Evaluation of Genotype, Environment, and Management Interactions on Fava Beans under Mediterranean Field Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper "Evaluation of genotype, environment, and management interactions on fava beans under Mediterranean field conditions" is interesting.
All tables and figures are perfect.
Statistical analyses are correct.
In my opinion paper needs correlation analysis between observed traits, independently, in each site and year.
Paper needs minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you indeed for reviewing the manuscript. I have uploaded my answers to your valuable comments. My coauthor and I hope the manuscript amelioration is sufficient for acceptance.

Kind regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the manuscript can be improved further by showing some pictoral representation showing yield and growth differences between the most contrasting ones like E3 and E4 for seed yield; E1 and E4 biomass.

Also it would be better if data depicting differences (most probably there will be differences) in pod size-shape, seed size-shape is incorporated into the manuscript.

The authors have depicted the interaction of genotype, environment and management on fababean yield in the Mediterranean region. Though the authors have used parameters like seed yield, harvest index, biomass etc.
The manuscript lacks the pictorial representation showing morphological and phenotypical differences among the contrasting varieties under different environmental condition or managerial condition. The pictorial representation will help in better visualization of the interaction between genotype, environment and management.
Further crucial parameters like pod shape and size are missed out. This is important as pod bears the seeds. Also seed number per pod.
These modifications will render the manuscript more interesting to read. Now without these crucial observations the manuscript seems incomplete.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you indeed for reviewing the manuscript. I have uploaded my answers to your valuable comments. My coauthor and I hope the manuscript amelioration is sufficient for acceptance.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript agronomy-1219420 entitled “Evaluation of genotype, environment, and management interactions on fava beans under Mediterranean field conditions.” by submitted by Houssemeddine Sellami et al., deals with an interesting subject regarding the adaptability of three faba bean varieties in three different Mediterranean environments sowed in two diverse epochs.

In general, the manuscript is interesting and follows a solid scientific logic. However, the informations provided are quite limited and a complete revision of the language and style is necessary before publication. In particular, I suggest to rewrite part of the introduction and revise the materials and methods section moving part of the information provided in the results. Discussion is quite weak but considering the data provided I only suggest to deepen the aspects related to the delay of sowing date and the interaction among site and varieties.

My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript, are reported in the attached files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you indeed for reviewing the manuscript. I have uploaded my answers to your valuable comments. My coauthor and I hope the manuscript amelioration is sufficient for acceptance.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the manuscript can be improved further by showing some pictoral representation showing yield and growth differences between the most contrasting ones like E3 and E4 for seed yield; E1 and E4 biomass.

Answer 1:  Seed yield is graphically represented in Figure 1; Figure 2 represents the PCA for all Environments and yield components parameters considered. In addition, in Table 4 a complete Anova is reported.

Yes I have seen that you have given the quantitative measurements. But pictoral representation is necessary to have a better visualization

Also it would be better if data depicting differences (most probably there will be differences) in pod size-shape, seed size-shape is incorporated into the manuscript.

Answer 2:  The aim of the work is to evaluate the interaction of G×E×M on the quality and yield components. The shape and size of the seeds have not been evaluated because they do not affect productivity. The 1000-seed weight (THS) summarize the required information.

Pod size-shape, seed size-shape are important parameters of productivity. I know you have given 1000 seed weight, but pod parameter is also an inseperable parameter that depicts productivity. Both seed and pod parameters should be there and it is must.

The authors have depicted the interaction of genotype, environment and management on faba bean yield in the Mediterranean region. Though the authors have used parameters like seed yield, harvest index, biomass etc.

The manuscript lacks the pictorial representation showing morphological and phenotypical differences among the contrasting varieties under different environmental condition or managerial condition. The pictorial representation will help in better visualization of the interaction between genotype, environment and management.

Further crucial parameters like pod shape and size are missed out. This is important as pod bears the seeds. Also seed number per pod.

Answer 3:  The aim of the work is to evaluate the interaction of G×E×M on the quality and yield components

I can understand the aim of the study and these observations need to be included as these  depicts the interaction of G×E×M

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you indeed for reviewing the manuscript. I have uploaded my answers to your valuable comments. My coauthor and I hope the manuscript amelioration is sufficient for acceptance.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was greatly improved compared to the previous version.

Almost all suggested changed were applied altought was difficult to assess the revision because no track change file was provided.

Please, revise Figure 1

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you indeed for reviewing the manuscript. I have uploaded my answers to your valuable comments. My coauthor and I hope the manuscript amelioration is sufficient for acceptance.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx