Regional Disparities Call for Defining the Target Population of Environments (TPEs) and the Breeding Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture: A Case Study on Rice Improvement in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic in agricultural sustainability and participatory breeding. The focus on regional disparities and TPE-based strategies in Vietnam is highly relevant to both national and global breeding programs. The dataset is valuable, and the approach has potential; however, the study requires significant improvements in structure, methodology, and analysis to meet the standards of Sustainability. Overall, the article reads more like a project report than a hypothesis-driven research paper. Strengthening scientific framing and analytical rigor will considerably improve its impact. However, the following areas need improvement:

• Conceptual Framing

The introduction needs a clearer explanation of how the “TPE” concept connects to sustainability and participatory breeding frameworks. The novelty claim should explicitly state how this work extends beyond previous participatory breeding studies. A short conceptual diagram showing the relationship between “regional variation,” “TPEs,” and “breeding decisions” could enhance understanding.

• Methodology

The methodology section lacks statistical rigor. Please justify the sample size (n=109) and describe the sampling method in detail. Explain how the selected provinces represent the target population of environments in Vietnam. Include a description of data validation or pre-testing procedures for the questionnaire. Consider applying basic inferential statistics (ANOVA, Chi-square, or correlation) to support regional comparisons. Clarify whether ethical approval and informed consent were obtained from farmer participants.

• Results and Discussion

The results are largely descriptive. Incorporate statistical tests to verify significant differences among regions. The discussion should interpret findings in light of current breeding strategies and environmental policies. Consider discussing implications for participatory or farmer-preferred trait selection in the context of sustainable agriculture. Provide a critical reflection on limitations (sample scope, representativeness, or socio-economic variability).

• Figures and Tables

Figures are clear but repetitive; some (e.g., Figures 4–6) could be merged or summarized for conciseness. Ensure consistent formatting, labels, and units across all figures and tables. Use higher-resolution graphics suitable for MDPI publication quality.

• Language and Structure

The manuscript needs professional English editing for fluency and precision. Avoid repetitive phrasing such as “The study shows that…” or “The results indicate that…” Improve paragraph transitions to enhance readability and logical flow.

4. Minor Comments

1. Abstract: Add a sentence emphasizing novelty and contribution to sustainable breeding frameworks.
2. Keywords: Include terms like Participatory Breeding, Genotype × Environment Interaction, Agroecological Zonation.
3. Introduction: Add recent references (post-2022) related to participatory rice breeding and environmental adaptability.
4. Discussion: Strengthen the link between empirical data and sustainable development objectives.
5. Conclusion: Add a “Policy Implications and Future Work” paragraph summarizing how this framework could guide regional breeding programs.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We thank you and the reviewers for the thorough and insightful comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to revise our paper and have carefully addressed all concerns raised. Please find our detailed responses in the table below, which outlines the reviewers’ comments, our corresponding revisions, and point-by-point replies.

We believe the revisions have substantially improved the clarity, relevance, and rigor of our manuscript. We hope it now meets the journal’s standards for publication.

We thank you again for your time and consideration!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reported a comprehensive study of target population of environments (TPE) for efficiently directing rice cultivars improvement to specific regions of Vietnam. The results are attractive for rice breeding and agricultural system for sustainability management. The feasibility and reliability of the social data for different rice growing regions and association for the cultivar structures and their environments were clearly presented, and the figures are in good quality. It is suitable for the publication after minor revision considering the following suggestions.

1. For general readers of the manuscript, the geographic distribution map of Vietnam for 109 sites in the regions of rice growing for data collections may be provided as a supplementary figure. This will be useful for better understanding for the international readers outside of Vietnam.
2. In M&M, the detail description of the data collection and relevant statistical tools may be provided, and some citation for the methodology can also be included.
3. In Results and Discussion, the overall data differentiation, the statistic significances may be provided in main text or the tables, which indicating the statistic soundness.
4. The part of Conclusion and recommendation should have a concise description. The specific rice varieties, cultivation technology or breeding methodology can be recommended for the different regions.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We thank you and the reviewers for the thorough and insightful comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to revise our paper and have carefully addressed all concerns raised. Please find our detailed responses in the table below, which outlines the reviewers’ comments, our corresponding revisions, and point-by-point replies.

We believe the revisions have substantially improved the clarity, relevance, and rigor of our manuscript. We hope it now meets the journal’s standards for publication.

We thank you again for your time and consideration!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission entitled “Regional disparities call for defining the target population of environments (TPEs) and the breeding strategies for sustainable agriculture: A case study on rice improvement in Vietnam.” The study addresses an important and timely topic in sustainable rice production and breeding strategies across Vietnam. The manuscript has potential and presents relevant data; however, several areas require clarification, additional methodological detail, and improvements in presentation before it can be considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We thank you and the reviewers for the thorough and insightful comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to revise our paper and have carefully addressed all concerns raised. Please find our detailed responses in the table below, which outlines the reviewers’ comments, our corresponding revisions, and point-by-point replies.

We believe the revisions have substantially improved the clarity, relevance, and rigor of our manuscript. We hope it now meets the journal’s standards for publication.

Please find attached for my responses to your suggestions

We thank you again for your time and consideration!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a comparative analysis of agricultural practices, socio-demographic profiles, and preferences for rice breeding across three major regions of Vietnam: the Mekong Delta, Central Vietnam, and Northern Vietnam. The authors conducted a survey-based study involving 109 farmers, focusing on varietal selection criteria, production status, livelihoods, and cultivation methods.
The results indicate significant regional disparities: the Mekong Delta has a commercially oriented, male-dominated profile with large landholdings, while the Central and Northern regions have smaller farms, higher female participation, and a stronger focus on subsistence. Moreover, preferences for genetic traits differ (tolerance to salinity and drought in the South, to heat in the Central region, and to cold in the North). The article concludes that breeding strategies must be adapted to target population environments (TPEs) in order to enhance genetic gains and sustainability.

The text is well structured, with coherent internal logic and smooth transitions between sections.
However, the article has a high narrative density and sometimes provides descriptive rather than interpretative analyses. For example, the Results and Discussion section presents many tables, but statistical interpretation is limited to descriptive comparisons; significance tests or multivariate analyses—which would have strengthened the conclusions regarding regional differences—are missing.

In my opinion, the study remains largely descriptive, even though the objectives are clearly formulated (lines 78–81). However, they are not linked to a working hypothesis, and statistical tests should have been applied. Without the use of inferential statistical methods (ANOVA, chi-square, etc.), no solid conclusions can be drawn about significant differences between regions. The sample size is small for a country with thousands of rice farmers; therefore, it would have been useful to mention the selection criteria.

The article provides a solid descriptive and practical contribution, offering useful data for defining rice breeding strategies in Vietnam. Nevertheless, the level of scientific analysis is moderate; the lack of statistical analysis and testable hypotheses slightly reduces its scientific value (for example, analyzing the relationships between socio-demographic variables and breeding preferences, or using statistical tests to confirm regional differences).

In conclusion, I agree with the publication of this article after appropriate improvements are made.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We thank you and the reviewers for the thorough and insightful comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to revise our paper and have carefully addressed all concerns raised. Please find our detailed responses in the table below, which outlines the reviewers’ comments, our corresponding revisions, and point-by-point replies.

We believe the revisions have substantially improved the clarity, relevance, and rigor of our manuscript. We hope it now meets the journal’s standards for publication.

Please find attached my responses to your suggestions!

We thank you again for your time and consideration!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the clarification. However, verbal informed consent alone is generally not sufficient for publication, especially when reporting research involving human participants. Journals typically require documentation of formal ethical approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee, as well as written informed consent unless a justified exemption is provided.

Please provide evidence of ethics committee approval and clarify the consent procedure in accordance with standard research and publication guidelines.

  Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1:

“Thank you for the clarification. However, verbal informed consent alone is generally not sufficient for publication, especially when reporting research involving human participants. Journals typically require documentation of formal ethical approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee, as well as written informed consent unless a justified exemption is provided. Please provide evidence of ethics committee approval and clarify the consent procedure in accordance with standard research and publication guidelines.”

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a formal Institutional Review Board Statement and a revised Informed Consent Statement to clarify the ethical approval process and consent procedure. These additions provide evidence of ethics committee approval and specify that written consent was obtained whenever feasible, with documented verbal consent used only under approved circumstances. The updated text has been added to the manuscript on page 17, lines 494–501 in the “Institutional Review Board Statement” and “Informed Consent Statement” sections, and the “Conflicts of Interest” statement appears on page 17, line 514. All inserted text is below:

Updated manuscript text:

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the BOLD-Rice Vietnam Project (Approval Code: CONT-0912, dated 20 January 2023) and the Ethics Committee of the Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Can Tho University (Approval Date: 25 January 2023).

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Written consent was collected where feasible; in cases where literacy or field conditions limited written documentation, documented verbal consent was obtained in accordance with the approved protocols.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I agree to the publication of this work.

Author Response

Comment:

“I agree to the publication of this work.”

Response:

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate your support and are pleased that the revisions have addressed all concerns satisfactorily. No further changes were required in response to this comment.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good day, 

 

kindly send the original copy of 

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-491 tion of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the 492 BOLD-Rice Vietnam Project (Approval Code: CONT-0912, dated 20 January 2023) and the Ethics 493 Committee of the Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Can Tho University (Approval 494 Date: 25 January 2023).

Author Response

Comment 3:

“Kindly send the original copy of the Institutional Review Board Statement:

‘The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the BOLD-Rice Vietnam Project (Approval Code: CONT-0912, dated 20 January 2023) and the Ethics Committee of the Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Can Tho University (Approval Date: 25 January 2023).’”

Response 3:

Thank you for this request. We confirm that the study received formal ethical approval prior to data collection. The original ethics approval document issued by the Ethics Committee of the Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, Can Tho University (Approval Date: 25 January 2023), is provided as an attachment for verification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf