Selection of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Genotypes for High Yield, Essential Amino Acids and Low Anti-Nutritional Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors. 

The manuscript is good and contains enough data for the Agriculture journal. However, before publication, some corrections are needed. My specific comments:

In the introduction please write a paragraph about the tannin effect on the plant's physiological parameters. In my opinion, it can be good for the readers. Please write a paragraph about which factors (biotic and abiotic) affect the measured parameters and how to affect the measured parameters. 

In the Material and methods section please add more details about the measurement methods. How did you measure the morphological plant height, first pod height, yield, etc.) and biochemical (protein contents, free amino acids contents, etc) parameters? The experiment should be representative and without these pieces of information, it is not representative. Moreover please add information about the other plant protection methods. Did you use a fungicide, or insecticide, if not how can you solve the fungi and insect problem? How did you determine the data normality?etc. 

In the result section please add letters to table 5, table 6, table 7, and table 8 which show the differences among the cultivars/parameters. The a should be the lowest value, then b, c, d, etc. Please change the letters in table 4. The lowest value must be a, then b, c, d, etc. 

Please add a Discussion section. I read the Instruction for Authors page, and I read that in can combine with the result. However in my opinion the results should contain only the results, and you have to discuss your results in the discussion section. The manuscript will be more readable with the discussion section.

The conclusion section is too general. You have to write more conclusions about your results (not only for the yield).

My final recommendation: Accept after minor revision.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and interest, your kindly reviews as well. Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors report the Evaluation of Selected Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Genotypes for         Agronomical and Some Biochemical Characteristics. The paper is well written and can be accepted after minor revisions.

the author should follow the journal format 

there are some typo and grammatical errors please check

Please replace old references by latest ones. At least 75% of the references of a modern manuscript should be between 2018-2022. Check your references.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and interest, your kindly reviews as well. Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

This manuscript has no chance of being accepted. This manuscript has the following problems:

Abstract

-          The authors must define the issue clearly in a single line and explain why they chose this approach to study this research?

-          The type of experimental design and the number of studied factors should be mentioned.

-          The authors should provide some quantitative data for studied traits

-          The sentence (Vicine, convicine and tannin are referred to as antinutritional factors in faba bean, FLIP08-016FB had not only low antinutritional factors, but also high yield) has no sense and should be modified

-          The author should present the results of each year separately and also compare the output of two years

-          The authors should present a decisive conclusion that is derived from the research in the final line of the abstract and provide a single line of future prospects

Keywords

-          The content of keywords did not reflect the content of this manuscript and the words used for forming the title should not be used as the keywords. So, the structure of keywords should be changed. The authors should change the terms: Faba bean and Vicia faba;

Introduction

-          The line (Edible legumes are important protein sources for human nutrition and animal feeding in the world (Gnanasambandam et al., 2012; Inci and Toker, 2011; Khalil and Mansour, 1995; Khan et al., 2015; Kosinska et al., 2011; Pulkkinen et al., 2015; Van der Maesen and Somaatmadja, 1992; Yahia et al., 2013)) should be deleted because it is a repeated sentence

-          In the introduction the authors should provide some information about the methods of evaluation and genetic diversity of faba bean.

-          No information is available about the chemical composition of the seeds of faba bean especially about the protein composition profile

-          The authors should give some lines about the knowledge gap which their research has covered along with the hypothesis statement.

Materials and methods

-          The level of tannin in two registered varieties (Ica white, Elisar) and two local faba bean cultivars (Atlidere local and Antalya local) should be added

-          The sentence (Analysis of variance (ANOVA), descriptive statistics and multiple comparison test (Tukey’s, P<0.05) were performed using SPSS 22 (IBM Statistics Version 22)): should be placed in the end of materials and methods

-          I think the statistical data analysis used in this study is not correct because the authors conducted and repeated the experiment over two years, so, it is better that the authors use the combined analysis of variance with the application of RCBD method. As shown in the ANOVA table (Table 3), the authors used the Two-way ANOVA, but this method is not correct. The authors should use the combined analysis of variance and the structure of ANOVA table is as the following:

Block

Year

Error of Year

Genotype

Genotype x Year

Error of all experiment

-          The number of replications and plants used for all agronomical and biochemical traits should be described

Results

-          The captions of all Tables and Figures should be modified because they have no sense

-          The authors should define the data in the table 3. Are these data sum square or mean square?

-          The location of Tables 4 and 5 should be changed. The authors should present the table 5 and then table 4

-          The author should present the results of each year separately and also compare the output of two years

-          The data in Tables 5-8 should subject to statistical data analysis

-          Information or data about the comparison between two years is not available in this manuscript

-          Information or data about the interactions between Years and Genotypes is not available

-          The discussion section is not available in this manuscript. There are not any interpretations of the results obtained in this study. So, the support of results and interpretation is zero

Conclusions

-          This section is not correctly written and structured. The authors should rewrite this section by adding some concluded information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and interest, your kindly reviews as well. Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have not addressed all the comments. These comments should be modified by the authors:

1. The data in Tables 5-8 should be subjected to statistical analysis. For the information of the authors, the insignificant levels of a factor by the ANOVA table does not mean the presence of same statement in pairwise comparison of two means by Tukey test, hence the authors should be performed the statistical analysis for these Tables because probably, there are the significant difference at least between two two mean values. 2. The discussion is poorly written and should be modified.

Author Response

Thanks and best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx