Review Reports
by
- Zalmar Santana Gonçalves 1,†,
- Anelita de Jesus Rocha 1,† and
- Edson Perito Amorim 2,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper claims to cover 2 topics in its introduction:
- Methods to measure Black Sigatoka (BS) infection
- Genetics of BS resistance
Both topics needs to be drastically improved and the title only cover BS methods (but even that is not clearly mentioned)
- Methods to measure Black Sigatoka (BS) infection
The paper nicely demonstrates the effect of environment, in fact the effect of taking data in ONE location over time. It is common practice to evaluate varieties in different environments which means different locations (row 50). This was not done here albeit the authors mention it in row 50. The authors need to discuss how their work could be useful for different locations or rather explain why their results have only value for one location.
Row 120-121: the authors discuss the effect of the season (winter, summer) and must therefore clearly describe in material and methods what the rainfall, temperature, humidity, sunshine hours is in these seasons. This is essential. They provide some info in row 328-330 which is too late and incomplete.
Row 188: it is unclear whether the work was done in the field, greenhouse or both. I presume it is in the field, so why bother to discuss greenhouses at different locations in the paper. We do not even know what cycle is evaluated!! Yet in row 347 the cycle is mentioned. However in 347 they seem to claim that the results are the same “regardless the crop cycle” but what is meant by “crop cycle”?
Was the infection natural?
- Genetics of BS resistance
Row 102-104: diploids were selected on ….. at least one of their parents has qualitative and quantitative resistance… This warrants a table showing which parent has qualitative and quantitative resistance.
And then most importantly, all germplasm should be classified in according to qualitative and quantitative resistance and all results in response to Sigatoka compared between these 2 groups. Now all germplasm is lumped together and hence there are no results on qualitative and quantitative resistance and hence any discussion at the end of the paper (row 397-398 and further) has no value.
Table 1: specify the number of FHIA diploid mentioned in CNPMF0351
Table 1: footnote: specify the name of the improved diploid
Row 204-205and figure 1: I cannot agree that fig 1A-B-C are similar, as in each figure the order of varieties is different?
Fig 1 and table 2: why are varieties in Fig 1 classified as GI, GII and GII and in table 2 as S, MR, R; use everywhere the same codes.
Row 221: refers to DI-e and DI-h in table 2 but I cannot see that in the table 2
Row 362, Row 367-371, 373-376: this part has no value has no data have been shown.
Row 34: replace on approximately by of approximately
Row 36: replace 9.1Mt by 9.1 Mt
Row 37: replace 5,7 Mt by 5.7 Mt
Row 49: replace stages lead by stages leading
Row 54-58: need to discuss the third way: good agronomy also reduces BS (e.g. leaf pruning, optimal nutrition…)
Row 138: halo surrounds replace by halo surrounding
Row 148: also write in full IITA and NARO
Row 229: use 1 digit in the table 2, replace komma by point, edit name of emission harvest
Row 246: give an idea how much time you safe by using the new method for BS screening
Row 299: replace presents by represents
Row 339: replace HYBRIDS NARITA by NARITA hybrids
Row 382-396: this has no value in the light of the topics (BS and genetics)
Row 414-421: put in the introduction
Row 422-429: this is only relevant for above canopy sprinkler irrigation. Besides with climate change the environment gets hotter, and that would point to less Sigatoka.
Row 430-445: poorly written as bullet points.
Table S1: use 1 digit, since life span of a leaf depends on the season one should indicate when these data were collected, would be good to compare the life span of diploids versus tetraploids, which seems to be different, so lumping diploids and tetraploids in the same BS evaluation is that warranted?
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
This paper claims to cover 2 topics in its introduction:
Methods to measure Black Sigatoka (BS) infection Genetics of BS resistance
Both topics needs to be drastically improved and the title only cover BS methods (but even that is not clearly mentioned)
Answer: The specific objective of our study is to evaluate a quick and efficient selection method for use in banana breeding programs. We therefore inserted a complementary discussion about the genetics of black Sigatoka resistance considering the genotypes used. Hence, the writing was adjusted in order to portray more clarity and information on the topic.
- Methods to measure Black Sigatoka (BS) infection
The paper nicely demonstrates the effect of environment, in fact theeffect of taking data in ONE location over time. It is common practice toevaluate varieties in different environments which means differentlocations (row 50). This was not done here albeit the authors mention itin row 50. The authors need to discuss how their work could be useful fordifferent locations or rather explain why their results have only value forone location.
Answer: As mentioned in our study, many hybrids are developed by the banana breeding program at Embrapa and selection from seeds is only possible at the research station, considering the number of plants developed and lack of possible evaluations at different location sites. Therefore, we initially propose to select at a single location site refining the selection method described in this study. We showed that it is possible to carry out selections in a single environment when it is repeated in different time periods, exposing the genotypes to different environments and considering these effects in the development of the disease. Hence, this methodology can be replicated in the cycles of selection initially with one plant originated from seeds and later on with selected clones evaluated with measurements in time. The safety in the identification of resistant genotypes is guaranteed with the various measurements of symptoms along time-periods for analysis of results at the end of two production cycles. This protocol can be replicated in breeding programs after adjustments for local conditions in each case scenario.
Row 120-121: the authors discuss the effect of the season (winter,summer) and must therefore clearly describe in material and methodswhat the rainfall, temperature, humidity, sunshine hours is in theseseasons. This is essential. They provide some info in row 328-330 whichis too late and incomplete.
Answer: A paragraph was inserted for explanation.
Row 188: it is unclear whether the work was done in the field,greenhouse or both. I presume it is in the field, so why bother to discussgreenhouses at different locations in the paper. We do not even knowwhat cycle is evaluated!! Yet in row 347 the cycle is mentioned. Howeverin 347 they seem to claim that the results are the same “regardless thecrop cycle” but what is meant by “crop cycle”?
Answer: A detailed explanation was inserted in the methodology.
Was the infection natural?
Answer: Yes, as explained in lines 114-119.
2.Genetics of BS resistance
Row 102-104: diploids were selected on ….. at least one of their parentshas qualitative and quantitative resistance… This warrants a tableshowing which parent has qualitative and quantitative resistance.
And then most importantly, all germplasm should be classified inaccording to qualitative and quantitative resistance and all results inresponse to Sigatoka compared between these 2 groups. Now all germplasm is lumped together and hence there are no results on qualitative and quantitative resistance and hence any discussion at theend of the paper (row 397-398 and further) has no value.
Answer: The text was re-written for better explanation. We referred to the parental diploids Malaccensis, Tjau Lagada, Calcutta 4, M53, Madang and Tuugia, which participate in the genealogy of all improved diploids used in this study. It is not possible to insert an outlined discussion in the type of qualitative or quantitative resistance of the parentals used since there is no data regarding the type of resistance each one presents, although symptomatology deems an indication. Therefore, the discussion was based mainly on the diploids previously cited.
Table 1: specify the number of FHIA diploid mentioned in CNPMF0351
Answer: FHIA 18
Table 1: footnote: specify the name of the improved diploid
Answer: Considering that these improved diploids originated from open pollination we only specified them as non-identified improved diploids. They are diploids obtained without control of pollination.
Row 204-205and figure 1: I cannot agree that fig 1A-B-C are similar, asin each figure the order of varieties is different?
Answer: The text was adjusted to explain these results correctly.
Fig 1 and table 2: why are varieties in Fig 1 classified as GI, GII and GIIand in table 2 as S, MR, R; use everywhere the same codes.
Answer: Figure1 was adjusted according to Table 1 as suggested.
Row 221: refers to DI-e and DI-h in table 2 but I cannot see that in thetable 2
Answer: The text was adjusted according with was is listed in Table 1.
Row 362, Row 367-371, 373-376: this part has no value has no datahave been shown.
Answer: The text was re-written and adjusted.
Row 34: replace on approximately by of approximately. Answer: Adjusted.
Row 36: replace 9.1Mt by 9.1 Mt Answer: Adjusted.
Row 37: replace 5,7 Mt by 5.7 Mt Answer: Adjusted.
Row 49: replace stages lead by stages leading Answer: Adjusted.
Row 54-58: need to discuss the third way: good agronomy also reducesBS (e.g. leaf pruning, optimal nutrition…) Answer: Adjusted.
Row 138: halo surrounds replace by halo surrounding. Answer: Adjusted.
Row 148: also write in full IITA and NARO Answer: Adjusted.
Row 229: use 1 digit in the table 2, replace komma by point, edit name ofemission Harvest Answer: Adjusted.
Row 246: give an idea how much time you safe by using the newmethod for BS screening
Answer: As explained, our proposal aims to adjust an early-selection methodology for selection of genotypes resistant to black Sigatoka, considering the first phases of a genetic breeding program, especially in the phase of seeds, where each one will originate a plant, not allowing analysis with replicates. This methodology demonstrates potential for use in the selection of resistant genotypes, discarding susceptible ones, favoring advancement in future phases of selection within the breeding program.
Row 299: replace presents by represents
Answer: Adjusted.
Row 339: replace HYBRIDS NARITA by NARITA hybrids
Answer: Adjusted.
Row 382-396: this has no value in the light of the topics (BS andgenetics)
Answer: Adjusted.
Row 414-421: put in the introduction
Answer: Adjusted.
Row 422-429: this is only relevant for above canopy sprinkler irrigation.Besides with climate change the environment gets hotter, and that wouldpoint to less Sigatoka. Answer: Adjusted.
Row 430-445: poorly written as bullet points.
Answer: Adjusted.
Table S1: use 1 digit, since life span of a leaf depends on the seasonone should indicate when these data were collected, would be good tocompare the life span of diploids versus tetraploids, which seems to bedifferent, so lumping diploids and tetraploids in the same BS evaluationis that warranted?
Answer: Although all genotypes were in the same environmental condition, some presented variation as to the period of leaf emission. Therefore, it was not possible to separate the life span of each one according to the season within the year. Usually diploids release leaves and bunches earlier than triploids and tetraploids, however, all genotypes had their leaves evaluated in all four seasons throughout the year.
Reviewer 2 Report
Agronomy Manuscript
General comments:
-In general, this manuscript has a valuable topic. The topic is scientifically sound.
-The writing style and English language are fine except for minor English spelling and grammar changes.
experimental design is adequate.
-There are some minor comments.
Detailed comments:
-In general, please avoid using personal pronouns such as we, our results, our work and apply this rule throughout the manuscript (for example -Line 23 (we indicate), Line 15 (We evaluated).
Title:
Selection of diploid and tetraploid banana hybrids resistant to Pseudocercospora fijiensis.
Please use the right style in the title by making each word starts with the upper case.
Abstract:
This section is missing the direct and clear aim
-Please add some values (the most significant data)
-please change a disease caused by the fungus Pseudocercospora fijiensis, can lead to the 12 loss of 100% of banana and plantain production in the absence of chemical control to… a diseased caused by Pseudocercospora fijiensis. fungus, can lead to the complete loss of banana and plantain production in the absence of chemical control
Key words; Please add the word hybrids to the keywords list.
Introduction:
The topic is very important and has a great value. I see that the introduction didn’t provide enough background about the topic and needs to be enriched,
Materials and Methods:
The experimental design was suitable and adequate to the current study.
Results:
-I found that the results section is well presented but the discussion was very poor.
Discussion:
This section is ok
Conclusion:
The conclusion is supported by the results and includes the most significant findings.
-Please combine the short paragraph on one or two paragraphs only. (In general avoid using the too short paragraphs
References:
The authors provided enough citations, and it is up to Date.
***This manuscript is very valuable and will be suitable to be published in the Agronomy journal after minor revision.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
General comments:
-In general, this manuscript has a valuable topic. The topic isscientifically sound.
-The writing style and English language are fine except for minor Englishspelling and grammar changes.
experimental design is adequate.
-There are some minor comments.
Detailed comments:
-In general, please avoid using personal pronouns such as we, ourresults, our work and apply this rule throughout the manuscript (forexample -Line 23 (we indicate), Line 15 (We evaluated).
Answer: Adjusted.
Title:
Selection of diploid and tetraploid banana hybrids resistant to
Pseudocercospora fijiensis.
Please use the right style in the title by making each word starts with theupper case. Answer: Adjusted.
Abstract:
This section is missing the direct and clear aim
Answer: Adjusted.
-Please add some values (the most significant data)
Answer: Adjusted.
-please change a disease caused by the fungus Pseudocercospora fijiensis, can lead to the 12 loss of 100% of banana and plantainproduction in the absence of chemical control to… a diseased caused by Pseudocercospora fijiensis . fungus, can lead to the complete loss of banana and plantain production in the absence of chemical control
Answer: Adjusted.
Key words;
Please add the word hybrids to the keywords list.
Answer: Adjusted.
Introduction:
The topic is very important and has a great value. I see that theintroduction didn’t provide enough background about the topic and needsto be enriched,
Answer: Adjusted.
Materials and Methods:
The experimental design was suitable and adequate to the current study.
Results:
-I found that the results section is well presented but the discussion wasvery poor.
Answer: Adjusted.
Discussion:
This section is ok
Conclusion:
The conclusion is supported by the results and includes the mostsignificant findings.
-Please combine the short paragraph on one or two paragraphs only. (Ingeneral avoid using the too short paragraphs
Answer: Adjusted.
References:
The authors provided enough citations, and it is up to Date.
***This manuscript is very valuable and will be suitable to be published inthe Agronomy journal after minor revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I suppose authors are not ready to submit the article since the description of Fig2 is not written in English. The raw phenotypic data should be provided in supplementary table.
The following sentence is not scientific. Authors can estimated heritability or repeatability to select the most efficient way for selection.
"However, it can be inferred that the most efficient way to differentiate genotypes in the resistant, moderately resistant and susceptible classes is to evaluate the symptoms of P. fijiensis during the winter season. This is because this criterion seems to be more rigorous than the others, since a smaller number of genotypes are classified as resistant and/or moderately resistant to the disease, when compared to the other time-periods (Figure 1B)."
Author Response
Reviewer3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I suppose authors are not ready to submit the article since thedescription of Fig2 is not written in English. The raw phenotypic datashould be provided in supplementary table. Answer: Adjusted.
The following sentence is not scientific. Authors can estimated heritabilityor repeatability to select the most efficient way for selection.
"However, it can be inferred that the most efficient way to differentiategenotypes in the resistant, moderately resistant and susceptible classesis to evaluate the symptoms of P. fijiensis during the winter season. Thisis because this criterion seems to be more rigorous than the others,since a smaller number of genotypes are classified as resistant and/ormoderately resistant to the disease, when compared to the other time-periods (Figure 1B)."
Answer: Text was adjusted to better explain that we are referring to an appropriate method of evaluation of the disease used to select resistant genotypes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The English language needs to be ABSOLUTELY edited by a native speaker.
There are far too many remarks, many of them caused by negligence
Row 18: disease severity index (ID) while in row 22 ID is used; also elsewhere in the text ID is used (see row 168, 204, 206, 209, 225, 268, 314). Use everywhere DI (disease index) as explained in row 185. Now in the text ID and DI are mixed
Row 23: what is AACPD
Row 49: ascospores, sexual replace by ascospores, which are sexual
Row 51: stages leading replace by stage lead
Row 59: the effective efficiency replace by the poor efficiency
Row 61: eliminate the word “surgery”
Row 86: exhibit a quantitative response
Row 92: out of the blue you mention three diploids!!!. You need to add more info
Row 96: replace works by research
Row 113: replace plantation by planting
Row 114: with response unknown profiles replace by with unknown response profiles
Row 118: hybrds replace by hybrids
Row 120: table1 replace by table 1
Row 123: do you need to mention embrapa 2021?
Row 144: and to for general knowledge replace by and to our general knowledge
Row 146: comprises of the replace by comprises the
Row 148/151: average rainfall index, drop the word index
Row 162: remove of notes
Row 175: National Agricultural Research Organisation
Row 193: T1 should be in italic
Row 227: was used. Was used remove the second Was used
Row 234: (D) was possible to undo replace by (D) it was possible to distinguish
Row 242: Fig 1A, B and C: why mention AACPD, this was never explained
Row 242: Fig 1A, B, C and D: replace ID by DI
Row 246: DI-h is mentioned in the legend but not seen in the figure
Row 247: delete Embrapa 2021
Row 274: averages followed by the same letter in the same column…
Row 254-255 should not be separated by a new paragraph with row 256
Row 289: is vertex the right word?
Row 293: in an opposite side replace by at the opposite side
Row 295: replace median by intermediate
Row 310: replace diferent by different
Row 311: replace decompostio by composition
Row 313: replace doted by dotted
Row 316 and further: adapt the size of the font
Row 329: banana is not a tree
Row 335-336: write the name of the fungus in italics
Row 361/362: correct °C
Row 407: mention the names of the 3 diploids
Row 462/465: there is no proof that you deal with quantitative resistance