PONE-D-20-21922

Characterizing root traits in mungbean mini-core collection (MMC) from World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) Taiwan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address reviewer comments and submit revised manuscript. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 12 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dorin Gupta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Call for Papers on Plant Phenomics & Precision Agriculture. This collection of papers is headed by a team of Guest Editors for PLOS ONE.

Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://plos.io/phenomics

If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call.

If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter.

3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Gayacharan.

4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 6 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: PONE-D-20-21922: Characterizing root traits in mungbean mini-core collection (MMC) from World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) Taiwan.

Main focus of this MS is to identify phenotypic differences in the root system architectural traits and correlations of key root traits, towards mung bean breeding for more efficient nutrient and water uptake for better management of abiotic stresses. The experiments are focused and well done. Screening for natural genetic variations in root architectural traits provides key information towards breeding programs for better plant performances in mung bean. This MS is suitable for publication in PLOS One after addressing the following minor comments:

Line 19 – root key root traits change to key root traits

Line 56 – Modify the sentence

Introduction: Add some details showing the updates/stubs of root system architecture analysis and application of root traits in legume improvement (there are several studies in soybean, chickpea and other legumes).

Discussion: This section need to be improved. At present it is descriptive with repeating contents from the results section. Need more supporting evidences and take home messages based on the findings.

Also, it will be good if the authors can check/edit the entire MS documents for English language and grammar usage.

Reviewer #2: Line 40: Per hectare?

Line 42: Remove "that result in reduced grain yields"

Line 43-51: This is far fetched and more generalized or vague. More evidence needed to show that effects of changes in global temperatures actually impacted Mungbean production.

Line 48-51: Provide references for each of the factor mentioned here that affects Mung bean production.

Line 53: Remove "Crop breeding programmes mainly have focused on above-ground organs".

Line 56-57: Would expect a brief description on some screening techniques that are being developed and proven useful at least latest. Also a sentence or two is needed to know why earlier methods weren't useful.

Line 58-61: How does it connect with the preceding statements on Screening techniques, does the author used new techniques to report the findings what he did?

Line 62: A brief description of ideal root architecture attributes is needed.

Line 76-78: Introduction is plagued with more generalised statements and doesn't discuss the topic in depth, the topic is about Mungbean but not a sentence shows what issues are with Mungbean root adaptation and why one should explore a global germplasm to find variation for roots. The next important theme of this study is root phenotyping platforms, there are many statements about this but not exclusive or conclusive explanation provided, therefore the introduction may need restructuring inclusive of these topics to ensure flow with the references.

Line 84: In field or glasshouse?

Line 85: Is it Conviron growth chamber, if so or not please provide details of the growth chamber.

Line 86: move the abbreviation to line 84

Line 95: Please add from where you purchased these items, germination stand, trays, germination paper.

Line 98: Cannot resolve how you managed three replications here, 9*3*12=324, Total number of accessions are 296 (line 83) and 3 replications of each would make = 888 accessions. Please clarify.

Line 111: Any version number or manufacturer details.

Line 115: Replace the title with Assessment of root phenotypes.

Line 126: please provide instrument details

Line 145: Material and methods lacks bit of clarity on how the experiments were conducted particularly information on replications is ambiguous. Further lacks the description of the process of how the measurements were undertaken. There are different equipment used in this study but none of them have manufacture details.

Line 201-206: Topic for Discussion section

Line 208-215: This paragraph is not necessary, you may start with your aim and focus on the main outcomes of the study.

Line 226: Although few references are listed, the section does not provide or discuss the disadvantages of previous methods and a comparison with proper examples for both methods needed to make it more convincing.

Line 228: Any reference?

Line 232: What does this mean, helpful or not useful for benefit of mungbeans?

Line 242: examples from any pulse crop may further strengthen your statements.

Line 246: Again this is another generalized statement, please briefly state what it means as many readers would be interested.

Line 277: Discussion needs bit more on mungbean literature about which root traits were previously researched and whether selection for those traits proved beneficial or failure. Report some examples of existing varieties that are susceptible to abiotic stress and where root parameters were considered as a reason. This information may provide to convince readers why you may need to explore root variation in a global germplasm. I'm convinced that this study is not just to test a new screening method in mungbeans. Although there are some good statistical classifications evaluated to divide the variation into clusters, it would be good to provide a list of lines with ideal root phenotypes and also provide a comment on undesirable phenotypes.

Line 324: Make it italics and follow same all through

Line 334: Be consistent, either use abb. or full forms or follow journal guidelines

Line 562: why only 3 plants tested when 10 plants were actually used.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-20-21922R1

Assessment of root phenotypes in mungbean mini-core collection (MMC) from the World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) Taiwan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aski,

Thank you for addressing reviewer comments in your first revised and submitted manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the minor points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dorin Gupta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please address second reviewers comments and submit revised manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for addressing all the comments made. Well done!

Here are few more minor comments.

Line 150 : Strongly recommend inclusion of technical replicates (at least the best performing accessions) for such studies to enhance statistical significance

Line 221 : TDW instead of TWD??

Line 222 : Could this line be modified? At the moment, this doesn't align well with the next statement.

Line 379 : Consider adding a sentence on a successful on - field establishment of derivatives from some of the previous studies using semi-hydroponic method if available.

Table 2 : Add collection

Also add AVRDC before Mungbean mini core collection throughout the manuscript.

Table 3 : Repeat above

Table 5 : Semi-hydroponic conditions

Figure 1 : Germination stand?

Also it would be ideal to add a picture of plastic tray mentioned in M & M, the order can be growth chamber (a), plastic tray (b), germination stand (c), and the rest follow in the order they are.

Figure 2 : add "of" in between distribution and root traits.

It should be number of accessions on the y- axis rather than frequency

Figure 6 : Will recommend to add cluster names as colour legends for this dendrogram, can be made in MS powerpoint

Title for S1 Table : Passport data of AVRDC Mungbean mini core collection

Title for S2 Table : Mean scores of AVRDC Mungbean mini core collection for fourteen root traits

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Assessment of root phenotypes in mungbean mini-core collection (MMC) from the World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) Taiwan

PONE-D-20-21922R2

Dear Dr. Aski,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dorin Gupta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: