Assessment of Yield Stability of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) Using Genotype and Genotype–Environment Interaction Biplot Analysis
, Olaniyi Oyatomi 1, Emmanuel Ohiosinmuan Idehen 2 and Michael Abberton 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear Authors,
thank you for resubmitting this text to the review process.
In my opinion, the article needs minor corrections in the form of refining the discussion of the results-you have not done this in a thorough manner.
It is best to prepare the discussion in such a way that after comparing the information contained in other publications on similar topics with the results of your own research, you provide the source of this reference. If you refine this element, in my opinion, the work will be suitable for further proceedings.
The rest of my comments from the earlier review have been taken into account and are without fault, for which I thank you.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our study on the Assessment of yield stability of Bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] using GGE biplot analysis (agronomy-2532958). We appreciate your keen observations and have taken your valuable feedback into consideration.
Comment: In my opinion, the article needs minor corrections in the form of refining the discussion of the results-you have not done this in a thorough manner. It is best to prepare the discussion in such a way that after comparing the information contained in other publications on similar topics with the results of your own research, you provide the source of this reference. If you refine this element, in my opinion, the work will be suitable for further proceedings.
Response: We have refined the discussion and compared our results with other relevant publications.
Comment: The rest of my comments from the earlier review have been taken into account and are without fault, for which I thank you.
Response: Thank you very much for your time and kind words.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript provided a comprehensive study on the genetic assessment of yield stability of Bambara groundnut in Nigeria by biplot analysis. The results is interesting for the groundnut genetic resources conservation and breeding programs. However, the overall logically description and the format for the results and discussions need to be carefully revised before suitable for publication.
1. The name of Vigna subterranea in title should be italic.
2. The M&M, the 2.2 plant materials may put ahead of 2.1 the site description.
3. The Results and Discussion may be described seperatedly. The results included the parts of 3.1-3.6, while Lanes 216-261 and Lanes 408-435 may be combined as Discussion part in addition to some results, with comparison to the preious reports related.
4. Lane 178, the typing of the formula may be changed to the double lines following the instruction to the authors.
5. The references will be corrected based on the instruction for the format of the Journal.
The English language is just fine for the description.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our study on the Assessment of yield stability of Bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] using GGE biplot analysis (agronomy-2532958). We appreciate your keen observations and have taken your valuable feedback into consideration.
Comment: The manuscript provided a comprehensive study on the genetic assessment of yield stability of Bambara groundnut in Nigeria by biplot analysis. The results is interesting for the groundnut genetic resources conservation and breeding programs. However, the overall logically description and the format for the results and discussions need to be carefully revised before suitable for publication.
Response: We have revised the result and discussion section as requested.
Comment: The name of Vigna subterranea in title should be italic.
Response: The scientific name has been italicized.
Comment: The M&M, the 2.2 plant materials may put ahead of 2.1 the site description.
Response: The plant material section has been put ahead of the site description section as advised.
Comment: The Results and Discussion may be described seperatedly. The results included the parts of 3.1-3.6, while Lanes 216-261 and Lanes 408-435 may be combined as Discussion part in addition to some results, with comparison to the preious reports related.
Response: We appreciate your attention to the organization of the Results and Discussion section. After careful consideration, we would like to explain why we believe it is advantageous to keep these sections integrated rather than separate.
By presenting them together, we aim to provide a seamless narrative that allows readers to understand the results in the context of the broader discussion. In addition, keeping the Results and Discussion integrated enables us to provide real-time interpretation of the data as it is presented. This approach allows us to guide the reader through our results, making it easier for them to comprehend the implications and relevance of each set of results. It also avoids redundancy by not reiterating the results separately before discussing them. Finally, Separating the Results and Discussion into distinct sections could lead to repetition and inefficiency in space utilization. By presenting results and discussion together, we can maximize the effective use of space, ensuring that all pertinent information is included without undue repetition.
In light of these considerations, we request that you reconsider the separation of the Results and Discussion sections.
Comment: Lane 178, the typing of the formula may be changed to the double lines following the instruction to the authors.
Response: The formula has been adjusted.
Comment: The references will be corrected based on the instruction for the format of the Journal.
Response: The references were prepared using the endnote style of the journal, so we believe the format is correct.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper titled "Assessment of yield stability of Bambara groundnut using GGE biplot analysis" by Linus et al. presents a comprehensive analysis of genotype-environment interaction and yield stability of Bambara groundnut (BGN) across three distinct regions in Nigeria. The authors conducted a multi-location trial involving 30 BGN accessions and used GGE biplot analysis to identify high-performing genotypes in each environment and assess stability across environments. The paper provides important insights into the yield performance of BGN accessions and highlights potential parental lines for breeding programs.
General Comments: The paper is well-structured and provides detailed information on the methodology, results, and interpretation of the findings. The research topic is relevant to the field of plant breeding and agricultural research, and the use of GGE biplot analysis is appropriate for addressing the research objectives. Overall, the paper is well-written and contributes to the understanding of genotype-environment interactions in Bambara groundnut.
Specific Comments:
- Abstract: The abstract provides a concise summary of the study's objectives, methodology, and key findings. However, it might be beneficial to provide a brief statement about the implications of the study's findings for Bambara groundnut breeding programs or food security. This would help readers understand the broader significance of the research.
- Introduction: The introduction effectively highlights the importance of Bambara groundnut as a leguminous crop with potential for food and nutritional security. It also emphasizes the need for improved varieties to enhance productivity. However, some parts of the introduction are repetitive and could be streamlined for clarity and conciseness.
- Materials and Methods:
3.1. Study site description: The description of the study sites is well-detailed, but it would be helpful to include information about soil type, climate, and any other relevant factors that might influence the growing conditions of Bambara groundnut in these locations.
3.2. Plant materials: The list of accessions and their serial numbers is provided, which is informative. However, the origin or source of these accessions is not mentioned. It would be useful to include information about the geographic origin of these accessions and whether they represent a diverse set of germplasm.
3.3. Field trials and phenotyping: The experimental design and planting details are well-described. However, information about how the phenotypic data were collected (e.g., measuring plant height, pod number, etc.) should be included to give readers a clear understanding of the traits that were evaluated.
3.4. Statistical analysis: The explanation of the statistical methods used is clear. It might be beneficial to provide a brief explanation of the GGE biplot analysis for readers who are not familiar with this technique. Additionally, if any statistical software packages were used, it could be mentioned.
- Results: The results section presents the findings in a structured manner, using tables and figures to illustrate the key points. The GGE biplot figures are particularly useful in visualizing the genotype-environment interactions. However, some of the interpretation of the results could be expanded to provide deeper insights into the implications of the findings.
- Discussion: The discussion effectively links the results back to the research objectives and provides insights into the performance and stability of different BGN accessions. The implications of the findings for breeding programs are discussed. However, the authors could elaborate on potential strategies to harness the stable and adaptable accessions identified in the study.
- Conclusion: The conclusion provides a concise summary of the study's main findings. It might be valuable to reiterate the practical implications of the study's findings, such as the identification of potential parental lines for breeding programs.
- Language and Formatting: The paper is generally well-written with explicit language. There are a few minor grammatical and typographical errors that could be addressed during proofreading.
- References: The references provided are relevant and appropriately cited. Ensure consistency in formatting and style throughout the reference list.
Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the yield stability of Bambara groundnut using GGE biplot analysis. With some minor revisions and additions, the paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of plant breeding and agricultural research.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our study on the Assessment of yield stability of Bambara groundnut [Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.] using GGE biplot analysis (agronomy-2532958). We appreciate your keen observations and have taken your valuable feedback into consideration.
General Comments: The paper is well-structured and provides detailed information on the methodology, results, and interpretation of the findings. The research topic is relevant to the field of plant breeding and agricultural research, and the use of GGE biplot analysis is appropriate for addressing the research objectives. Overall, the paper is well-written and contributes to the understanding of genotype-environment interactions in Bambara groundnut.
Response: Thank you for your time and kind words.
Specific Comments:
Abstract: The abstract provides a concise summary of the study's objectives, methodology, and key findings. However, it might be beneficial to provide a brief statement about the implications of the study's findings for Bambara groundnut breeding programs or food security. This would help readers understand the broader significance of the research.
Response: The statement about the implications of the study’s findings for Bambara groundnut breeding programs or food security has been included.
Introduction: The introduction effectively highlights the importance of Bambara groundnut as a leguminous crop with potential for food and nutritional security. It also emphasizes the need for improved varieties to enhance productivity. However, some parts of the introduction are repetitive and could be streamlined for clarity and conciseness.
Response: The introduction has been checked for repetitive views and modified where necessary for clarity and conciseness.
Materials and Methods:
3.1. Study site description: The description of the study sites is well-detailed, but it would be helpful to include information about soil type, climate, and any other relevant factors that might influence the growing conditions of Bambara groundnut in these locations.
Response: All requested information are there already.
3.2. Plant materials: The list of accessions and their serial numbers is provided, which is informative. However, the origin or source of these accessions is not mentioned. It would be useful to include information about the geographic origin of these accessions and whether they represent a diverse set of germplasm.
Response: All the information is there already.
3.3. Field trials and phenotyping: The experimental design and planting details are well-described. However, information about how the phenotypic data were collected (e.g., measuring plant height, pod number, etc.) should be included to give readers a clear understanding of the traits that were evaluated.
Response: The trait we are looking at here is the yield, and the formula presented is how the yield was calculated based on the total seed weight. The details for how the total seed weight was gotten are there already.
3.4. Statistical analysis: The explanation of the statistical methods used is clear. It might be beneficial to provide a brief explanation of the GGE biplot analysis for readers who are not familiar with this technique. Additionally, if any statistical software packages were used, it could be mentioned.
Response: GGE biplot analysis has been well explained in the introduction section; therefore, another explanation here will be repetition. All statistical software packages used are mentioned.
Results: The results section presents the findings in a structured manner, using tables and figures to illustrate the key points. The GGE biplot figures are particularly useful in visualizing the genotype-environment interactions. However, some of the interpretation of the results could be expanded to provide deeper insights into the implications of the findings.
Response: The section has been modified.
Discussion: The discussion effectively links the results back to the research objectives and provides insights into the performance and stability of different BGN accessions. The implications of the findings for breeding programs are discussed. However, the authors could elaborate on potential strategies to harness the stable and adaptable accessions identified in the study.
Response: As a research study, we do not want to risk having too much information that is not directly related to our results and findings; hence, we need to be as concise as possible.
Conclusion: The conclusion provides a concise summary of the study's main findings. It might be valuable to reiterate the practical implications of the study's findings, such as the identification of potential parental lines for breeding programs.
Response: This has been reiterated in the first part of the conclusion section.
Language and Formatting: The paper is generally well-written with explicit language. There are a few minor grammatical and typographical errors that could be addressed during proofreading.
Response: The manuscript has been edited for grammatical and typographical errors.
References: The references provided are relevant and appropriately cited. Ensure consistency in formatting and style throughout the reference list.
Response: We used the journal’s endnote style for the references; hence, we believe the reference list is consistent with the journal’s formatting guidelines.
Comment: Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the yield stability of Bambara groundnut using GGE biplot analysis. With some minor revisions and additions, the paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of plant breeding and agricultural research.
Response: Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The revised version of the manuscript is largely improved. I agree the manuscript to be accepted for publication.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study involves one season field experimentation. You need at least a two year study to have objective results. The one-year experimentation does not meet the minimum standards of genotype assessment research for avoiding bias when doing field testing and gathering quantitative characteristic data. Biased genetic variance and genotype-by-location interaction variance estimates are produced by such analyses.
The authors measure quantitative characteristics, such as yield, and one year of experimentation is not enough in this case for drawing conclusions; The results did not take into consideration the potential impact of the genotype-by-environment interaction, which is common for quantitative characteristics.
Authors present many results but discussion of results is very condensed, with few references. I recommend a more analytical discussion with addition of more references in order for the readers to have a better understanding of the subject.
With the expansion of discussion the authors will be able to draw conclusions easier.
Minor editing of English language required
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors compare the 30 Bambara groundnut in three distinct regions of Nigeria and then find out the superior genotype and environment for future strategy. In some places, some changes are needed that I mentioned below.
The manuscript should be revised carefully for English writing.
The keywords are not very accurate and can be re-refined;
Please include some available literature in the introduction about the utilization of GGE Biplot analysis in other crops.
L95-97, The introduction of the source of test materials can be deleted and put into the second part of materials and methods for detailed discussion to avoid burdensome. And can simply add some discussion of the experiment here, such as by what means, what expected results are achieved, and the final significance.
L182, should change 2. to 3, the same as L360
Figure1-4, personally, I think that removing the outermost frame is more beautiful and refreshing.
In my opinion, the discussion should be improved by showing the impact of your results.
The manuscript should be revised carefully for English writing.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the manuscript you presented contains interesting information regarding the use of biplot analysis to assess the impact of genotype-environment interaction (GEI) and identify high-yielding peanut genotypes. The paper is typically agronomic in nature. These analyses are valuable for breeding new and improved crop varieties.
The work is correct. In my opinion, the authors should focus on refining the methodological part and the discussion. The following questions should make it easier for you to work on the manuscript, and the answers will fill the knowledge gaps in the text.
Please explain where the most BGN varieties are bred? What traits are mainly promoted/improved at the moment?
I suggest adding a small paragraph where you describe how BGN is grown.
Please add a map where you show the location of the experimental location in detail.
Please characterize the soil environment of conducting the experiment.
Please indicate clearly in the text how many years the experiment lasted.
What criteria were used to select the size of the plots? How was the so-called edge effect of the plot excluded?
What fertilization was applied during the experiment? Were the seeds treated?
I suggest refining the discussion of the results-please cite an additional 5-10 papers on similar topics from the last 10 years.
Please supplement the references with DOI references (where possible).
The downside of the paper is that it deals with only 1 growing season. In the agricultural sciences, we rely on a minimum of 3 years. Due to the inclusion of several experimental locations, I believe that the manuscript should be further processed.
