Evaluation of 41 Cowpea Lines Sown on Different Dates in Southern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
General comment:
Accept after revision. I would like to stress that I support the potential publication of this paper due to its scientific interest. On the other hand, a few aspects of the manuscript need to be extensively improved.
The study is devoted to identifying the morphological differences between 41 new cowpea lines planted in different sowing seasons (spring, summer, and autumn). Based on the assessment of agronomic traits, the results indicated that the nine lines are suitable for different sowing seasons and can be used for subsequent breeding programs in the future.
The "Abstract" is structured with a background, the main body of the abstract, and a short conclusion.
General comment to the "Introduction" section:
The content of the literature review chapter is related to the research topic. In the manuscript are presented systematic, critical assessments of current literature pertaining to the topic. However, the authors could introduce some extra lines with respect to the cowpea production area, average yields etc, in China/worldwide (FAO data) or comparison between them. This section should be expanded on major issues related to this study (i.e. important environmental factors influencing crop production) including more references. What varieties are represented in production in China, and in what period are they to be sown? Crop genetic diversity is important as it offers an opportunity to plant breeders for developing new and improved cultivars with desirable characteristics which include both farmers' and breeders' preferred traits. Please clearly establish a niche in this section (what is the gap that your study comes to fill in).
In the chapter "Materials and Methods", the methodology is adequate, but not give readers enough information. Given that soils vary greatly in their chemical and physical properties, this data is missing. Describe the agro-technical measures you used.
Note: Indicate which test was used to compare the mean (t-test, Tukey's test).
In the chapter "Results",
The results are displayed correctly but check the tables and figures again. Check table 2. In the column "Mean value D1" there is no lowercase letter b. Concerning correlations (Table 3), if feasible important ones should be visualized with regression analyses (regression lines) to have a more accurate view of the driven force of these associations (i.e. not dictated by cluster points, etc)...
In the chapter "Discussion",
The discussion is informative and based on an assumption. Please try to discuss your results in depth and link them with the appropriate literature throughout the whole section. It should be noted that because research generates further research, the conclusions drawn from the research are important. It is necessary to encourage further interest in the cultivation and expansion of cowpea and to show the relevance of further investments based on the decisions made.
Submission date:
24 January 2023
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The document provides an interesting research on the impact of the growing period on the phrenotype of several lines of Cowpea.
The introduction is shot, unfortunately the problematic/hypothesis are not enough developped and correctly expressed.
In the result section, must be completed with the a deeper analysis of the climatic conditions during each of the three periods.
The conclusions could be improved as well as the abstract with a wider view of the interest of discriminate the different lines.
More detailed comments in the document attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors assessed the adaptability and yielding potential of 41 lines of cowpea at three sowing dates (spring, summer and fall) in Wuming, a county in Guangxi Province.
During an experiment conducted in 2021, several plant characteristics were evaluated: pod width, number of branches per plant, plant height, pod length, pod width,
weight of 100 seeds for the tested sowing dates.
On the basis of the results, the most suitable lines for cultivation in this region at various sowing dates were selected.
The work is original because it presents results for cowpea lines that have not been studied before.
In my opinion, the manuscript requires careful linguistic review or checking by a native speaker.
For example, the word "whit" is used instead of "with" in the discussion.
General remarks
This is a work on the recommendation of lines of cowpea for local cultivation conditions depending on the date of sowing.
The experiment was performed in only one year, but it should be commented on. Problems associated with the interaction of genotype and environment are known.
Each chapter of the manuscript should be described in more detail.
Specific remarks
Cowpea lines are being studied in this research for the first time. These are new lines.
There is no information about their origin. Who developed these cowpea lines? Are there any articles on that topic?
There is no soil description for this experiment.
Why did the Authors not use a two-factor analysis of variance to assess the effect of genotype and sowing date on the studied plant characteristics?
The PCA analysis is not clear to me. The Authors used the studied characteristics and what else? sowing date? Genotype?
Why was it not decided to make a biplot?
There is no Supplementary Materials, and the Authors mention it in section 3.3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Vigna unguiculata is an important legume plant, used for food and animal feed, suitable for cultivation in a variety of ecological environments and tolerant to drought, salinity and high temperatures.
The topic of manuscript is interesting and has important meaning for farmers and practice. It fully matches the journal focus.
The introduction provides sufficient information regarding the cowpea importance in its various aspects. The relevant literature on the subject includes researches from the last 15 years.
The study is methodologically sound. 41 cowpea lines, 3 sowing dates and a large number of indicators related to productivity are the objects of research. All experimental data are adequately and correctly interpreted. Appropriate statistical methods are used. No plagiarism detected.
In conclusion, my overall assessment is positive. I have no comments to the manuscript thus presented. Undoubtedly, а considerable amount of experimental activity was carried out, the results of which are useful for cowpea growing. They confirm and extend the results of previous similar studies. However, it should be noted that the obtained results have no fundamental scientific value.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for these positive comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
They autors have considerably improved the document, and all the requested changes have been done.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been thoroughly revised. The authors took into account all my comments.
