Determining Type of Sterility, Thresholds, Seeding Date and Rates of Arkansas Male Sterile Lines for Hybrid Seed Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript written by North et al. titled ‘Characterization and Application of Arkansas Male Sterile Lines for Hybrid Rice Production’, aiming to detect the genetic source(s) and sterility thresholds, optimum planting date, and optimum seeding density of 8 male-sterile lines, including 4 lines developed at the University of Arkansas, Rice Research and Extension Center (RREC), and Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center (DBNRRC) both located in Stuttgart, AR., the USA.
The article is generally well-written however, the authors should be addressed the following suggestions and comments point by point not only in responses to reviewer’s comments but also included in the manuscript.
11. The title should be changed and make this more relevant with objectives, core findings and conclusions
22. Findings that addressing the objective 1 and 2 were not reflected properly in the abstract.
33. Conclusions should be included in the manuscript.
Author Response
1- Reviewer 1: The title should be changed and make this more relevant with objectives, core findings, and conclusions
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion and changed the title.
2- Reviewer 1: Findings that addressing the objective 1 and 2 were not reflected properly in the abstract.
Response: Done
3- Reviewer 1: Conclusions should be included in the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We added a conclusion at the end of the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor corrections on page 13 line 455: " is it expensive or expansive"?
- on page 6 table 1 : adjust the table to fit in one page ...
Author Response
4- Reviewer 2: Minor corrections on page 13 line 455: " is it expensive or expansive"?
Response: Thanks for finding the error. The expensive is correct. We fixed the error.
5- Reviewer 2: On page 6 table 1: adjust the table to fit in one page
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and adjusted the table to fit on one page.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The title of the article sounds interesting. The introduction introduces the research topic. Materials and methods - relatively reproducible, however some information needs to be supplemented
However, there are some comments:
1. Without using the word “Affiliation” - immediately with a numerical indication we give the universities,
2. References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
3. The pot experiment was done in 1 series or 2?
4. 3.2. Planting date Study
“We conducted a two-year multi-location field study to address the third objective.”- but in first year you had only one location
5. Lack of consistency in Figure1. v Figure 2-
6. Formatting error in tables 2 and 4. Different font size. It would be better if this dashed line was replaced by a solid line. Standardise the line colour in the tables - replace that blue colour with black.
7.The titles of the tables say nothing about from which year the data are there? Are the data averages?
8. In which years were the observations made? Only days and months are mentioned in the methodology
9. I would reword the objectives/aims of the study, it is advisable to drop the notation 1), 2).....
10. Discussion- Why in discussion there is a repetition of the aim “This study aimed to provide information for rice breeders and rice producers regarding their strategies for hybrid rice parental lines development and field management for hybrid rice, respectively”
11. In discussion only two references used? Too little.
12. There are no conclusion?
13. Very little literature support
14. Please read the MS once more and correct any minor shortcomings, e.g. punctuation, etc.
Author Response
6- Reviewer 3: Without using the word “Affiliation” - immediately with a numerical indication we give the universities
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We fixed it.
7- Reviewer 3: References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
Response: Done
8- Reviewer 3: The pot experiment was done in 1 series or 2?
Response: The pot experiment was a single experiment, but as you say, it was done in multiple “series”. We had four growth chambers and those chambers were used in different combinations of temperature and day length to produce 16 treatment combinations. So, we would grow one set of plants for one “series”, allow them to complete their time in the chamber and then rotate in a later planted series for that set of conditions.
9- Reviewer 3: 3.2. Planting date Study – “We conducted a two-year multi-location field study to address the third objective.”- but in first year you had only one location
Response: Good point. We Corrected it for clarification in the manuscript.
10- Reviewer 3: Lack of consistency in Figure1. v Figure 2
Response: Figures 1 and 2 are different because figure 1 has different planting dates for three other TGMS lines, whereas Figure 2 has three locations for only 1 TGMS line.
11- Reviewer 3: Formatting error in tables 2 and 4. Different font sizes. It would be better if this dashed line was replaced by a solid line. Standardise the line colour in the tables - replace that blue colour with black.
Response: Done
12- Reviewer 3: The titles of the tables say nothing about from which year the data are there? Are the data averages?
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We added years to titles of the tables
13- Reviewer 3: In which years were the observations made? Only days and months are mentioned in the methodology
Response: Good point. We added the years when we conducted the studies.
14- Reviewer 3: I would reword the objectives/aims of the study, it is advisable to drop the notation 1), 2).....
Response: Done
15- Reviewer 3: Discussion- Why in discussion there is a repetition of the aim “This study aimed to provide information for rice breeders and rice producers regarding their strategies for hybrid rice parental lines development and field management for hybrid rice, respectively”
Response: We moved to the conclusions section and re-worded it.
16- Reviewer 3: In discussion only two references used? Too little.
Response: More added
17- Reviewer 3: There are no conclusion?
Response: Excellent suggestion. We added a conclusion at the end of the text.
18- Reviewer 3: Very little literature support
Response: More references and citations were added. However, we need to mention that these types of information are not publicly available since most companies keep this information secret. This is one of the first reports in American academic institutions that exclusively provides important information regarding EGMS threshold male sterile seed density and planting dates.
19- Reviewer 3: Please read the MS once more and correct any minor shortcomings, e.g. punctuation, etc.
Response: Done
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made the suggested corrections.
The very end of the text - marked in pink by the editor - a diagram of the literature to be deleted.
