An Evaluation of Spelt Crosses for Breeding New Varieties of Spring Spelt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Brief Summary
The authors characterize new spelt F5 hybrids that have been generated. They analyze various parameter of the hybrids and are able to categorize them into four groups with varying degrees of chemical content (protein, fiber, lipid, ash) as well as field performance (grain weight, lodging). Their aim appears to be breeding for more genetic diversity of important traits for spelt which may be used regionally or internationally.
Broad comments
The authors have attempted to address the reviewer comments. However there are improvements to be made. In the area of the manuscript dealing with chemical analysis of the grain (protein, fat, fiber, ash), the authors use two replicates for their statistical analysis and conclusions. The authors disagree with the reviewer’s assessment that a minimum of three replicates are needed in order to justify the conclusions they came to. All the authors say is that they believe two replicates is sufficient. The authors need to provide proof in order to make their work scientifically rigorous. They either need to comply with the reviewer’s assessment or provide other citations where two replicates have been used in such assays to reach conclusions. In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors fail to provide stronger connections between areas of the manuscript where they mention for example, varieties from Canada and how it connects to their own work as well as how it connects to the other spelt-growing regions mentioned in the manuscript. This needs to be corrected. It also seems that for the cluster analysis and dendogram, the authors combine data obtained at the F2 generation where there is less homozygosity with data obtained at the F5 generation where there is more homozygosity. This is extremely inconsistent. Drawing conclusions from the F2 generation is meaningless as greater homozygosity can change the parameters analyzed and the conclusions reached. The authors need to make sure that all the data that has gone into the cluster analysis and the dendogram at the F5 generation. If in fact, the authors used only F5 data in the cluster analysis, then they need to do a better job of making this very clear to the reviewer. In the current form, it appears that F2 data was combined with F5 data and this needs to be corrected. The authors also give verbal descriptions of traits in the results section (for example, height, spike length, color and comparisons of these between different breeding lines). Pictures of these traits must be provided as well as pictures of the comparisons made between the breeding lines. In general, the authors need to be more descriptive in their figure and table titles and legends/captions. They need to provide more information about how the results in the table or figure was obtained.
The discussion section of the revised manuscript needs more work. The authors rely too much on simply listing their results again without discussing the implications of the work they have done. The discussion section needs to go into significant detail about the interpretation of the results they have obtained as well as the possible impacts of the results they have obtained. This needs to be done for all their results.
Specific Comments
Please see green highlights in pdf:
Line 17: Please change "breeding lines" to "of the breeding lines".
Line 19 to 20: Please say what makes groups III and IV different from each other.
Line 21: Please change "19.6% breeding lines" to "19.6% of the breeding lines". Also, for Group II to have been in its own group, there must have been something that differentiated it from the other groups. Please say what that was. You have described the properties of the other groups, please do the same for group two.
Line 28: Please change "already" to "as far back as".
Line 37 to 38: Please explain what you mean by "niche species"? What exactly was it being cultivated for during that time? What niche did it occupy? The reviewer has asked these same questions before and they have not been answered by the authors. If the authors are saying that the interest in spelt is being currently revived for nutritional and health benefits and breeding suitability, what was the reason during earlier times for its cultivation?
Line 38 to 40: Where is the citation for this statement?
Line 134: What generation was the chemical analyses done on? The authors did the lodging evaluation at F5. The authors need to make it clear what generation the chemical analyses were done.
Line 135: If you did different types of methods for the protein, fat, ash and fiber, then please use the plural "analyses" instead of analysis.
Line 147 to 148: The authors are insisting that two replicates are enough. They do not give reasons or proof. They need to prove that two replicates of these assays is sufficient. One way will be to provide other citations which have used only two replicates in these assays for evaluation in breeding programs. Also, the authors need to make it very clear what generation was used for these analyses. The data is a little confusing because Table 3 uses the F2 generation. However, since these have not reached homozygosity of any kind, what was the purpose of doing it so early. Why was it not done at the F5 generation instead?
Line 175 to 176: I think the authors mean to say "% [DM]" as opposed to "% DM]". If so, please make the brackets complete.
Line 196 to 197: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 198: There needs to be a space between O11 and paternal.
Line 201 to 204: Why was the chemical analyses done so early in the breeding program? The rest of the analyses was done at F5, why was the protein, ash, fat and fiber content not also done at F5? At F2, the values obtained may differ than those obtained at F5 where there is a greater amount of homozygosity.
Line 208 to 210: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 213 to 214: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 220 to 223: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 224 to 225: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 228 to 231: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 235 to 237: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 241 to 243: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 248 to 249: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 296 to 300: As far as the reviewer is able to tell, certain values were collected at F5 where there was greater homozygosity and other values were collected at F2 where there was less homozygosity. The authors need to thoroughly explain why they did some of the chemical analyses at F2 when they could have been done at F5 and then combined with other F5 analyses for the subsequent cluster analysis.
Line 304: From the previous data presented, the cluster analysis seems to be a mix of F2 and F5 data. This is extremely inconsistent especially since many parameters measured at F2 could easily change as more homozygosity is achieved. This could in turn change the cluster analysis. Please be consistent in the data used to make the heatmap and dendogram. If the chemical analysis needs to be repeated at F5, that must be done. Drawing conclusions from data obtained in very different generations can be extremely erroneous.
Line 313 to 314: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 322 to 323: Please give the descriptions of the lodging scale next to the relevant numbers.
Line 327: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 338 to 339: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 348 to 349: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 357: The table caption needs to be more descriptive.
Line 379 to 381: Please expand on what the previous research has found about the milling quality of spelt as well as its suitability for the production of functional foods.
Line 442 to 446: What do these results imply for the breeding lines developed?
Line 452 to 460: The results seem to indicate that the ash content of the breeding lines is higher than the accepted value of 1.7%. The authors need to discuss the implications of these results. For example, do the results indicate that the breeding lines that the authors have developed are unsuitable? How do the authors intend to correct this issue? How have other research groups handled this issue?
Line 465 to 473: The authors need to discuss the implications of these results. What is the interpretation of the results obtained? What are the impacts of their results? Which other research groups have achieved results similar or different to what the current researchers obtained?
Line 489 to 490: Please explain the reason for the height limitation in spelt.
Line 490 to 494: The authors need to interpret their results. What do their results mean for the future of the breeding lines they have developed? Is there a level of minimal lodging that will be acceptable? Will they have to do backcrosses? What options are available to them?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are grateful to the Reviewers for a very thorough revision of the manuscript and the valuable remarks, which have substantially improved the scientific value and clarity of the paper. All of the Reviewers’ concerns have been addressed, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Below are our responses to the Reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is improved and most of the issues I raised have been addressed. Again, the word "hybrids" should be avoided in the title and lines 102 and 105. In my opinion, the sentence in line 102 should be reworded to read "A total of 46 breeding lines derived from seven crosses were selected..." and line 105 The spikelets from the 46 selected breeding lines...". In the title the term should not be "hybrids" - better terms would be "... spelt hybridizations..." or "... spelt crosses...". Hybridization or crossing refers to the intermating (crossing) of two parents to form a breeding population. Hybrid has a different meaning - it refers to the F1 generation from a hybridization. The authors did NOT evaluate spelt hybrids.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are grateful to the Reviewers for a very thorough revision of the manuscript and the valuable remarks, which have substantially improved the scientific value and clarity of the paper. All of the Reviewers’ concerns have been addressed, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Below are our responses to the Reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors made perfect job addressing all comments and suggestions. No further comments.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We are grateful to the Reviewers for a very thorough revision of the manuscript and the valuable remarks, which have substantially improved the scientific value and clarity of the paper. All of the Reviewers’ concerns have been addressed, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Below are our responses to the Reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Brief Summary
The authors characterize new spelt F5 crosses that have been generated. They analyze various parameter of the crosses and are able to categorize them into four groups with varying degrees of chemical content (protein, fiber, lipid, ash) as well as field performance (grain weight, lodging). Their aim appears to be breeding for more genetic diversity of important traits for spelt which may be used regionally or internationally.
Broad Comments
The authors have done a good job of addressing the reviewer's concerns in the revised manuscript. No further comments are needed.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, there are many problems with this manuscript.
1) The manuscript is based on a field trial grown at one location in one year with one replication (lines 129 and 130). This is generally considered to be unacceptable and insufficient for field trials and is especially a problem for evaluation of quantitative traits which are greatly influenced by environment. The experiment was planted over a ten day period, not all in one day (line 125). This is also a problem, in my opinion.
2) The term “hybrids” is misused throughout the manuscript. The use of “F5 hybrids” is incorrect. The F5 breeding lines should NOT is called hybrids! From the description given what was evaluated were families of F5 breeding lines. The terms “sib lines or “sister lines” could also be used to refer to lines derived from a cross. The term “parental forms” is also unconventional and completely unnecessary, in my opinion. The term should be “parents”.
3) The authors have not assessed yield therefore no conclusions about yield (line 475) can be made. Also, lodging is a trait that is notoriously variable – lodging susceptibility based on one replication at one location in one year has little meaning.
4) Figure 1 is a nice picture, but what is the significance and relevance to the manuscript? It only shows one of the parents compared to a wheat cultivar.
5) The clusters in Figure 5 are not surprising. Figure 5 has little meaning. It only show that sib lines from a cross cluster together. This is not novel, or new. It is expected.
6) Table 3. The trait names should be defined in footnotes to the table.
7) Although I have not checked what is acceptable in this journal, generally when referencing literature the first author’s last name and et al should be used not just “[number]”. Examples – lines 363, 364 and 389.
8) Much of the discussion section is literature review and belongs in the introduction. For example, almost the entire first section of the discussion (lines 343 -364) should be in the literature review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Major comments/suggestions:
(1) Sub-section 2.1 and L95-96. Please move and provide description of spring wheat cv. Parabola, used a reference accession, to the section about Plant Material. All wheat germplasms used have to be described together in this Sub-section.
(2). Authors must provide exact information for number of used plants and number of biological replicates in each of the experiment. I found only ‘30 typical culms’ on L94 but it has to be mentioned in each of Sub-section. Particular for Sub-section 2.2: 30 typical culms were selected from 30 separate plants or there were two culms collected from the some plants? Please indicate in the text. Sub-section 2.3: Biochemical analyses were carried out in a single grain or in the bulk of seeds (L107 – “Grain was subjected…”, L108 – “…spelt grain was ground…”)? Please indicate number of bulk seeds. If bulk seeds were used, they were collected from individual plants or bulked from several plants? Please mention a number of used plants. In each experiment please indicate number of replicates with specification, are these replicates are biological or technical? Usually, such information is indicated by ‘n=XX’ both in M&M and Results sections including Figures and Tables, with a brief description of what number ‘n’ means. It is also important for better understanding statistical treatments in Sub-section 2.5, where number of replicates used has to be summarised.
(3) Please explain why reference accession of spring wheat cv. Parabola has no variability shown in Tables 2 and 3 but it provided in Figure 4 as plus/minus SD? This is related to the Point 2 above for how many plants of cv. Parabola were used. If more than one plant was used, please indicate the variability in Tables 2 and 3.
(4) Figure 4 has to be modified. Asterisks for lodging scores have to be removed or explained, what these asterisks mean? Why these asterisks indicating means for lodging levels are shown in hybrids (light blue) but not in parents (dark blue)? In current form, this means that lodging was assessed in hybrids only but not in parents. Why? I strongly suggest to use and show asterisks for both plant height (above the bars) and for lodging scores (inside bars) indicating significant differences among studied accessions: taller/shorter and more/less lodging. In this context, as minimum, one-way ANOVA has to be applied with levels of probability for significant differences among studied hybrids and parents in this and in other Figures.
(5) Figure 5 has to have a small improvement. I agree that this unrealistic to show the identification of all genotypes in horizontal lines, both on left and right parts of this Figure. However, it looks too ‘abstractive’ for Readers. This situation can be improved at least if Authors insert arrows (or something else) on leaf- or on right-hand side of the Figure or even ‘doubled-side arrow’ like ‘ßà’ exactly in the middle of this Figure. These arrows have to indicate five parental forms of spelt and bread wheat (if it was used). This step can show where at least parents are located in the identified Clusters. Authors can decide and choose any way most suitable for them to show positions of parent but it can significantly improve the understanding of the presented data in this Figure.
(6) L343-358. The first paragraph is the Discussion section is belong to Introduction because it only states about cv. Wirtas and has to be moved. Authors can insert one or two sentences only instead in the beginning of Discussion with following Sub-section 4.1.
Minor comments/corrections:
(7) L15, Sub-sections 2.2, 3.2.1, 4.3 and in entire manuscript. I strongly recommend Authors to reconsider and use only ‘sensitive or sensitivity to lodging’ instead ‘susceptible or susceptibility to lodging’. Grammatically, this is OK but traditionally, ‘susceptible’ and ‘resistant’ are mostly used for disease resistance, as Authors perfectly mentioned on L360: “resistance to fungal pathogens”. Therefore, please use only terms ‘sensitive’ or ‘tolerant’ to lodging for the majority of Reader’s satisfaction.
(8) L30 and L34-35. Please move Latin names of einkorn and emmer to L30 and introduce its in the first instance.
(9) L45-46. Please correct or explain, how many spelt cultivars are present in NLI, two or three? I can count three cultivars: Rokosz, Wirtas and Kuiavia.
(10) L47. Please insert full name of abbreviated CCA.
(11) L56, L179, L189 and in other parts. Please be consistent, ‘Fusarium’ has to be either in Italics (in Latin) or in normal case (in English) but not both together in the same text.
(12) L62. The title of the Sub-section 2.1 has to be ‘Plant Material’.
(13) Table 1, Head of Column 4. Please explain somewhere, what does ‘EWDB’ mean?
(14) Figure 1. Inside of the Figure, please change a font for botanical names of Triticum aestivum and T. spelta in Italics.
(15) L102-103. Please correct or explain, what does a symbol ‘degree’ (°) means for 1 and 5? In my understanding, this is a score class and, therefore, symbols ‘degree’ are inappropriate and have to be removed.
(16) L118, L147. It would be good if Authors can provide references for published papers describing used methods, such Weende, Ward’s and others.
(17) L237. Please correct for singular form: ‘…whereas K20xO11 hybrid was most…’.
(18) L481-482. I cannot understand why the name of Dr. Habil is so disrespectful and written from small letter, especially in Acknowledgments section? Please correct.
(19) L483. If Authors declare conflicts of interest, they have to specify what kind of conflict is declared. Otherwise, please correct: ‘Authors declare no conflict of interest’.
Reviewer 3 Report
Brief Summary
The authors characterize new spelt F5 hybrids that have been generated. They analyze various parameter of the hybrids and are able to categorize them into four groups with varying degrees of chemical content (protein, lipid, ash) as well as field performance (lodging). Their aim appears to be breeding for more genetic diversity of important traits for spelt which may be used regionally or internationally.
Broad comments
It is clear that the authors have put a substantial amount of energy into their experiments. However there are improvements to be made. The introduction section of the manuscript needs more work. The authors need to expand on wheat quality in general and what that means for the different market classes of wheat. They then need to expand on why spelt is important. They need to be clear about whether their aim is to develop spelt varieties for local consumption or for international end uses. Also, in an area of the manuscript dealing with chemical analysis of the grain (protein, fat, fiber, ash), the authors use two replicates for their statistical analysis and conclusions. They need to have a minimum of three in order to justify the conclusions they came to. Also, the authors need to be clear about whether the work they are doing is going to be for a limited region of the world or can be extrapolated for international used. They need to make stronger connections between areas of the manuscript where they mention for example, varieties from Canada and how it connects to their own work as well as how it connects to the other spelt-growing regions mentioned in the manuscript.
The discussion section of the manuscript needs more work. In the discussion, it is difficult to tell when the authors are talking about their own work in the current study and when they are talking about previous work by the same authors or by other authors. When the authors mention their work from the current study, it seems to be a list of results but more effort needs to go into discussing the implications of the hybrids lines made and how it contributes to genetic diversity and what this genetic diversity means for the future of spelt production in multiple ways. The authors also present a list of parameters and characteristics in Table 3 where differences between the parents and the hybrids are observed. The authors need to discuss the other parameters that were significant in Table 3. What is the significance of these parameters and what do the changes seen in the hybrids mean for the future of spelt yields, end-use quality, market classification and economic benefits. The authors also need to discuss the differences between the two hybrid lines in the context of Table 3.
Specific Comments
Please see highlights in pdf:
Line 27 to Line 30: Where are the citations for these statements? Please include them here.
Line 30: You give the scientific name of spelt as well as the chromosomal number and subgenomic configuration. Please do the same for emmer and einkorn as this is where these species are first mentioned in the text of the manuscript.
Line 31: Delete the word "already".
Line 36 to 37: Please explain what you mean by "niche species"? What exactly was it being cultivated for? What niche did it occupy? This is important because the authors then go on to describe the importance of spelt in the later half of the 20th century. It is therefore wise for them to describe what niche spelt occupied before this time period.
Line 40 to 41: The reference for this statement was from 2014. Please make sure that this statement is still accurate in 2019. Update the citation as necessary.
Line 43: Please explain why winter spelt is predominant. Include the relevant citations.
Line 45: You have mentioned three varieties below. Please make the correction.
Line 46 to 47: Please explain why you are suddenly talking about Polish varieties. Please provide a broader context for the sudden focus on Polish varieties. Also indicate why you mentioned the number of varieties. Do you intend to tie it into the need to create more varieties? Are there any diseases specific to certain regions that the increase in varieties will help to tackle? Are you trying to make Polish spelt more competitive with those from other countries? What are the economic benefits? Give the reasons.
Line 48 to 49: Please describe what is unique about the spelt genetic composition compared to other wheat species or subspecies. Also, provide the citation for the claim about the crossability of spelt and bread wheat.
Line 57 to 58: Please explain why there is a growing interest in spelt organic farms. Also, when you say spelt varieties are limited. Is this in relation to Poland when compared to Germany, Austria and Switzerland? Or are you saying that even with all of those countries combined, there is a need for more spelt varieties? Please be clear here.
Line 58 to 59: From the previous statements, it seems that winter varieties are also limited. Please explain why you are focusing on spring varieties. Also are you focusing on spring varieties in a specific country or in general?
Line 60: Please expand on this sentence. What were you hoping the cluster analysis would help you find? What were you hoping the results would contribute to the scientific community? Also, instead of a single-sentence paragraph, this part could easily be combined with the previous section.
Line 64 to 65: Please provide the data or the citations for the observations about yield, chemical composition and resistance. Also, define what is meant by a satisfactory chemical composition.
Line 66 to 67: Please provide pictures of these morphological observations.
Line 67 to 86: Please provide a flow diagram of the description you have. It makes it easier for the reader to integrate your process of obtaining the F5 generation.
Line 71 (Table 1): Please provide a footnote with the full names of the Gene banks you used (NCPGR, IPK)
Line 95 to 96: Please explain why this particular cultivar Parabola was used as a reference.
Line 96 to 97: Please specify which grain characteristic you are looking at in Figure 1. Given that Lugol staining is used for starch, please indicate how you did the staining process. Please indicate why you did the staining and how it is relevant to the aim you are trying to achieve. Also, in your results section, please indicate what information you obtained from this staining process about the starch content and how it is relevant to your goals.
Line 99 to 100: Please italicize the scientific names you used in the actual figure.
Line 101 to 103: Please provide pictures of the wheat in each of these grading scales.
Line 119 to 120: Please do more replicates of these analyses. Two replicates are not enough to ensure the accuracy of your tests. The conclusions of your analyses should be drawn from a minimum of three replications.
Line 141: Please list the 18 quantitative traits in brackets.
Line 150 to 151: Please provide the citations of other people who have used this method. Otherwise be clear that to the best of your knowledge you are the only research group that has used this method of analysis.
Line 163 to 165: Please provide pictures of these observations.
Line 165 to 166: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "92 to 654 g".
Line 166 to 170: Please provide the raw data for the figures and tables you have indicated here. Please indicate how many samples were used in creating the average spike weight. Some of your error bars are very large. Please provide an explanation for this. Also, the data provided in Table 2 needs more than two replicates. Three should be the minimum.
Line 174 to 176: Please provide pictures of these descriptions.
Line 177 to 178: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "57 to 570 g".
Line 181: Please spell out the abbreviation % DM (if it is % dry matter, please say so).
Line 185 to 187: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 188: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "69 to 579 g".
Line 193 to 195: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 196: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "23 to 460 g".
Line 200 to 202: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 203: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "30 to 480 g".
Line 206 to 208: Please provide pictures of these morphological descriptions.
Line 209: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "20 to 314 g".
Line 215: Please use "to" instead of “-". For example "23 to 370 g".
Line 231 to 239: Please provide pictures of the scale of the lodging susceptibility or resistance. Also, in your discussion section, please talk about why lodging is important and why resistance to lodging is vital.
Line 246 to 254: Please provide pictures of these nodal differences.
Line 258 to 268: Please put these traits in sentence form.
Line 280: Do you mean to say "parent" instead of "form".
Line 281 to 291: Please provide the raw data that was used in the analyses. Also provide pictures of the morphological observations.
Line 292 to 305: Please provide the raw data used in these analyses. Also provide pictures of the morphological descriptions.
Line 297 to 298 (Table 3): Please indicate what all the abbreviations (PH, SL, etc.) mean as part of the table legend. Also indicate the units of the components measured (grams, or percentage, etc.). Also, please talk about the implications of all of the 11 parameters mentioned here in the discussion part of the manuscript. You talk about lodging in your discussion section but you also need to talk about the other 11.
Line 306 to 315: Please provide the raw data used in the analyses. Also provide pictures of the observations noted here.
Line 316 to 324: Please provide the raw data used in these analyses. Also provide pictures for the observations noted.
Line 325 to 334: Please put the descriptions of the major groups into a table instead of separate paragraphs. The information is clearer that way.
Line 345 to 346: Please indicate the consequences of low genetic diversity.
Line 349: Please indicate whether Wirtas is a true spelt or not.
Line 356 to 358: Please say why Wirtas is popular in organic farms. Also provide the citations for these statements.
Line 362 to 364: Please describe what the milling quality investigations as well as the research into utilizing spelt for functional foods found.
Line 373 to 374: Please indicate what this hull percentage of 25.2% means for Wirtas as indicated by the authors in the citation.
Line 375 to 376: Please indicate what the minimum or maximum is in order for a yield component to be classified as satisfactory or not. Also refer to the relevant table or figure in the manuscript.
Line 384 to 387: What is the significance of the results obtained from the F5 hybrids? For example, if it is similar to those determined by other researchers, does it mean that the hybrids developed will be competitive on the market? Please clearly state the relevance of your results, not just the results.
Line 389 to 405: Please talk about the implications of the grain protein content. What does it mean for the different end uses of wheat (cookies, bread, pasta)? What does it mean for what Wirtas is used for or could potentially be used for?
Line 405: Please change "In this" to "In the current"
Line 406 to 417: What are the implications of the protein content analyses for the F5 hybrids? Can they be used for bread? Are they internationally competitive or are they restricted to end uses in a particular geographic region? Please always talk about the implications of your results.
Line 418 to 426: What are the consequences of the fact that spelt has more free lipids than bread wheat? Does it affect processing? Does it mean a higher level of lipid oxidation which can then affect the color of the flour? What are the implications of the results found for the F5 hybrids? Is there a minimum or maximum lipid content allowed for bread baking or other end uses? Please state that here and expand on this section.
Line 427 to 436: Again, what are the implications of what was discovered about the ash content? For example, does it make the hybrids more marketable or less? If the hybrids cannot be used for bread, is there another end use such as cookies or pasta or other industrial uses that the hybrids can be utilized for?
Line 436 to 437: I think this portion should be in the previous paragraph where you talk about protein content.
Line 438 to 449: What are the implications of the results on fiber for the hybrids? Does it make it more or less marketable? Does it affect the end uses? What potential advantages or disadvantages do the hybrids have over hexaploid wheat, spring spelt and winter spelt?
Line 451 to 454: Please provide more information about the depth of the losses incurred due to lodging. For example, what percent yield loss can be due to lodging? How does this affect the economic prospects of the farmers? How does this affect regional or global food production?
Line 458 to 460: Where is the citation for this sentence?
Line 462 to 466: What are the possible solutions for reducing the lodging that is seen in the F5 hybrids? For example, do they need to be crossed with other varieties?
Line 466 to 467: What are the other determinants of lodging? How do the F5 hybrids perform in the other determinants of lodging?
Line 481 to 482: Are there two people named Dr. Habil or is this a mistake? Also, please provide the full names of Dr. Habil.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
