Seasonal Variation in Starch Accumulation and Starch Granule Size in Cassava Genotypes in a Tropical Savanna Climate
, Nimitr Vorasoot 1, Banyong Toomsan 1, Wanwipa Kaewpradit 1, Poramate Banterng 1, Thawan Kesmala 1, Piyada Theerakulpisut 2 and Sanun Jogloy 1,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
Although it is known... add something to the reproductive system of Cassava (see for this and more like domestication, domestication characteristics…Zhang et al 2018)
line 37: after Cassava add (Manihot esculenta Crantz, 2n=36)
Materials and Methods
Line 95: how many plants per plot?
Line 126: the authors talk about sub-plot ….explaining better
Results
Why the stepwise regression analysis results not been included in the results?
Line 320: starch yield (kg ka-1) change into starch yield (kg ha-1)
line 416: climatic factors of thee cassava... change into climatic factors of three cassava..
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. The details of the revision are given as the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The experimental design was very clear and the utility is clear, however i t seems like it would be reasonable to calculate growing degree days (GDD) and correlate this with growth stage. This would provide more generalizable information on the impact of planting date on Cassava growth. Using GDD would also add to the novelty of the research.
The regression analysis is not discussed in the results it needs to be moved from the discussion to the results (line 403-439; tables 5 and 6).
The discussion should include more about the genotype by planting date interaction.
line 51-52: delete "over the past few years".
Lines 218-226 (first paragraph of results) the soil properties are methods as you did nothing to alter the properties nor did you explore a time series during the course of growing.
Figure 2: Different panels of the figures need to have letters distinguishing them and full captions. This presentation of the data is confusing to me, it seems like there should only be two panels a) Starch concentration and b) starch yield, there is no reason to separate the cultivars onto separate panels, if you want to present means of cultivars to compare dates that would be acceptable, otherwise this 6 paneled graphic would work better as a table.
Figure 3: Different panels of the figures need to have letters distinguishing them and full captions.
line 519: delete "Yet".
line 520: change, "diffident" to "different".
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. The details of the revision are given as the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work concerns an important aspect of assessing the impact of genotypes on the stretch contents of cassava at a diversified planting dates. Unfortunately, the experiment that has been carried out for this purpose has significant limitations. Mainly due to the limited number of tested cultivars only 3, which significantly limits the assessment of GE interaction for quality characteristics. And practically such an experiment significantly limits the possibility of inference and is of little use to improve cassava cultivation and identify cassava genotypes for plant breeding programs aimed of improving starch quality and quantity.
The second major problem in this manuscript is statistical analysis. Below I present detailed remarks on statistical methods:
1. Table 2 mentions combined ANOVA. Does this mean that a two-stage analysis of variance was used. Lack of such information in materials and methods.
2. What exactly the experimental system was used. For each planting date there was a separate one-factor experience in the random blocks design. Is the applied two-factor experiment in the Split-plot or split-block design. Both the description of the methodology and the results are inconsistent in this term.
3. The use of the post hoc LSD test with today's knowledge is a mistake especially with multifactorial experience. The Tukey test is much better
4. Table 4 shows the regression coefficients. Counting this parameter for a very small sample also does not allow for credible reasoning. The authors report n = 4.
5. A similar remark is the applied regression analysis. Where the number of observations for each cultivar is also equal to 4 (4 sowing dates average of 4 replicates).
Author Response
We appreciate your valuable suggestions on further improving the manuscript in the light of reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers. The details of the revision are given as the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much to the author for taking into account my comments. Thanks to the introduced changes and additional explanations, the new version of the manuscript is much better. Statistical analysis has also been significantly improved.
