derived plants. The bibliography is full and accurate and contains all necessary related references.
Some comments to authors: the chlorophyll content was measure in the study; however, carotenoids concentration was not estimated. Along with chlorophylls, carotenoids are essential pigments of photosynthetic machinery. How much do you think the conclusions of your work could change, if you took into account the concentration of carotenoids?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- In the Introduction, it is better to add the importance of this species both ecologically and economically.
-
It is necessary to add information on the fruit used as source of the seed for explant, whether the fruit is mature or immature, and other quality characteristics.
- In the discussion, it is necessary to discuss: Are all the differences in clones for the various observed traits only due to differences in genetic-make up? or is there an interaction effect between genetic make-up and in vitro culture processes that cause somaclonal variation? Or is there a difference in size and quality of in vitro rooted shoots from different clones before being transferred to peat moss media?
- Is the leaflet number of in vitro originated plants similar to their field grown counterparts/the origin of the seed explants? (in vitro acclimated E34 clone has 5 leaflets and clone 20/21 has 9 leaflets). Or, the difference because of somaclonal variation/tissue culture process ?
- Table 4 needs reformating.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Most of my questions were answered, and my suggestions have been implemented.
