Building Resilient Crop Production Systems for Drought-Prone Areas—A Case for Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc) and Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
, Balthazar Msanya 5, Patrick Ndakidemi 6 and Festo Massawe 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript titled ‘Building resilient crop production systems for drought-prone areas – a case for Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean L. Verdc) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)’, the authors investigated the effects of soil water deficit on bambara groundnut and groundnut by measuring leaf proline content, gas exchange, and relative water content.
Comment 1: In Figure 1 foot note, the authors mention “Growth stages (R1…R6)”. However, the bar plot provides leaf proline content of well-watered and drought stress treatments of Bambara groundnut and groundnut landraces across R1 – R5 stages. In the footnote, the authors should revise growth stages from R1…R5.
Comment 2: This manuscript uses the treatment conditions of three water regimes, but there is no data to measure the survival rate. I don't know whether there is data available on the survival rate. The authors should make an effort to compare the survival rate of the plant with the differences observed in proline accumulation, gas exchange, and relative water content.
Comment 3: The authors should make an effort to compare the results obtained for leaf proline content, gas exchange, and relative water content with seed yield under control and drought stress conditions. This will give a better understanding of the contribution of the aforementioned traits to seed yield under drought conditions.
Comment 4: Line 346-347: The authors should specify the name of traits evaluated in the present study, which are assigned to each of the three categories – drought escape, avoidance and tolerance. Otherwise it is ambiguous.
Comment 5: Line 348-350 and Line 350-353 present the same meaning. I would suggest the authors to revise this information as follows: “The identified materials of Bambara groundnut (S19-3) and groundnut (MNANJE) with multi-drought tolerant mechanisms can further be used in breeding programmes to develop varieties which are resilient to changing climate, and hence ensured food and nutritional security”.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
Comment 1: In Figure 1-foot note, the authors mention “Growth stages (R1…R6)”. However, the bar plot provides leaf proline content of well-watered and drought stress treatments of Bambara groundnut and groundnut landraces across R1 – R5 stages. In the footnote, the authors should revise growth stages from R1…R5.
Response:
We have revised the growth stages in the footnote to match the bar plots. See line 183
Comment 2: This manuscript uses the treatment conditions of three water regimes, but there is no data to measure the survival rate. I don't know whether there is data available on the survival rate. The authors should make an effort to compare the survival rate of the plant with the differences observed in proline accumulation, gas exchange, and relative water content.
Response:
As stated in the main text, the main study objective was to investigate the physiological effects of soil water-deficit stress. The ultimate aim was to explore drought response mechanisms and provide the comparative evidence on the adaptability of the two species to semi-arid environments. The three water regimes were used to represent conditions that plants experience in rainfed farming in water prone areas. In addition to control, we used regimes that imposed drought stress at flowering and podding stages – these reproductive stages are crucial in terms of yield under drought stress conditions. The values are therefore from plants that experienced the treatments. We did not impose treatments to measure plant survival rates as this was not the aim of the present study.
Comment 3: The authors should make an effort to compare the results obtained for leaf proline content, gas exchange, and relative water content with seed yield under control and drought stress conditions. This will give a better understanding of the contribution of the aforementioned traits to seed yield under drought conditions.
Response:
As stated above, the study was aimed at understanding drought response mechanisms especially focusing on proline content, gas exchange and relative water content. Data for seed yield not available.
Comment 4: Line 346-347: The authors should specify the name of traits evaluated in the present study, which are assigned to each of the three categories – drought escape, avoidance and tolerance. Otherwise it is ambiguous.
Response:
The traits have been included with respect to the mechanisms. Drought avoidance (via stomatal closure and reduced transpiration) and tolerance (via accumulation of proline). See lines 347 – 348.
Comment 5: Line 348-350 and Line 350-353 present the same meaning. I would suggest the authors to revise this information as follows: “The identified materials of Bambara groundnut (S19-3) and groundnut (MNANJE) with multi-drought tolerant mechanisms can further be used in breeding programmes to develop varieties which are resilient to changing climate, and hence ensured food and nutritional security”.
Response:
The phrases/information revised as suggested. See lines 348 - 351
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper by Aloyce Callist Kundy, Sean Mayes, Balthazar Msanya, Patrick Ndakidemi and Festo Massawe is generally well written and presented. It makes some sound and useful contribution on the legume crops tested for drought tolerance towards food security. The introduction provides a good overview of the legume crops specially bambara and groudnut to reist and produce yield under drought condition. The paper clearly defined the objective of the study, material and methods as well as resuts were clearly elaborated and presented step by step. Data recordeing were well planned and implemented as expected. The discussion section was also well presented and supported by the published references.
Here are some minor comments that authors need to address:
-some typographical errors were dtected in text...line 23: 'Space' required between ".....development).' and "Water deficit stress..."
-Line 25: NALBAM 4, respectively
Line 43: ....terranea (L.) Verdc) [6–16] and groundnut...
Line 51: ..[30–32], in black gram...
Line 84: check the value "56 meter above sea level
Line 365: format table A2
Hence, minor revison required. I recommend the paper to be acceppted after the correction of the minor comments.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 Comments
Here are some minor comments that authors need to address:
Comment 1 some typographical errors were dtected in text...line 23: 'Space' required between ".....development).' and "Water deficit stress...
Response:
Space added: line development). Water deficit stress
Comment 2 Line 25: NALBAM 4, respectively
Response:
Acted; line NALBAM 4, respectively
Comment 3 Line 43: ....terranea (L.) Verdc) [6–16] and groundnut...
Response:
Corrected: (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc) [6-16] [6,7,8,9] groundnut
Comment 4 Line 51: ..[30–32], in black gram...
Response:
Corrected: in groundnut [22,23,24] in black gram
Comment 5 Line 84: check the value "56 meter above sea level
Response:
Corrected: and 56 66 metres
Comment 6 Line 365: format table A2
Response:
Line 365: Table formatted by reducing the font size
Hence, minor revison required. I recommend the paper to be acceppted after the correction of the minor comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the experiment was well designed, and data are enough to obtain conclusions. I cannot recommend this manuscript to be published because it is lack of novelty.
Author Response
As stated in the main text, the aim of the study was to explore drought response mechanisms in the two species and to provide the comparative evidence on the adaptability of the two species to semi-arid environments. Running well designed experiments and collecting, analysing and reporting results on drought resistance mechanisms for the two species under the same experimental conditions is important as this is the only way to confirm their comparative advantages. Additionally, we report on traits responsible for the mechanisms reported e.g. drought avoidance (via stomatal closure and reduced transpiration) and tolerance (via accumulation of proline).
Ultimately, and as kindly acknowledged by reviewers, we used well designed experiments and collected enough data to reach conclusion on drought resistance mechanisms for the two species. The clarity of information from data obtained is crucial and novel as we continue to promote climate smart crop species as part of building resilient crop production systems for drought-prone areas. Thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
1. In Experimental site
Location GPS: 02°94’65.98’’, 101°87’37.75’’
It means 94 minute and 65.98 second and 87 minute and 37.75 second
Each minute and second cannot be more than 60.
2. Equation 1:
???? ??????? (? ??−3)
I think it is (? ??−3)
3. Need to add all equations reference
4. In figure 2 you have some values, for example:
R2 (34), R2/R3 (49), R3 (56)
What does this mean?
---------------------------------------------------
Plagiarism Report is 48% and not acceptable for publishing in this journal in this form. need to modify the text and language edit to accept.
Regards
Author Response
Reviewer 4 comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- In Experimental site
Location GPS: 02°94’65.98’’, 101°87’37.75’’
It means 94 minute and 65.98 second and 87 minute and 37.75 second
Each minute and second cannot be more than 60.
Response:
Re written as; Location GPS: 2°56'42.00" N 101°52'26.40" E
- Equation 1:
???? ??????? (? ??−3)
I think it is (? ??−3)
Response:
This should read as; grams per cubic centimeter = g/cm3 = g cm-3
- Need to add all equations reference
Response:
References added to the equations: Equation 1[36], Equation 2[39,40] and Equation 3[41]
- In figure 2 you have some values, for example: R2 (34), R2/R3 (49), R3 (56) What does this mean?
Response:
R’s = growth stages, and numbers in paranthesis = days after emergence
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have satisfactorily revised the MS
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
