Prediction Model for Breeding Hardy Geraniums

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

2.3. Crossing success criteria  (It is the redaction)

The success rate of these crosses was assessed based on the following crossing success response criteria:

1) pollen tube growth (tube_length) using aniline blue staining tests (see further);

2) seed development (seed_dev): as defined by the percentage of crossed flowers with at least one swollen ovule with white, yellow, green testa or mature seed with brown testa, 7 - 35 days after pollination (for 2021);  

3) seed set (seed_set): percentage of crossed flowers with at least one mature seed with brown testa, 25 - 35 days after pollination (for 2020).

2.4 Statistical analysis

Eliminate:

.. As previously mentioned, three response criteria were considered that express the success rate of crossing: tube_length, seed_dev and seed_set…..

 

3. Results 

3.2 Prediction of crossing success（It is the redaction）

….the response criteria (Figures 2 and 3)…….

 

References

Reference No. 10 should indicate: Ann. Bot. 1977, 41(6), 1233–1258.doi: ……

Reference No. 11 should indicate Ann. Bot. 85, Issue suppl_1, 1:5-13, doi:………. 

Reference No. 12 should indicate Development 1999, 126(23):5431-5440.

Reference No. 13 should indicate Biol. Plant. (Prague). 1959,  1(3):192-198

Reference No. 30 is not mentioned in the text (within bracket)

Some DOI´s are missing like in references No. 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 45

Check references No.  16 and 38

Complete information about book sections are missing, like references No. 17, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33, 40, and 42

References No. 2, 3, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 26 are incomplete

Reference No. 29 seems to be incorrect

According to the DOI, references No. 1 and 31 are incorrect

The quality of the English language is fine

Author Response

Dear,

Please see the attachment!

Best regards,

Mehrdad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The assessed manuscript is extremely interesting, dealing with an important topic that can improve and accelerate the process of breeding new cultivars of hardy geraniums, as well as other ornamental plants. The manuscript is written in an interesting way, presenting valuable results that led to the conclusion that the developed regression model allows to estimate for the breeder how many crosses he needs to make to achieve success with the parents' genetic distance apart.

The manuscript can be [ubl;ished in almost present form, after very limited corrections only.

In Abstract please do not use full names (line 24 and 25), "seed development" and "the Jaccard distance", since full names and abbreviations were given earlier.

LIne 105 - EC units should be written as follows: dot in the middle of line and -1 as upper index

 

Author Response

Dear,

Please see the attachment!

Best regards,

Mehrdad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors and the editor,

This an interesting work for breeding hardy geraniums, a better model will save more work and timing. But in my opinion, this model select 42 Geranium genotypes and during two consecutive breeding seasons (years), which seems to not much enough and more ecotypes more  than two years and locates. Secondly, please summarize the speech in abstract and conclusions. At the same time, the figures 2,3 and 4 are not clear enough, please improve them.

 

Dear authors and the editor,

This an interesting work for breeding hardy geraniums, a better model will save more work and timing. But in my opinion, this model select 42 Geranium genotypes and during two consecutive breeding seasons (years), which seems to not much enough and more ecotypes more  than two years and locates. Secondly, please summarize the speech in abstract and conclusions. At the same time, the figures 2,3 and 4 are not clear enough, please improve them.

Author Response

Dear,

Please see the attachment!

Best regards,

Mehrdad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this study, authors propose a model that can predict interspecific hybridization in hardy geraniums, providing a basis for improving the success of interspecific hybridization. This model is very practical, however, there are some problems with the manuscript, as follows:

1.     In the “Introduction” section, I do not find any description about the uniqueness of the study. For example, what is the purpose and significance of this study?    Compared with the existing research, what is new and different in your research?    These have not been showed.

2.     Where do the 42 genotypes of geraniums come from, please supplement.

3.     The first occurrence of geranium should be indicated in parentheses with its Latin name.

4.     The scale bar was missing in Figure 1, please add. And we suggest changing the arrows in the figure to a brighter color (e.g. red) and making them bold.

5.     The “Conclusion” section is too vague and unclear. The conclusion should be a more in-depth understanding of the study results, and it is recommended to add relevant textual descriptions.

6.     Please check the grammar and sentence structure in full text. Please mprove English level of expression. For example: Line 77-78, Line 208-209, etc.

Please check the Egnlish carefully throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear,

Please see the attachment!

Best regards,

Mehrdad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The work is interesting and original. The results and methodologies are clearly described. 

A more in-depth discussion would help to improve the interpretations of the study.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear,

Please see the attachment!

Best regards,

Mehrdad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have already revised the MS carefully, and I think the MS can be accepted for publication at its present form.

Some minor revision may be needed to improve the language of the MS.