Combining Ability and Heterosis for Market Yield in Green Asparagus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found this paper to be very sound, well presented, with a few minor text errors (listed below) I recommend this paper is accepted. I suggest you give the paper a further proof read before re-submission, as there are likely to be a few further typos I have not identified.
- Line 101. Can you pleas better explain ….and in a per se evaluation.”
- Line 132. Can you please reword “considered also as a commercial check.”
- Line 139 amend typo “speedling trays”.
- Line 143 amend typo “implanted”
- Line 272 amend typo “Figure2” missing space.
- Line 373 reword “worldwide in the incoming years, for most of the horticultural species, it is expected a stagnation …”. Better to say. “The available land for commercial horticultural production is anticipated to decline global, thus ….”
- Line 455 Change “In conclusions” to “In conclusion,”
Author Response
I found this paper to be very sound, well presented, with a few minor text errors (listed below) I recommend this paper is accepted. I suggest you give the paper a further proof read before re-submission, as there are likely to be a few further typos I have not identified.
- Line 101. Can you pleas better explain ....and in a per se evaluation.”
Reply: A. officinalis is a dioecious species, female plants and male plants exist as different individuals; therefore, selfing is not possible. To obtain parental seed and achieve its per se evaluation, it is necessary to cross within each accession (sib-mating) and group them
to increase their seeds [This is explained at the end of the treated paragraph]. Of primary importance when it comes to quantitative characteristics, the consideration that it is a perennial species and that the microenvironment surrounding the plant plays a crucial
importance because its effect (positive or negative depending the season) will shape the phenotype. Consequently, the accessions should be evaluated both as parents and for per se evaluation. All the information was added to the manuscripts.
- Line 132. Can you please reword “considered also as a commercial check.”
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- Line 139 amend typo “speedling trays”.
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- Line 143 amend typo “implanted”
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- Line 272 amend typo “Figure2” missing space.
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- Line 373 reword “worldwide in the incoming years, for most of the horticultural species, it is expected a stagnation ...”. Better to say. “The available land for commercial horticultural production is anticipated to decline global, thus ....”
Reply: We agree with the suggestion and it was modified in the manuscript.
- Line 455 Change “In conclusions” to “In conclusion,”
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript deals with the genetic evaluation of heterosis and combining ability on Asparagus yield and quality. Authors evaluated these genetic components on two diallel crosses using 12 accessions from differents geographic origins.
The experimental design is current and the used methods (icluding statistics) are clearly presented.
The results and discussion are well structured.
The conclusion should modified to highlight clearly the most important findings and to open to further studies and uses.
Further remarks
Key words should be modified, two of them are present in the title.
Introduction
L28 Asparagus in italic
L75 delete (related to additive gene actions)
L76 delete (related to non-additive gene actions)
Table 1 (and in whole manuscript) please use Argenteuil instead of all variants
Author Response
The manuscript deals with the genetic evaluation of heterosis and combining ability on Asparagus yield and quality. Authors evaluated these genetic components on two diallel crosses using 12 accessions from differents geographic origins.
The experimental design is current and the used methods (icluding statistics) are clearly presented.
The results and discussion are well structured.
- The conclusion should modified to highlight clearly the most important findings and to open to further studies and uses.
Reply: We agree with the suggestion and the conclusion was modified in the manuscript. We added the best hybrid combinations obtained and the benefit offered by free access to the accessions used.
Further remarks
- Key words should be modified, two of them are present in the title.
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
Introduction
- L28 Asparagus in italic
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- L75 delete (related to additive gene actions)
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- L76 delete (related to non-additive gene actions)
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
- Table 1 (and in whole manuscript) please use Argenteuil instead of all variants
Reply: This was modified in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has interesting results but need improvements:
1) The authors should describe the origin (genealogy) of each accession, parents used in hybridizations, etc. This information would help in a better discussion.
2) The genetic divergence would be better discussed if the authors could use molecular markers in the study.
3) The authors said they collected data during two years but did not discuss anything about this.
4) Why were the hybridizations splilted in two sets? Detail the methodology for the hybridizations. Why were accessions 6, 13 and 20 in both sets?
5) Authors said in Material and Methods they evaluated more traits (tip quality and diameter) than just market yield but nothing is shown in Results.
6) Why were the reciprocals mixed? Don´t you think if you keep separated you could identify better hybrids?
7) I suggest in discussions and conclusions to present the best hybrid combinations, not the accessions.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The manuscript has interesting results but need improvements:
1) The authors should describe the origin (genealogy) of each accession, parents used in hybridizations, etc. This information would help in a better discussion.
Reply: We consider the suggestion important and we incorporate in the manuscript the citation of our published work “Genetic resources in asparagus: diversity and relationships in a collection from different origins and breeding status”, in 2021 in the journal New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science. There the origin (genealogy) of each accession and their relationships were described, with interesting conclusions. We are pleased to say that all accessions are freely accessible to the asparagus breeding community from the Genebanks or sources listed at the bottom of Table 1, where the origins of these accessions were included.
2) The genetic divergence would be better discussed if the authors could use molecular markers in the study.
Reply: We used SRAP molecular markers when evaluating the genetic divergence of the mentioned accessions, this is in the original manuscript at Line 233. The correlations between heterosis and genetic distances of the parents for both sets are presented in Table 9, and there was not significant association between them. In addition, we add in supplementary material the Table 2 with the genetic distances from SRAP markers.
3) The authors said they collected data during two years but did not discuss anything about this.
Reply: We collected data during two years/season (2019 and 2020) as described in Lines 152-163 of the original manuscript. In Asparagus, the first two seasons of harvest is a reliable estimator of the yield of the rest of the productive years. It was previously proved (Bussell et al., 1987). In addition, we consider this observation and added information in Results (3.1. Harvest data and Market yield).
4) Why were the hybridizations splilted in two sets? Detail the methodology for the hybridizations. Why were accessions 6, 13 and 20 in both sets?
Reply: In the field, crosses were made between the 12 accessions, all possible combinations. But not all the crosses were effective, when counting the obtained seeds we decided to separate them into two sets as complete as possible. If we had analyzed the data as a single set, data of crosses would have been missing. Consequently, parents 6, 13, and 30 were included in both sets to have enough parents from different origins in each set. We seek a way to make the sets as complete as possible in terms of origins and number of seeds, in order to have plants in the field, collect data and draw conclusions. In addition, we included information in Materials and Methods (2.1. Plant material).
5) Authors said in Material and Methods they evaluated more traits (tip quality and diameter) than just market yield but nothing is shown in Results.
Reply: We consider this observation and added information in Results (3.1. Harvest data and Market yield).
6) Why were the reciprocals mixed? Don´t you think if you keep separated you could identify better hybrids?
Reply: The reciprocal crosses were mixed to achieve an appropriate number of seeds and plants on the field according to the statistical analysis used at this work. López-Anido and Cointry (2008) describe that quantitative traits as market yield segregate independently from the gender (remember the dioecius nature of asparagus). Moreover Asprelli et al. (2005) when analized market yield in asparagus hybrid, observed no significant different in F1 reciprocal crosses.
7) I suggest in discussions and conclusions to present the best hybrid combinations, not the accessions.
Reply: We consider this observation. In Discussions - Lines 389-392 of the original manuscript, the best hybrid combinations were mentioned; and we added the best hybrid combinations in conclusions. We also consider it important to mention the parental accessions, due to the benefit offered by free to accessions for breeders.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors accepted my suggestions and the manuscript was improved.
