Review Reports
- Shanjida Rahman1,2,
- Shahidul Islam1,3,* and
- Wujun Ma1,6
- et al.
Reviewer 1: João Everthon Da Silva Ribeiro Reviewer 2: Fuad Gaši
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear,
Some suggestions have been proposed:
- Reduce further the information of the Results in the Abstract.
_ I suggest adding a hypothesis before the objectives. Organize hypotheses according to conclusions.
I found the Results Figures interesting, however, I suggest that they insert the letters of the mean test. Improve the quality of the images and add y-axis legends and a larger x-axis legend.
The graphics are easy to understand.
In Figure 4, place these values above the error bar.
Statistical analysis and graphics look great.
Author Response
Many thanks for your time to review our manuscript. We have conducted the revisions based on your comments as detailed below:
|
Comment of reviewers |
Responses from authors |
|
Reduce further the information of the Results in the Abstract. |
The results sections have been reduced in abstract. Track change version: pg. 23-37, Clean version: pg. 22-34. |
|
I suggest adding a hypothesis before the objectives. Organize hypotheses according to conclusions. |
A hypothesis has been added before objectives. Track change version: pg. 18-20, Clean version: pg. 18-19. |
|
I found the Results Figures interesting, however, I suggest that they insert the letters of the mean test. Improve the quality of the images and add y-axis legends and a larger x-axis legend. |
Adding letters of the mean test and y-axis legends resulted a clumsy figure. Thus, we prefer keeping the Figure 1 as it is to maintain the readability of it. However, figure legend has been modified for a better understanding of the figure. |
|
The graphics are easy to understand. |
The author appreciates the comment. |
|
In Figure 4, place these values above the error bar. |
A correction was made regarding this by mentioning the values above the error bar. Track change version: pg. 386, Clean version: pg. 382. |
|
Statistical analysis and graphics look great. |
The author appreciates the comment. |
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Characterising agronomic and shoot morphological diversity 2 across 263 wild emmer wheat accessions” presents and an exhaustive study on 19 above ground important agronomic traits of 263 accessions of wild emmer obtained from the Gene Bank of the Institute of Evolution from Israel. The material used in the study is very interesting as it was collected from Eastern Mediterranean countries (wild emmer is native to the Fertile Crescent). The approach to the cultivation and subsequent morphological analyses deviates from standard Gene Bank practices and is far more complex, with the intention of obtaining more objective and reliable data. Consequently, the obtained data is also very comprehensive. The statistical analyses are all appropriate, as are the conclusions based on the obtained results.
Some parts of the manuscript such as the segment of the Introduction discussing tiller traits are somewhat too detailed (I suggest transferring this paragraph to the Discussion) as are the graphical representations of various statistical analyses. I do understand that most of these issues are unavoidable due to the complexity and scope of the study. This characteristic of the manuscript drastically reduces its readability. However, the information presented is very valuable for plant breeders.
The technical aspects of the manuscript are generally fine, with few exceptions (using the abbreviation WEW before defining it, etc.) that can easily be sorted out. Overall, I believe that the manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the field.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks for your time to review our manuscript. We have conducted the revisions based on your comments as detailed below:
|
Comment of reviewer |
Responses from authors |
|
The manuscript “Characterising agronomic and shoot morphological diversity 2 across 263 wild emmer wheat accessions” presents and an exhaustive study on 19 above ground important agronomic traits of 263 accessions of wild emmer obtained from the Gene Bank of the Institute of Evolution from Israel. The material used in the study is very interesting as it was collected from Eastern Mediterranean countries (wild emmer is native to the Fertile Crescent). The approach to the cultivation and subsequent morphological analyses deviates from standard Gene Bank practices and is far more complex, with the intention of obtaining more objective and reliable data. Consequently, the obtained data is also very comprehensive. The statistical analyses are all appropriate, as are the conclusions based on the obtained results. Some parts of the manuscript such as the segment of the Introduction discussing tiller traits are somewhat too detailed (I suggest transferring this paragraph to the Discussion) as are the graphical representations of various statistical analyses. I do understand that most of these issues are unavoidable due to the complexity and scope of the study. This characteristic of the manuscript drastically reduces its readability. However, the information presented is very valuable for plant breeders. The technical aspects of the manuscript are generally fine, with few exceptions (using the abbreviation WEW before defining it, etc.) that can easily be sorted out. Overall, I believe that the manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the field. |
The author appreciates the overall comment. Following his suggestions some point has been modified:
· In ‘Introduction’ section, some information about tiller number has been reduced. Track change version: pg. 108-109, Clean version: pg. 105.
· The abbreviation form of wild emmer wheat (WEW) has been introduced beforehand as the reviewer suggested. Track change version: pg. 78, Clean version: pg. 75.
|
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My suggestions were answered.