Comprehensive Evaluation of Mung Bean Germplasm Resources Based on DUS Test Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Comprehensive Evaluation of Mung Bean Germplasm Resources Based on DUS Test Characteristics" by Leyong Feng et al. describes the results of examination 180 mung bean genotypes using the DUS test. The study identified key characteristics that statistically significantly influence the yield of mung bean accessions—leaf greenness, pod number per plant, and 100-grain weight. An outstanding cultivar, Yingge 2, was identified, which can be used in mung bean breeding. Overall, the study by Leyong Feng et al. has some practical value and may be of interest to breeders of this valuable crop.

The authors used methods appropriate to the study objectives. I believe the results are reliable and valid. The article is well written, and the results are presented clearly. Nevertheless, I believe the text could be improved.

1. In Section 4.2, the used "Test for SPECIFICITY, Uniformity, and Stability of New Plant Varieties—Red Bean" should be briefly described (line 309). Otherwise, it is not very clear where the values of the characteristics in the table 1 come from. Specificity or Distinctness? Is this Test the same that described in ".....the guidelines [25] (" (line 321)?
2. The authors studied the relationships between various characteristics. Strong correlations were found between some characteristics and yield. But the authors do not explain the biological sense of these correlations. For example, a strong relationship was shown between yield and characteristics 7 (Section 2.6). How is "...light green color" of the leaf related to yield? It would be helpful to explain the biological sense of at least some of the relationships between characteristics. This would improve the article and make it more interesting to a wider audience.
3. The article contains typos. For example, line 331 reads "The soybean germplasm was evaluated......" Soybean? Line 333. "The formula The calculation formulas are as follows:...." The text needs to be check.

Overall, the study is well-conducted, the results are not evoking doubts, and the text is clearly written. I believe the article Leyong Feng et al. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Mung Bean Germplasm Resources Based on DUS Test Characteristics" can be published in the journal Plants Special Issue.

Author Response

Comments 1:In Section 4.2, the used "Test for SPECIFICITY, Uniformity, and Stability of New Plant Varieties—Red Bean" should be briefly described (line 309). Otherwise, it is not very clear where the values of the characteristics in the table 1 come from. Specificity or Distinctness? Is this Test the same that described in ".....the guidelines [25] (line 321)?

Response 1:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion. This study followed the industrial standard Test for Specificity, Uniformity, and Stability of New Plant Varieties—Mung Bean (consistent with Ref. [25]), with the corresponding revisions completed in the manuscript.(page 13，line346)

Comments 2:The authors studied the relationships between various characteristics. Strong correlations were found between some characteristics and yield. But the authors do not explain the biological sense of these correlations. For example, a strong relationship was shown between yield and characteristics 7 (Section 2.6). How is "...light green color" of the leaf related to yield? It would be helpful to explain the biological sense of at least some of the relationships between characteristics. This would improve the article and make it more interesting to a wider audience.

Response 2:We thank the reviewers for the suggestion. We have added relevant discussion on the correlation of agronomic traits with yield to the manuscript (page 13，line 227-232).

Comments 3:The article contains typos. For example, line 331 reads "The soybean germplasm was evaluated......" Soybean? Line 333. "The formula The calculation formulas are as follows:...." The text needs to be check.

Response 3:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion,We have proofread and revised the relevant text passages (line 208,219,346,349,367,391).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript authors are reporting about Comprehensive Evaluation of Mung Bean Germplasm resources based on DUS Test characteristics. Authors have studied different mung bean varieties examining physical traits. Manuscript is well prepared and needful experimentations have been done. There are a few concerns that must be addressed.

Authors must start abstract with a stronger motivation. The goal of the study is insufficiently clarified.

First paragraph of introduction section must be made short to avoid redundancy. Significance of mung bean must be mentioned more vividly.

In the last paragraph of introduction section, authors must clearly state the research gap as traits are largely descriptive and not systematically linked to yield performance.

Objective of the study must be mentioned in short sentences to improve readability.

Result section is well prepared.  The figures should be clearly captioned and more details must be added for the ease of the readers.

Similarly, table captions must be revised. More details must be added in table captions and notes.

Authors must start discussion with the key findings as identified yield-predictive traits.

Conclusion is repetition of the results. It must be a take home message for the breeders such as breeders can prioritize the following traits for yield stability, and yield increase.

Authors must narrate methodology in past tenses.

Germplasm list mentioned in table 6 can be moved in supplemental section.

More details must be added regarding the version of SPSS and R packages for reproducibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved. Authors must use past tenses in methodology and result sections. Authors must avoid using long sentences.  

Author Response

Comments 1:Authors must start abstract with a stronger motivation. The goal of the study is insufficiently clarified.

Response 1:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion, We have refined the abstract in the manuscript (page 1, line 14-19,line 30-35).

Comments 2:First paragraph of introduction section must be made short to avoid redundancy. Significance of mung bean must be mentioned morevividly.

Response 2:Thank you for this insightful suggestion.Accordingly, We have restructured and improved the first paragraph of the Introduction in the revised manuscript.(page 1, line 40-51）

Comments 3:In the last paragraph of introduction section, authors must clearly state the research gap as traits are largely descriptive and not systematically linked to yield performance.

Response 3:Thank you for this insightful suggestion.Accordingly, We re-organized the text structure in revised manuscript. (page 2, line 72-84)

Comments 4:Objective of the study must be mentioned in short sentences to improve readability.

Response 4:Thanks reviewer’s sugestion.The research objectives were briefly described above.(page 2, line79-84)

Comments 5:Result section is well prepared. The figures should be clearly captioned and more details must be added for the ease of the readers.

Response 5:We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions. We have optimized and enriched the figure captions throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and ensure comprehensive understanding. (Line 129-134, 160-161, 234-236).

Comments 6:Similarly, table captions must be revised. More details must be added in table captions and notes.

Response 6:We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments from the reviewers. We have carefully refined the titles of the tables, supplemented them with sufficient details, and added necessary notes to the table captions to enhance clarity and readability （Line 108-109, 162-163, 178-179, 200-201, 238-239）.

Comments 7:Authors must start discussion with the key findings as identified yield-predictive traits.

Response 7:We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. We have revised the opening paragraph of the Discussion section to clearly present the key yield‑predictive traits and their major statistical results related to yield. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.（page 11, line241-257）

Comments 8:Conclusion is repetition of the results. It must be a take home message for the breeders such as breeders can prioritize the following traits for yield stability, and yield increase.

Response 8:Thank you for this insightful suggestion.Accordingly, We have reorganized the research conclusions in the revised manuscript. (page 10, line 227-232)

Comments 9:Authors must narrate methodology in past tenses.

Response 9:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the Methods section to use the past tense.

Comments 10:Germplasm list mentioned in table 6 can be moved in supplemental section.

Response 10:We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. We have moved the germplasm list mentioned to the supplemental section as Table S1. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.

Comments 11:More details must be added regarding the version of SPSS and R packages for reproducibility.

Response 11:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion.We have supplemented the detailed versions of SPSS and R software packages in the manuscript (page 14, lines 377 - 379, lines 382 - 386).

Comments 12:Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved. Authors must use past tenses in methodology and result sections. Authors must avoid using long sentences.

Response 12:Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully revised the English language quality of the manuscript. Specifically, we have changed the verb tenses in the methodology and results sections to the past tense, and split or rephrased all long sentences to improve clarity and readability. We hope the revised version meets your requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study systematically analyzed 31 distinctness, uniformity, and stability (DUS) test characteristics across 180 soybean germplasm resources using multiple statistical methods, and obtained some meaningful results, but there are many small mistakes in the article that need to be corrected, such as:

1. line 207 and line 214, "soybean yield", is it right?
2. line 365, "soybean DUS characteristics", the author forgot what the experimental material was?
3. in Figure 3, The values in the equation should retain the same number of decimal places, and the same should be done in the text.
4. line 155, the authors should use a figure to show the main results of PCA analysis.

Author Response

Comments 1:line 207 and line 214, "soybean yield", is it right?

Response 1:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised “soybean yield” to “mung bean yield” in the manuscript (page 10, line 219)

Comments 2:line 365, "soybean DUS characteristics", the author forgot what the experimental material was?

Response 2:Thanks reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised “soybean DUS characteristics” to “mung bean DUS characteristics” in the manuscript (page 15, line 389).

Comments 3:in Figure 3, The values in the equation should retain the same number of decimal places, and the same should be done in the text.

Response 3:We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestion. We have carefully checked and revised the values in the regression equations in the original Figure 3 (now Figure 4) and the corresponding descriptions in the text. All numerical values have been adjusted to retain the same number of decimal places to ensure consistency and readability throughout the manuscript. (page 10, line 220、221、224、225)

Comments 4:line 155, the authors should use a figure to show the main results of PCA analysis.

Response 4:We sincerely appreciate the valuable suggestions from the reviewer. To more intuitively present the main results of the principal component analysis (PCA), we have added a new Figure 3 (PCA scatter plot based on the first two principal components PC1 and PC2) in the revised manuscript. Meanwhile, we have revised the corresponding content in the Results section. （page7, line 173-176,page 8, line 181-182）.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have done needful. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved. Authors must use past tenses in methodology and result sections. Authors must avoid using long sentences.