All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have made the required modifications to their manuscript. The revised version addresses the concerns raised during the review process, and the necessary changes have been satisfactorily implemented.
The manuscript underwent revision based on feedback from three reviewers. While one reviewer accepted the revised revision in the first round, the other two suggested minor revisions. The authors incorporated these recommendations to enhance their manuscript.
Before I accept the manuscript for publication, the Section Editor noted some other items that will need to be addressed:
> Some methods need clarification. What crosses were made? Was each of the female lines listed in Figure 1 crossed to each of the male lines? (35 crosses?)? How many F1s, F2s, etc from each cross were grown? The test mentions that selection was performed at F3 to F6, but what proportion of plants were selected? Were selected plants selfed to advance the generation? In Figure 1, why is there a box for "F5-F6" and another box for "F6" and no box for F2 or F3? In figure 1, what are the numbers in parentheses? In figure 1, the background is too dark to read the text for F7 and F8.
> Figure 2 resolution is too low. Figure 2: what are the boxes? The legend describes "heads" I assume those are the line ends, but says nothing about the boxes. Figure 2: what does the "5" represent in "D5" and "N5"? F5? please state in figure legend. (Or maybe they are "DS" and "NS"? Hard to tell because resolution is so low).
> Figure 4: Consider using "YD_NS" instead of "YD-NS", etc, otherwise this is confusing because sometime "-" is a hyphen and sometimes "-" is a subtraction sign (if I understand...)
> Figure 6: resolution low, hard to read text.
> Small items: "%50" and "%100" should be "50%" and "100%" throughout. "well water" should be "well watered" throughout."
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Two reviewers have accepted the revised version of your manuscript, while the third reviewer recommended minor revisions. Please revise the manuscript according to the suggestions provided and resubmit.
Best wishes for your revision.
no comment
no comment
no comment
-The authors have made the changes I suggested in the last review. However, one point remains unaddressed: Lines 120-140: It is better to display these characteristics in a table. Please consider the table order after inserting a new table.
-The authors should also unify the style according to the journal instructions; some references include the Doi while others do not.
Yes it is good
Experimental design and details are appropriate.
Finding are valid
no comment
no comment
no comment
While the authors have incorporated many of the suggestions from the previous review, a few outstanding issues require attention.
1- In abstract, summarizes the experimental design without excessive detail.
2- In abstract, emphasizes key findings and the importance of a targeted breeding approach.
3- In M&M section, a table would be the most effective way to present the characteristics of the varieties used in this study to facilitate easy comparison.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. Overall, the study is insightful and significantly contributes to understanding of drought breeding programs and cotton tolerance. Three reviewers provided important comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. Please address the comments of the reviewers as these improvements will enhance the clarity and readability of your manuscript.
Best regards
Sincerely,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
Elsayed Mansour
The manuscript needs minor improvements
No comment
The findings not only contribute significantly to the scientific understanding of drought breeding programs and cotton improvement, but also provide practical insights for optimizing breeding strategies.
I reviewed the paper titled "Unraveling the complexities of drought stress in cotton: a multifaceted analysis of selection criteria and breeding approaches". The study sheds new light on drought breeding programs and cotton tolerance, paving the way for significant advancements in this field.
-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Abstract
- The abstract should be one paragraph.
- Line 14: Instead of "compared both optimum and stress conditions," you could say "compared plant performance under both optimal and stress conditions." This clarifies what "compared" refers to.
- Line 15: Remove "with different statistical analyses" since it's implied you'd use statistics to compare results.
- In the sentence "In this study, we evaluate these ten homozygous lines according to randomized block design with 5 control varieties with 4 replicates in both well-watered and deficit water conditions (F8 generation)," you can improve clarity by splitting it into two sentences.
Here's an example: "In this study, we evaluated ten homozygous lines (F8 generation) using a randomized block design with five control varieties. Four replicates were planted under both well-watered and deficit water conditions."
- Rephrase "It was found that critical interaction between the irrigation regime and the selection traits" to "We observed a significant interaction between the irrigation regime and the selection traits." This sounds more formal.
Introduction
- The introduction section is well written.
- Remove subtitles in introduction section.
- Line 35: Remove "still" for a smoother flow.
Materials and methods
- Lines 120-140: It is better to display these characteristics in a table. Please consider the table order after inserting a new table.
- Line 141: remove "in"
- Line 142: rephrase to be "The F1 generation was cultivated in 2009, followed by the F2 generation in 2010"
- Line 162: Rephrase to be "Six of the ten homozygous lines (LTNS-73, LTNS-24, LTNS-117, LTNS-142, LTNS-34, and LTNS-59) were only grown under well-watered conditions (F3 to F7), while the remaining four lines (LTDS-116, LTDS-128, LTDS-130, LTDS-34) were only grown under deficit water conditions (F3 to F7)"
- Line 166: Add "All" before five control varieties "All five control varieties (Candia......etc)
- Lines 175, 176, and 181: Consider adding a comma after "regional practice" for better readability.
- Line 188: a pair-wise comparison analysis": You can simplify to "pairwise comparison analysis".
- Line 189 and 190: analyses provided mean yield differences": Rephrase to "analyses revealed mean yield differences" for better flow.
- Line 193: ANOM chart (add the full name).
- Line 195: a significance level of alpha > 0.05%": Change to "a significance level of alpha at 0.05" for clarity
Results
- The first and second paragraphs discuss the same information from Table 1. Consider combining them into one paragraph highlighting the key findings
- In the percentage changes section, the sentence about seed cotton yield can be rephrased: "Except for LTDS-128, all lines showed a decrease in seed cotton yield under deficit irrigation. The most significant yield reductions were observed in LTNS-73 (-35.5%) and LTNS-59 (-31.03%)."
- Line 260: Sentence starting with "According to AHC..." - You can rephrase this for better flow. Perhaps: "The AHC analysis categorized all 15 genotypes..."
- Line 274: Cluster analysis of the 8 traits..." This sentence could be restructured for easier reading. For example: "The heat map resulting from the cluster analysis of the 8 traits..."
- Repeated phrase "well-watered and deficit water conditions" - You can replace the second instance with "drought conditions" for variety.
- Lines 292-293: You can combine these sentences for better flow: "Based on the findings, the lines LTDS-130, LTDS-34, LTNS-74, 142, and 34 exhibited normal distribution, while LTDS-116 and LTDS-128 (chosen during the breeding program under deficit irrigation) remained unaffected by deficit irrigation in terms of yield and even exceeded the upper 95% limit."
- Line 302: "While experiencing yield reduction when subjected to deficit conditions" can be rephrased as "although showing some yield reduction under deficit irrigation."
- Line 305: "Mean variations" can be replaced with "average differences" for clarity.
- Lines 314-315: Consider combining these for smoother flow: "It's important to note that these two lines were specifically bred under stress conditions (with 50% irrigation), which highlights the study's premise."
- Line 323: This sentence can be restructured for better flow. Perhaps: "As shown in Figure 5A, fiber length (FL) was positively correlated with fiber uniformity (FU), while fiber length (FL) was negatively correlated with micronaire (LP), and both FL and elongation (FE) were positively correlated with yield (YD) under deficit irrigation conditions."
- Line 340-341: This sentence can be simplified: "The PCA analysis revealed that eight principal components (PCs) explained the total variation in both well-watered and deficit irrigation conditions."
Discussion
- Line 401: This sentence can be rephrased for clarity: "The results of our PCA analysis are consistent with previous research on cotton genotypes (Saeed et al., 2015; Shabbir et al., 2016; Jamil et al., 2020)."
- Line 405: This sentence can be simplified: "Assessing drought tolerance is complex due to the intricate mechanisms plants employ to cope with water stress. A multivariate approach is necessary for a more effective analysis of a plant's response to well-watered conditions."
Overall English is clear, minor grammatic improvement is needed.
No comment
Overall good results
The manuscript entitled Unraveling the complexities of drought stress in cotton: a multifaceted analysis of selection criteria and breeding approaches is well written and the structure of the research article is good. But there are some concerns which need to be addressed before acceptance.
The introduction section is quite short, please extend it.
Please add a novelty statement in the last passage of the introduction.
Please add the objectives of the study more clearly.
Change the heading "Result" to "Results".
Need to revisit the abbreviation, all the abbreviation should be given full form when they appear first time in the manuscript, such as zinc and nitrogen.
Language editing is required, there may be spell and grammatical mistakes creeping within the text, authors must check and correct them.
Discussion should be merely based on the observed findings. It should not only be the literature review. Answer the question posed in introduction and correlate your finding with the existing knowledge
This manuscript "Unraveling the complexities of drought stress in cotton: a multifaceted analysis of selection criteria and breeding approaches" offers valuable insights to optimize drought breeding programs and is expected to significantly advance the field's understanding of breeding for drought tolerance and developing drought-resistant cotton varieties.
no comment
no comment
In abstract, provide more details on what "specific environmental conditions" and "individual traits" might look like.
Keywords: Consider adding keywords related to breeding methods (e.g., marker-assisted selection) and physiological traits (e.g., stomatal conductance).
It is better not to write subtitles in introduction section.
In M&M section, a table would be the most effective way to present the characteristics of the varieties used in this study to facilitate easy comparison.
The M&M section (116-173) divide this using subtitles such as plant materials, experimental design….etc.
In Statistical Analysis, While it mentions evaluating seed cotton production, consider specifying which other yield or plant growth aspects were analyzed.
In Statistical Analysis, Finish the sentence about calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient and mention the version of R software
The section Result is written Results, add "s"
Instead of just referring to "Table 1," mention the specific traits with significant effects (e.g., "ANOVA results in Table 1 showed significant effects of irrigation on lint percentage, boll weight,").
Instead of a lengthy explanation, emphasize the most important results related to drought tolerance and genotype performance.
In Cotton Seed Yield Comparison of Homozygous Lines under Full and Deficit Irrigation: Pairwise Comporasion Analysis, The specific yield reduction percentage under deficit irrigation is not mentioned.
Correct "Pairwise Comporasion Analysis" to be "Pairwise Comparison Analysis"
Provide more details about Table 3 and Figure 4 to make the data clearer.
Numbers in table are wrongly written (for example 403,251, should be 403.251)
In Correlation Analysis doesn't mention the strength of the correlations (weak, moderate, strong).
Figures 6A and 6B, which likely show the biplots, are not described in detail.
The conclusion is too long, must be summarized
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.