Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc): A Crop for the New Millennium, Its Genetic Diversity, and Improvements to Mitigate Future Food and Nutritional Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached file for my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript title: Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc): Crop for New Millennium its Genetic Diversity and Improvement to Mitigate Future Food and Nutritional Challenges

 

Manuscript ID: (sustainability-1199328)

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The manuscript provided a comprehensive review of the crop Bambara groundnut. My main concern is there is a considerable amount of redundant information and overlapping information between sections. Readability of the review is low and needs improvement. Information are piled together, lacking organization. Also, some sections go on for two pages without any paragraph, again resulting in confusion and low readability. English requires extensive editing. I recommend major revision, and with a significant reduction in the manuscript length.

 

General response: Thank you much for your valuable comments. Authors are grateful to you for very fine and constructive criticism of the manuscript. The manuscript is revised by giving emphasis on all the valuable suggestions and comments. The manuscript is Grammarly edited and checked by English expert. Some relatively less information is deleted and rewrite to shorten the manuscript length. The point by point response of the reviewer comments are given bellow.

 

Please see my detailed comments below:

Point 1:

Introduction: break it into several paragraphs. The background information is not well organized. I cannot understand the flow of information reading the instruction. After reading the long introduction, I still don’t understand why Bambara groundnut has the potential to be future food.

 

Response 1:

The introduction is sectioned in several paragraphs. The background information is modified with the re-arrangement the flow of information.

 

The statement, regarding the Bambara groundnut has the potential to be a future food and nutrient sources are added in the main text of the manuscript.

 

Bambara groundnut has the potential to be future food because of - As a nutrient rich legume, Bambara nut often termed as “complete balanced diet”. The dried Bambara seeds possesses carbohydrates (64.4%), protein (23.6%), fat (6.5%), and fibre (5.5%) as well as rich in micronutrients such as K (11.44 – 19.35 mg/100g),  Fe (4.9 – 48 mg/100g),  Na (2.9 – 12.0 mg/100g) and  Ca (95.8 – 99 mg/100g). It is comparatively underutilized related to other major lucrative crops and frequently cultivated with marginal land, survival farming and in most cases, women are the main contributor in producing and processing of this crops. However, Bambara groundnut is known to be drought-tolerant, with good nutritional composition and capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Because of its inherent tolerance to stressful environments and the ability to produce some yield in soils that are too poor for cultivation of drought vulnerable species such as peanut, bambara groundnut has the potential to assist secure our future food and nutritional desires in the aspect of climate change, as part of a more diverse and resilient agricultural farming.

Moreover, this review provides a synopsis of significant role of V. subterranea to mitigate the gaps in food chain with ensuring the sustainable food and nutrient security.

 

Point 2:

L61-64: it is stated that” this crop is a potentially emerging legume crop” and crops for the millennium, and then it is stated that it is already the third most grown crop in Africa. Based on how much research has been done on Bambara ground nut, it seems it is a major crop, why it is underutilized?

Response 2:

I am completely agreeing with your statement. Now Bambara groundnut seems it is a major crop. Because globally a remarkable successful research has already been conducted, though research with multi-aspect is still ongoing to improvement of this crop. Now a days, most of the institutions allocated research grand directly or indirectly for the improvement of this crop species.

 

However, many of the plant species that are cultivated for food across the world are neglected and underutilized based on different pocket area of production specially newly introduced countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Thailand. Reasons for becoming this crop neglect or underutilized varies with the producers, consumers, researchers, geographical region, and the agricultural technicians (researchers and extensionists). This is widely justified since most of the institutions that support research in developing countries directly or indirectly emphasis on “major crops” in their grant announcements. The great majority (95.88%) of the agricultural technicians highlighted the lack of financial supports is the major reason of this crop treated as underutilized. Hitherto, the major focus of the national research fund has always been the major crops such as Cotton, sorghum, cassava, maize, yam, rice, and beans that can provide them with a lot of money in a short time. Both farmers and agricultural technicians listed as important reasons of neglect the lack of a national promotion policy of the neglected crops, the lack of organised markets, the susceptibility to pests and diseases and the lack of improved cultural practices and varieties. Contrary to technicians, farmers underline two other important reasons which are low yield and laborious production, postharvest processing (dehusking, hard-to-milling, hard-to-cook, fuel costing to cook) as well as insufficiency of scientific research.

 

Point 3:

L63: Bambara groundnut is considered ‘women’s crop’ multiple times through the manuscript, I don’t quite understand how is this relevant?

 

Response 3:

Justification of ‘women’s crop’: Oyugi et al. (2015) reported that the main production activities that were analyzed in relation to gender involvement included: land preparation activities, planting, weeding, pest control, harvesting, drying activities, threshing and winnowing. For Production Activities Index; female farmers’ PAI = 2.7 while male farmers’ PAI = 1.9. Conclusion: Results of data analysis revealed that involvement level of female farmers was higher than the male farmers in production activities with female farmers exhibiting a higher level of involvement. Extension agents should make female farmers their priority in trying to revive production of the crop.

 

However, the frequent use of the term ‘women’s crop’ is discarded from the manuscript text as per your suggestion.

 

Point 4:

L65: change concern to considered

Response 4:

The word “concern” changed to “considered”

 

Point 5:

L66: italicize scientific names

Response 5:

The scientific name “Arachis hypogea” and “Vigna unguiculata “modified by Italic format as  “Arachis hypogea” and “Vigna unguiculata “

Point 6:

L164-168: confusing long sentence, break it into several shorter ones

Response 6:

The confusing long sentences (L164 – 268) is separated into shorter sentences.

 

The optimum temperature for Bambara groundnut seed germination is 30–50°C whereas 20 to 28°C day temperature is ideal for normal crop growth and development (Kenedabie et al. 2016).  Day length or photoperiod influence the regular growth of Bambara groundnut mostly affects the pod set and filling. It is typically a short-day plant and it requires frost free period of at least 3-5 months (Kenedabie et al. (2016).

 

Point 7:

L170: change welly to well

Response 7:

The word “welly” changed to “well”

 

Point 8:

L171: add space between 500 and mm, and check through the manuscript for such errors.

Response 8:

A space is added between 500 and mm also thoroughly check is done in the manuscript for such error.

 

Point 9:

L175: what do you mean by plant disappears? Until they die?

Response 9:

Yes, plant disappears is changed to “until plant die”

 

Point 10:

Section 1.1.: please improve organization of information, in L167 you mentioned first they require 3-5 months, and then stated that their life span is 100-180 days, and then they started flowering 30-55 days, but 50% flowering is 86-88, or 64-66 days? These information needs to be organized to be logic and remove overlapping information.

Fig 1: there is no explanation of what the pictures are?

Fig 2: How is this figure necessary? Please justify

 

Response 10:

The line 167 “Typically, the total life span of the Bambara groundnut plant is between 100 and 180 days (Baudoin & Mergeai, 2001)” is deleted.

 

Fifty percent flowering in rainfed condition was recorded 64-66days and in irrigated condition it takes 86-88 days to 50% flowering.

 

Duplicate information is discarded, and information’s are re-organized as per reviewer demand.

 

Figure 1 shows some processed and confectionary food items manufactured by centre for future crop (CCF) and different region of the world as Indonesia, India, Mexico and Malaysia (Atoyebi et al., 2018; Gbaguidi et al., 2018; Gregory et al.,  2019; Feldman et al., 2019).

 

Figure 2: shows the different region based traditional or indigenous foods prepared by Bambara groundnut seeds and flour.

Justification:

Traditional/indigenous food product(s) are that a given community acquire and process from bio-diverse plant sources available in their ecology. Traditional foods have special place among the communities because of their unique sensory acceptability, cultural heritage, health benefits, religious, and commercial values. Most plant-based traditional foods/dishes consumed are low in sugar and fat, but are wholesome (whole grains, with dietary fibers) with high potential for diet diversification. The documentation provided in Figure 2 will help to create awareness for preservation of the traditional foods/dishes and beverage culture, and as a baseline information for further studies for those nutrient and bioactive compound data are not available.

 

In figure 2, some text in box is missing or breakdown that’s why I replaced a new same figure 2 in the main manuscript.

 

Point 11:

Section 2.0: too much redundant information, not enough effective information. ‘snacks’ was mentioned twice in this section, the use of fresh pods is also mentioned multiple times. Please summarized information from different references, instead of list information from different

references

Response 11:

The redundant and duplicated information was discarded. The information is summarized as per reviewer suggestions.

 

Point 12:

L256: what do you mean by ‘deeply ordered’, or ‘high taste’ in L259?

Response 12:

The word ‘deeply ordered’ is changed to “high demand” i.e., most popular food item and

‘high taste’ is changed to “highly delicious”

 

Point 13:

L322: change significant to significance

Response 13:

The word ‘significant” is changed to “significance”

 

Point 14:

Section 3.0: production of Bambara groundnut can be organized after agronomy attributes of this crop.

Response 14:

Section 3.0: production of Bambara groundnut is rearranged after the section of agronomic attributes of this crop.

 

Point 15:

Section 4.0: why ‘women’s crop’ is mentioned so many times, but never explained why? Again, cooking period, women’s crop, or poor man’s crop are all repetitive information mentioned before.

Response 15:

All the repetitive information (such as cooking period, women’s crop, or poor man’s crop) that are mentioned before is deleted from section 4.0.

 

Point 16:

Sections 5.0 and 10.0 are over lapping

Response 16:

The overlapping information from section 5.0 and 10.0 is deleted and section 5.0 segmented into subsection 5.1 and 5.2. Only the unique information from section 10.0 is organized under subsection 5.2

 

Point 17:

Section 8.0: research on hybridization (traditional breeding) can be placed before molecular breeding section. I don’t understand the organization in sections 5.0 to 11.0, there seems to be a lot overlapping. For example, sections of molecular toolbox for improvement, genetic mapping for improvement, and future research for improvement should be better organized.

Response 17:

The section “research on hybridization (traditional breeding)” is replaced before molecular breeding section. Section 5.0 to 11.0 is thoroughly revised, and the duplicated and unnecessary information is deleted, and the presence information is well organized.

 

Point 18:

Section 12.0: can be moved to be 2.4

Response 18:

Section 12.0 “processing of Bambara groundnut “ is moved to subsection 4.4 under the section 4.0

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major Comments

• The authors should take into account that similar review has been just published in Frontiers in Nutrition Journal (2020 December) by Xin Lin Tan et al. Bambara Groundnut: An Underutilized Leguminous Crop for Global Food Security and Nutrition (Front. Nutr, 2020, Vol.7, art 601496) and certainly this work should be cited by the authors
• Both reviews contain one and the same picture (2 Some traditional food using Bambara groundnut in the different region of Africa.), Complete identity of the drawings indicate the existence of one and the same source.  The Figure is fine, so it seems sufficiently just to cite the work from where the data have been taken
• The reference list and citation in the text should be corrected according to the authors guidelines (numbers in square brackets in the text, abbreviated journal name in Italic, year-bold letters, etc.in the reference list)

Author Response

Manuscript title: Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc): Crop for New Millennium its Genetic Diversity and Improvement to Mitigate Future Food and Nutritional Challenges

 

Manuscript ID: (sustainability-1199328)

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

General response: Thank you much for your valuable comments. Authors are grateful to you for very fine and constructive criticism of the manuscript. The manuscript is revised by giving emphasis on all the valuable suggestions and comments. The point by point response of the reviewer comments are given bellow.

 

Point 1:

The authors should take into account that similar review has been just published in Frontiers in Nutrition Journal (2020 December) by Xin Lin Tan et al. Bambara Groundnut: An Underutilized Leguminous Crop for Global Food Security and Nutrition (Front. Nutr, 2020, Vol.7, art 601496) and certainly this work should be cited by the authors

Response 1:

Thank you for your advice.

The authors are cited “Lin Tan et al. (2020)” properly in the text and reference list in the manuscript.

 

Point 2:

Both reviews contain one and the same picture (2 Some traditional food using Bambara groundnut in the different region of Africa.), Complete identity of the drawings indicate the existence of one and the same source. The Figure is fine, so it seems sufficiently just to cite the work from where the data have been taken.

Response 2:

The data or information in Figure 2 “Some traditional food using Bambara groundnut in the different region of Africa” is properly acknowledged by the authors in the manuscript text and figure footnote, from where the data have been taken.

 

Point 3:

The reference list and citation in the text should be corrected according to the authors guidelines (numbers in square brackets in the text, abbreviated journal name in Italic, year-bold letters, etc.in the reference list)

Response 3:

The list of references and citations in the text is corrected according to the authors guidelines of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It would be good to see a clear version along with the track-changed version. The organization of the revised manuscript is improved based on the original version. 

In this new version, I didn't see as much English editing, which still needs to be improved. For example, in line 23 in the abstract, two spaces were used in front of Enlarging. And are a number of these examples throughout the manuscript, which requires language editing and proofing, especially for a review of this length. 

The newly added figures are helpful. I'm still not sure about how effective Figures 4 and 5 are though.

 

 

Author Response

Manuscript title: Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc): Crop for New Millennium its Genetic Diversity and Improvement to Mitigate Future Food and Nutritional Challenges

 

Manuscript ID: (sustainability-1199328)

 

Response to Reviewer  Comments

 

General response: Thank you much for your valuable comments. The authors are grateful to you for your very fine and constructive criticism of the manuscript. The manuscript is revised by emphasizing all the valuable suggestions and comments. The point-by-point response to the reviewer comments is given below.

 

Point 1:

It would be good to see a clear version along with the track-changed version. The organization of the revised manuscript is improved based on the original version. 

Response 1:

The clear version along with the track-changed version of the manuscript is attached to the online submission system.

Point 2:

In this new version, I didn't see as much English editing, which still needs to be improved. For example, in line 23 in the abstract, two spaces were used in front of Enlarging. And are a number of these examples throughout the manuscript, which requires language editing and proofing, especially for a review of this length. 

Response 2:

In the manuscript, grammatical error, spelling and all other typing error is carefully checked and edited to improve the manuscript content as per your suggestions.

Point 3:

The newly added figures are helpful. I'm still not sure about how effective Figures 4 and 5 are though.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your comments. With proper respect to you, here I state that figure 4 and 5 shows evidence of some modern and traditional foods made by Bambara groundnut. I hope it will help to make the manuscript resourceful, informative, motivate the reader (to whom this crop is unknown) as well as increase the attractiveness of the manuscript.  

However, if you suggest me or you assume that there is no significant of these two figures then I will discard these (from me there is no objection to delete these).

Moreover, in this revised version I converted “Table 1” into Figure as Figures 4a and 4b.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf