Diversity of Leaf Stomatal Traits among Coffea canephora Pierre ex A. Froehner Genotypes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no any other comments. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer, as well as the Editor, for the time devoted to such detailed review of our manuscript, and for the suggestions and criticisms which greatly help to improve the manuscript. We also thank the two reviewers that already accepted the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no any other comments. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer, as well as the Editor, for the time devoted to such detailed review of our manuscript, and for the suggestions and criticisms which greatly help to improve the manuscript. We also thank the two reviewers that already accepted the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

I have read the manuscript (agro-1208162). Entitle: Diversity of leaf stomatal traits among coffea canephora pierre ex A. Froehner genotypes written by Danielly Dubberstein et. al., for publication of agronomy. Leaf morphological characteristics directly showed the effect of photosynthesis performance and the ability to the adapt to the different environmental conditions of the coffee plant. Author analysis the different physiological traits such as chlorophyll fluorescence, leaf water potential those correlated to the grain yield and the grain quality of the new varieties of coffee under the drought conditions. This manuscript is obvious application potential and interesting for the readers. However, I found some lacking the literatures specially introduction and discussion sections. Author should also focus possible alternation of physiological and anatomical structure and their effect on the physiological performance of the plants specially in introduction and discussion sections. Now I request to author for MAJOR revision of this manuscript. Furthermore, the I request to authors for revision according to the rules of the journal and correct the bibliography.

 

Major suggestions

1) Abstract issues: Abstract have some lacking. You should to be minimized the descriptive sentences in the abstract which is not suited. Abstract should more logical, short, concise, and informative. The traits belongs to the morphological are not clearly presented in abstract and overall research theme is comparatively lacking.

 

2) Introduction: As I said above this section less connect the information for the physiology with the morphological traits and its effects. Based on the research theme author should to be refer the references those related on the morphological traits and anatomical traits those effect on the physiological aspect of the plants. Without appropriate literatures, questions or hypotheses in introduction section the entirely text will be unclear. Therefore, please see below and improve and supplement the related text (i.e. which are related and improve the physiological (Pn and gs) perspectives for the plants.

 

3) Discussion: The “main theme of manuscript list of morphological and anatomical traits are improved of the coffee genotype which is used for the breeding program” This is very general finding and many studies did the same research even they may not include the coffee. However, at least author should to connect the story of the introduction and discussion sufficiently. Specially, author should focus and address the question that how different coffee genotypes and there different morphological and anatomical traits improved the breeding program of the desirable traits of their genetically improvement program.

 

Others comments and suggestions

1) Line no. 18-19

How you evaluate the traits which are desirable for the genetic improvement for the coffee, are you scoring the traits in different genotypes or what is the selection criteria.

 

2) Line no. 24-25

Please correct the Ln. 24-25, since this is not clear “Grain production, plant height, internodal distance, and leaf area” are these all belongs to morphological traits of coffee genotypes? what about grain production ? if not so please so please correct and clearly present that the anatomical and morphological traits clearly. Anatomical traits is already clear but my concern in morphology.

 

3) Line no. 28

Please delete this “among the 43 genotypes of C. canephora with the recognition” it is already clear in the previous sentences. Not need to here (Ln 28). So please delete this.

 

4) Line no. 34-40

Please more focus on the result parts rather than the theoritical perspectives because those all are well finding already.

  

5) Line no. 51

 Before entering ‘coffee crop’ (Ln. 51) author should be describe the which morphological traits plat the potential role for the physiological performance of the plants “physiological performance increased due to the leaf thickness and increase the Chlorophyll content because those help to capture the better light as a result of higher amount of light and perform the better photosynthesis”. Refer these two articles and enlist (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.006, Volume 231 (73-81) Entitle: Comparisons of physiological and anatomical characteristics (2) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.05.036 Seasonal changes in photosynthetic activity and carbohydrate content in leaf…. 

 

6) Line no. 82-83

Author wrote the diversity of morphological leaf traits specially those are related to the stomata. However, author skip the sufficient examples of the traits those crated the potential opportunity for the stomata.

7) Line no. 129-140

Author distinguish the 43 genotype of the coffee within six distinguish groups. However, it is not very clear what are the criteria for the distinguishing group for the different genotype?. Please mention the important criteria behind this and present simple text as compared to you mentioned (before) current this.

 

8) Discussion : Line no. 196

 I agree with the author that the author did well separation of the subtitle of the discussion sections. But text in each subsection seems long. Author should be necessary cutback the text and bring in the less volume. Please necessary cut back those parts which are less important, descriptive one and not matching text. Also author should be consider the cutback the old and less matching citation and include the latest references.

 

9) Line no. 204-221

 In this paragraph author trying to describe morphological characteristics of stomata and its effect on the physiological performance. Cite this for the reference according to your research approach of the this articles http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104111 by Bhusal et al., 2020. Describe “the length and width of the stoma and higher frequency of the stomata (higher number) improve the physiological performance such as higher photosynthesis”

 

10) Line no. 379

Please revised “leaf morphological and anatomical traits determination” in stead of Leaf morpho-anatomical determinations.

 

11) Line no. 387-392

Please morphology of the genotype and those related different traits should be mention first. Author should bring those related information (Ln. 387-392) of leaf area and other plant biometric analysis such as plant height and number of node such should to bring first that should before the anatomical descripting.

 

12) Line no. 407

 “traits related for the stomata” is the very important components to analysis. However, author use the the schematic representation of the stomatal dimensions as measured by image analysis. Why author unable to kept their plant material and represent all the components such as stomata length, width, guard cell and its length and width, pore length and its width, if possible change this in real one, I think you have many good pictures of this related.

 

13) Line no. 411

Please somewhat alter the expression of your conclusion specially the Ln 426 -433 because some text in those line you already presented in above or simply alter the way of presentation. Rest of the others Ln. 434-439 are excellent but slightly consider the future insight of this research.

 

14) Line no. 439

Reference: please double check the citations, its style and spell check and other grammatical errors. moreover, I request to authors for revision throughout the manuscript according to the journal rules.

 

Good Luck!

 

Author Response

Obrigado pela oportunidade de enviar uma versão melhorada, na qual incorporamos todos os comentários levantados pelo revisor. Encontre abaixo (em azul) uma resposta ponto a ponto às questões levantadas e como as tratamos nesta nova versão do manuscrito (destacado com mudanças de faixa). Os autores gostariam de agradecer ao revisor, assim como ao Editor, pelo tempo dedicado a essa revisão detalhada de nosso manuscrito, e pelas sugestões e críticas que muito ajudam a melhorar o manuscrito. Agradecemos também aos dois revisores que já aceitaram o artigo.

 

 

 

Observações gerais

1) Linha no. 18-19

How you evaluate the traits which are desirable for the genetic improvement for the coffee, are you scoring the traits in different genotypes or what is the selection criteria.

Answer: The authors scored the characteristics in different genotypes.

 

2) Line no. 24-25

Please correct the Ln. 24-25, since this is not clear “Grain production, plant height, internodal distance, and leaf area” are these all belongs to morphological traits of coffee genotypes? what about grain production ? if not so please so please correct and clearly present that the anatomical and morphological traits clearly. Anatomical traits is already clear but my concern in morphology.

Answer: To comply with this criticism, the text was modified to “Morphological traits (plant height, internodal distance, and leaf area) and Grain production, were also assessed”

 

3) Line no. 28

Please delete this “among the 43 genotypes of C. canephora with the recognition” it is already clear in the previous sentences. Not need to here (Ln 28). So please delete this.

Answer: The sentence was removed as suggested.

 

4) Line no. 34-40

Please more focus on the result parts rather than the theoritical perspectives because those all are well finding already.

Answer: Thank you. The sentence was removed.

 

5) Line no. 51

 Before entering ‘coffee crop’ (Ln. 51) author should be describe the which morphological traits plat the potential role for the physiological performance of the plants “physiological performance increased due to the leaf thickness and increase the Chlorophyll content because those help to capture the better light as a result of higher amount of light and perform the better photosynthesis”. Refer these two articles and enlist (1) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.006, Volume 231 (73-81) Entitle: Comparisons of physiological and anatomical characteristics (2) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.05.036 Seasonal changes in photosynthetic activity and carbohydrate content in leaf…. 

Answer: To comply with this suggestion, we have re-written the text and added the suggested reference.

 

 6) Line no. 82-83

Author wrote the diversity of morphological leaf traits specially those are related to the stomata. However, author skip the sufficient examples of the traits those crated the potential opportunity for the stomata.

Answer: The sentence was removed.

 

7) Line no. 129-140

Author distinguish the 43 genotype of the coffee within six distinguish groups. However, it is not very clear what are the criteria for the distinguishing group for the different genotype?. Please mention the important criteria behind this and present simple text as compared to you mentioned (before) current this.

Answer: The criteria for defining the six groups of different genotypes was established based on the cluster analysis described in the text.

 

8) Discussion : Line no. 196

 I agree with the author that the author did well separation of the subtitle of the discussion sections. But text in each subsection seems long. Author should be necessary cutback the text and bring in the less volume. Please necessary cut back those parts which are less important, descriptive one and not matching text. Also author should be consider the cutback the old and less matching citation and include the latest references.

Answer: To comply with this criticism, the text was re-phrased.

 

9) Line no. 204-221

 In this paragraph author trying to describe morphological characteristics of stomata and its effect on the physiological performance. Cite this for the reference according to your research approach of the this articles http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104111 by Bhusal et al., 2020. Describe “the length and width of the stoma and higher frequency of the stomata (higher number) improve the physiological performance such as higher photosynthesis”

 

Answer: To comply with this suggestion, we modified the text and added the suggested reference.

 

10) Line no. 379

Please revised “leaf morphological and anatomical traits determination” in stead of Leaf morpho-anatomical determinations.

Answer: To comply with this suggestion, the sentence was re-written.

 

 11) Line no. 387-392

Please morphology of the genotype and those related different traits should be mention first. Author should bring those related information (Ln. 387-392) of leaf area and other plant biometric analysis such as plant height and number of node such should to bring first that should before the anatomical descripting.

Answer: To comply with this suggestion, the sentence was removed.

 

12) Line no. 407

 “traits related for the stomata” is the very important components to analysis. However, author use the the schematic representation of the stomatal dimensions as measured by image analysis. Why author unable to kept their plant material and represent all the components such as stomata length, width, guard cell and its length and width, pore length and its width, if possible change this in real one, I think you have many good pictures of this related.

 Answer: The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their consideration of the importance of the placement. However, it was not possible to make this change because the experiment finished some time ago.

13) Line no. 411

Por favor, altere um pouco a expressão de sua conclusão especialmente o Ln 426 -433 porque algum texto nessa linha você já apresentou acima ou simplesmente altere a forma de apresentação. Resto dos outros Ln. 434-439 são excelentes, mas leve em consideração o futuro insight desta pesquisa.

 

Resposta: Para atender a essa sugestão, a frase foi reescrita.

 

 

14) Linha no. 439

Referência:  verifique as citações, seu estilo e verificação ortográfica e outros erros gramaticais. além disso, solicito aos autores a revisão ao longo do manuscrito de acordo com as normas da revista.

 Resposta : Os autores revisaram o manuscrito de acordo com os padrões da revista. Obrigado por apontar isso.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Author comments

I thoroughly read the revised manuscript (agro-1208162) Diversity of leaf stomatal traits among coffea canephora pierre ex A. Froehner genotypes. Author addressed all of my previous quarries and suggestions very well and now manuscript is significantly improved. Now I request to editor to accept this paper for the publication in agronomy MDPI.

Thank you. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit an improved version, in which we have incorporated all the comments raised by the reviewer. The authors would like to thank the reviewer,  for the time devoted to such detailed review of our manuscript, and for the suggestions and criticisms which greatly help to improve the manuscript. 

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

The paper "Diversity of leaf stomatal traits..." is a classic plant growth analysis study describing the variability of stomatal traits in a wide range of Coffea genotypes. The statistical analyses are sound, the design of the experiment fits the needs of the research, and the data have been presented well, leading up to solid and clear conclusions. One might even say that a little speculation on which of the genotypes presented in this paper may be most useful for cultivation under specific conditions (and possibly matching these predictions with field observations) would not have harmed the analysis, but I surmise that this is the focus of a separate paper.

The authors should do a little spell check on the use of the word "stomata", though, as "stomach index" (line 35, 83, ...) or "stomas" (line 36,...) are probably unfortunate typos.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the article entitled “Diversity of leaf traits among Coffea canephora Pierre ex A. Froehner genotypes” the authors evaluated 43 genotypes of the Coffea canephora plants, for their leaf morphological characteristics. The article is relatively well written and the experiments are well contacted. However, the article has some minor and major issues.

Minor issues

The plural of the stoma is stomata. The authors in several lines throughout manuscript use the term stomas, which in my opinion should be replaced. In addition, the stomach index (e.g line 35) should also be replaced by the “stomatal index”.

Major issues

Although, the experiments provide the basic knowledge, concerning the morphological characteristics of 43 genotypes, the novelty of the research is low. The results are very useful for a limited scientific audience, which is interested in coffee plant breeding projects. I should admit that the statistical analysis is very good, although the methods used for data collection are relatively simple.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors, perhaps inadvertently, plagiarized Carrasco et al. 2020. I stopped my review there, but I would add that there were several typos and grammatical errors in the text before I stopped. I would encourage the authors to employ the service of a native English speaking co-author or writing service. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Some points for improvement:

Abstract: line 33 - two times is mentioned SL x SS, probably one of them should be SW x SS, the same mistake is in concussions (lines 439-440).

Introduction: line 65 – remove or change quote to a colon after the word “namely”. Lines 77-84 – check font size, seems it is smaller than elsewhere. Line 83 – change “stomach” (in two places) to “stomatal” or “stomata”.

Results: line 160 – the sentence seems to be incomplete; it is not clear what 63 means? Line 165 – remove “and yield”, because the corelation with the yield are shown in Table 4. Figure 3 - the color of the vectors and their labels could be brighter, SS and SL overlap. Figure 4 - the color of the vectors and their labels could be brighter; include the explanation of abbreviations in the figure legend.

Discussion: Lines 204-209 – It is not very clear what is meant, I would suggest reformulating this sentence. Line 262 – probable would be better indicating the author’s name before the reference number “… by Mojena R. (1977) [43] (fig. 1). Line 330 – “… correlations with EC…”, replace EC to ECD.

Material and methods: Line 403 – “…the correlation with root...”, replace “root” to “shoots”. Line 413 – Write the full name for the first time before using the abbreviation NS; the same for NC (line 428).

Conclusions: To make the conclusions clear without reading the whole article, I would suggest to listed once again all the traits at the end of the first sentence (line 437) and use the full names instead of abbreviations in lines 439-440.

References: In my opinion, the rate of self-citation is quite high - 14 courses (6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29 and 36) out of 67, which is 20,9 %.