Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the manuscript. After reviewing it, I might say that I have noticed an overlap with your previously published article in MDPI Biology (2024), including similar text in the Introduction and Methods and around 16 identical references. Generally, this is normal, if the present paper a logical continuation of the 2024 research, still, some questions arose.

1. Why  the MDPI Biology (2024) is cited as Kumar et al. [32].  in the text, when no such citation exist in the Reference list?

2. In the references list, there is 32.Muniandi, S.K. Crop Improvement of Moringa oleifera L. (…) Biology 2024, 13(2), 198.
Without co-authors.
And no citation for this name in the text.

3. This new manuscript does not explain the novelty compared to the previous publication.

4. There is a conceptual inconsistency: in the Biology article you state that seed propagation is not recommended due to high variability, yet in the current manuscript germination tests and seedling media trials are presented without any explanation of this change. This reduces the coherence of the presence study and creates confusion for the readers.

Please clarify this issue via a cover letter to editors or reorganize the article.

As other comments, I would mention that figure 3 (calibration curve for astragalin) does not contribute to the scientific findings of the manuscript, as calibration curves are routine analytical procedures and are not relevant to the propagation-focused objectives.

Overall, the manuscript needs clarification of what is new, how it differs from your previous work, and how all components support the main research aim.
I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript accordingly. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several issues with the English expression, and the manuscript would benefit from careful professional proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting study and has potential, but it requires substantial improvements in scientific rigor, clarity of rationale, methodological transparency, data validation, and depth of discussion. In its present form, I recommend major revision to meet the standards of the journal as follows:

1. The Introduction is overly long, repetitive, and provides extensive textbook-level background instead of building a focused scientific argument. The rationale for integrating seed germination, cutting propagation, and air-layering lacks grounding in recent literature, and the manuscript does not identify a precise knowledge gap that this study aims to fill. Several statements are generic, not referenced appropriately, or do not logically lead to the objectives. A complete restructuring of the Introduction is required to articulate (i) what is known, (ii) what is unknown, and (iii) how this study addresses the identified gap.
2. The manuscript highlights plus-tree selection but provides no quantifiable criteria, scoring system, or statistical basis, age, tree to tree distance etc. for selecting superior genotypes. The traits mentioned (e.g., pod size, branching habit, pest tolerance) are described qualitatively without any data-driven methodology. Without a standardized selection protocol, the genotype-dependent variation reported later becomes scientifically unreliable. A detailed, measurable, and replicable plus-tree selection procedure is essential. Refer this article for genotype selection on the basis of morphological traits 1016/j.sajb.2024.12.010.
3. Across seed, cutting, and air-layering studies, essential components of scientific experimental design are missing. Replication is unclear or inadequate, randomization is not described, environmental control descriptions (temperature, humidity, substrate properties) are insufficiently documented, and growth conditions are not standardized. For seed germination, the use of only “forty seeds” is insufficient for statistical inference. In cutting and air-layering experiments, rooting percentages show unusually uniform and high values without presentation of variance, confidence intervals, or justification, raising concerns about data robustness.
4. Tables contain incorrect or illogical units, most notably, shoot number and root number being presented in “cm,” which is biologically impossible. Additionally, some values in the tables appear inflated or unrealistic (e.g., multiple treatments with 100% rooting).
5. The HPLC methodology lacks key analytical parameters such as gradient program, injection volume, run time, peak purity evaluation, LOD, LOQ, recovery percentage, and validation metrics. The calibration curve is presented without error bars or statistical validation. Without these essential details, the chemical quantification cannot be interpreted reliably. A full methodological and analytical validation is required.
6. The Discussion largely repeats results and fails to integrate the findings with physiological, ecological, or biochemical mechanisms that govern propagation success. There is insufficient comparison with existing literature on lignification, carbohydrate partitioning, endogenous hormone gradients, or seasonal influences on rooting capacity. Key foundational works such as Cannell’s propagation physiology framework or modern clonal propagation studies are missing. The authors must synthesize findings in a mechanism-based, literature supported manner.
7. The manuscript concludes by claiming to offer a “comprehensive propagation framework,” despite the highly localized sample (limited genotypes from Peninsular Malaysia) and the absence of field validation or genetic confirmation of clonal fidelity. Claims must be tempered and aligned with the actual scope and limitations of the study.
8. The manuscript contains grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and formatting inconsistencies. A thorough language editing is required.
9. Figures need clearer labels, consistent units, scale bars, and improved resolution.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript, “Integrated propagation strategies for elite genotypes of Moringa oleifera L. to enhance sustainable planting material production,” has investigated the impacts of different proportions in enhancing the potential of Moringa oleifera for sustainable production material. The manuscript is an interesting idea and well-written, yet it needs substantial improvement before being published in MDPI forests.

The abstract section is enriched with methodological information, and the authors have focused less on the results. The abstract lacks a strong conclusion, which can detract the readers. There is a need to add a strong conclusion at the end of the abstract to give a clear message of the study findings.

The study objectives should be improved and its current form they are giving no clear message.

If all the experiments were conducted in controlled conditions? Then what were the conditions there? What were the temperature, humidity, and other traits? Please add this information to the revised version.

What kind of soil was used for the experiment? The soil analysis should be added in the materials and methods section. Similarly, the composition of peat and compost should also be added here. Besides this, the author should also add the sources of all these products.

The discussion part should be separated from the results. Authors should divide the results and discussion parts.

Overall, the results are given in a well-mannered way; however still they are still very long, and therefore, I suggest that the authors revise the results section and make this section precise and concise.

Additionally, the discussion section needs substantial improvement, and there is a dire need to add more logical reasoning in this section.

The conclusion is just the repetition of results. It should be revised and should include how it could be beneficial for policymakers and readers. Further, authors should also include the future research directions in this section.

Thanks

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I Accept the paper after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing).   Here are my corrections lines 57–65 and 86–92: Two sections repeat similar descriptions of Moringa’s benefits.   lines 77-79: Missing closing parenthesis after “leaf production,”.

line 195 - Explain who TEM is, why it is named like this? What genotype or variety?  Now TEM is never defined in Methods.  
line 270: Are you sure that for air-layered branches the girth is 15 to 20 cm instead of mm? From Figure 7 it seems more like 1.5 - 2 cm, otherwise is unrealistic based on images. I expect it should be likely 15–20 mm.
→ Verify and correct.   line 245. This sentence appears twice. All cuttings were treated with Rootmone by dipping their basal ends in the so-245 lution for 5 minutes.   line 289. Is `Table 3. Treatments imposed for germination studies in Moringa oleifera seed` referring to germination studies, or to Development of Air Layering Techniques, as it is stated in point 2.9 of Material and Methods   lines 291, 350. There is inconsistent p-value notation, a mix of “P≤ 0.05” and “p < 0.05”. Standardize to MDPI style (p < 0.05).   line 427 . In the table , there is one value with a comma instead of a dot 4.76 ± 1,14ab   line 509 `Our observation that all cuttings 509 rooted and produced shoots`, but in table 8 you have 44.43 ± 11.13b top cuttings producing shootings. This leads to a contradiction regarding top cuttings.   line 542 - delete the `=` sign after the word cm.    line 516: Typo “n our study”. Replace n with in.   line 531: Mixed bracket: “(58,59]”.

line 657 - The Figure 6  title must be revised . Now it is `Figure 6. Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between cutting diameter (mm) and the 657 number of roots produced`, but the figure refers to shoots . Consider a captation error.   line 714 - In the table,  Root number (cm) cannot be in cm, it is just a number   line 835, 850 , 854 All references have a http format for DOI, except these ones doi:10.14511/jasa.2013.020212. ,  doi:10.1155/2018/9794625  , doi: 10.1080/13813455.2020.1740742    Please correct for consistency   line 863. 48. Leakey. RRB, (1982). Leakey, R.R.B., Chapman, V.R. and Longman, K.A. (1982).Physiological studies for tropical tree im .... Who are the authors??   As a general remark, there still are some long sentences, difficult to follow. Please consider splitting them for more clarity and ease of reading (lines 523–531, 575–599.) 

 

Author Response

 

I Accept the paper after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and for carefully checking every detail of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the thorough effort and are thankful to have such a meticulous review. We have carefully corrected all the mistakes pointed out. Below, we provide each comment from the reviewer along with our responses and the corresponding corrections made.
Here are my corrections
1.
lines 57–65 and 86–92: Two sections repeat similar descriptions of Moringa’s benefits.
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The redundant text has been removed, and the description of Moringa’s benefits is now consolidated into a single section for clarity.
2.
lines 77-79: Missing closing parenthesis after “leaf production,”. line 195 - Explain who TEM is, why it is named like this? What genotype or variety? Now TEM is never defined in Methods.
The missing parenthesis has been added. TEM refers to a local Moringa genotype used in this study. A full explanation has been added in the result section where it was first mentioned
3.
line 270: Are you sure that for air-layered branches the girth is 15 to 20 cm instead of mm? From Figure 7 it seems more like 1.5 - 2 cm, otherwise is unrealistic based on images. I expect it should be likely 15–20 mm. → Verify and correct.
Thank you for pointing this mistake. The correct branch girth is 15–20 mm. This has been corrected throughout the text and figure captions.
4.
line 245. This sentence appears twice. All cuttings were treated with Rootmone by dipping their basal ends in the so-245 lution for 5 minutes.
The repeated sentence has been removed.
5.
line 289. Is `Table 3. Treatments imposed for germination studies in Moringa oleifera seed` referring to germination studies, or to Development of Air Layering Techniques, as it is stated in point 2.9 of Material and Methods
Table 3 refers to air -layering studies. We have revised the table caption for clarity to: “Table 3. Treatments imposed for air-layering studies in Moringa oleifera.
6.
lines 291, 350. There is inconsistent p-value notation, a mix of “P≤ 0.05” and “p < 0.05”. Standardize to MDPI style (p < 0.05).
All p-values have been standardized to “p < 0.05” according to MDPI style.
7.
line 427. In the table, there is one value with a comma instead of a dot 4.76 ± 1,14ab
Corrected to “4.76 ± 1.14ab” for consistency.
8.
line 509 `Our observation that all cuttings 509 rooted and produced shoots`, but in table 8 you have 44.43 ± 11.13b top cuttings producing shootings. This leads to a contradiction regarding top cuttings.
We appreciate the reviewer pointing this out. The text has been revised to accurately reflect the data in Table 8
9.
line 542 - delete the `=` sign after the word cm.
We have removed the ‘=’ sign after the word cm.
10.
line 516: Typo “n our study”. Replace n with in.
Corrected to “in our study.”
11.
line 531: Mixed bracket: “(58,59]”.
Corrected to “[58,59].”
12.
line 657 - The Figure 6 title must be revised. Now it is `Figure 6. Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between cutting diameter (mm) and the 657 number of roots produced`, but the figure refers to shoots. Consider a captation error.
Figure 6 caption has been revised to correctly describe the relationship between cutting diameter (mm) and the number of shoots produced.
13.
line 714 - In the table, Root number (cm) cannot be in cm, it is just a number
Corrected to simply “Root number” (unit removed).
14.
line 835, 850, 854 All references have a http format for DOI, except these ones doi:10.14511/jasa.2013.020212., doi:10.1155/2018/9794625, doi: 10.1080/13813455.2020.1740742 Please correct for consistency
The DOI format has been standardized to the “https://doi.org/” format for consistency throughout the reference list. In addition, we identified and corrected several other minor errors in the references.
15.
line 863. 48. Leakey. RRB, (1982). Leakey, R.R.B., Chapman, V.R. and Longman, K.A. (1982). Physiological studies for tropical tree im .... Who are the authors??
Corrected reference: Leakey, R.R.B., Chapman, V.R., and Longman, K.A. (1982). Physiological studies for tropical tree improvement.
16.
As a general remark, there still are some long sentences, difficult to follow. Please consider splitting them for more clarity and ease of reading (lines 523–531, 575–599.)
Sentences in the indicated sections have been split and simplified for better readability. Technical details have been preserved while improving clarity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remove the word Elite from title and throughout the manuscript or replace with Promising or Superior genotypes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful suggestion regarding the use of the word 'elite'. We agree with your recommendation and will revise the accordingly by removing the term or replacing it with superior genotypes where appropriate. We appreciate your constructive feedback and the time you have taken to review our work.

Dr Sures Kumar M. (FRIM)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the MS, therefore, it can be send for publication.

 

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your time, effort and valuable comments on our manuscript, We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the quality and clarity of our work. We are grateful for your positive response to the revision and for your contribution to strengthening the manuscript

Dr Sures Kumar M (FRIM)