Acquisition of the physiological quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds during maturation under the influence of the maternal environment

Maurício Hideki Okada; Gustavo Roberto Fonseca de Oliveira; Maria Márcia Pereira Sartori; Carlos Alexandre Costa Crusciol; João Nakagawa; Edvaldo Aparecido Amaral da Silva

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250293

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2021
5 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Craig Eliot Coleman, Editor PONE-D-21-02258 Acquisition of the physiological quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds during maturation under the influence of the maternal environment" PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Amaral da Silva, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Apr 19 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, Craig Eliot Coleman, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 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. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: This manuscript was well written, reporting the physiological quality during seed maturation. The experiment was well designed. The authors traced the seed development from flowering to late-stage maturation by labelling individual flowers and pods under different environment conditions. After harvesting single seeds, the physiological quality was evaluated by six traits (water content, dry weight, ability to germination, desiccation tolerance, and vigor and longevity). Based on the evaluation results, the authors recommended that the best time to harvest for physiology quality was between 57-76 days after flowering in the late stage of maturation. The information presented here is useful for peanut farmers and researchers, but I have the following concerns. To enhance the quality of this manuscript, I have the following comments, and suggestions. Major revisions: 1. The term of germination used here is not accurate and confusing. It should be the ability of germination. It should be changed throughout the text and figures. 2. In the discussion, the authors should elaborate how the physiological quality can affect peanut seed yield, seed nutritional quality, and seed processing quality except seed harvesting time and seed ability of germination. 3. There are several botanical types. Here the authors only evaluated Virginia type. They should discuss the limitation their results for other botanical types. 4. In addition, the authors should also give the information of seed dormancy for Virginia type or this cultivar if possible, because seed dormancy can significantly affect these traits investigated. Minor revisions: Page 11 line 123, misspelling “Thay” Page 12 line 133, misspelling “parcentage” List reference for calculation of longevity on page 12. ****** 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 [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250293.r001
Revision 1
31 Mar 2021 Author Response Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-02258 Acquisition of the physiological quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds during maturation under the influence of the maternal environment Craig Eliot Coleman PhD, Academic Editor of PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Coleman, We thank you and the reviewer for the corrections and suggestions made in the manuscript. Below, we provide our answers point-by-point to the comments and suggestions made. With warm regards, Amaral da Silva (corresponding author on behalf of co-authors) Reviewer #1: This manuscript was well written, reporting the physiological quality during seed maturation. The experiment was well designed. The authors traced the seed development from flowering to late-stage maturation by labelling individual flowers and pods under different environment conditions. After harvesting single seeds, the physiological quality was evaluated by six traits (water content, dry weight, ability to germination, desiccation tolerance, and vigor and longevity). Based on the evaluation results, the authors recommended that the best time to harvest for physiology quality was between 57-76 days after flowering in the late stage of maturation. The information presented here is useful for peanut farmers and researchers, but I have the following concerns. To enhance the quality of this manuscript, I have the following comments, and suggestions. Answer: We improved all the points that the reviewer deemed necessary. Below we answered all the proposed questions point by point. All changes are marked in the main text. We hope to have met the expectations. We agree that the manuscript has improved after the corrections and suggestions made by the reviewer. Detailed comments Major revisions 1. The term of germination used here is not accurate and confusing. It should be the ability of germination. It should be changed throughout the text and figures. Answer: We added the term "ability of germination" throughout the text (Lines 22, 56, 110, 141, 176, 192, 234 and 278) and also in the tables and figures (Lines 458, 463, 466 and 478) in the manuscript and in the supporting information (Lines 17 and 24). 2. In the discussion, the authors should elaborate how the physiological quality can affect peanut seed yield, seed nutritional quality, and seed processing quality except seed harvesting time and seed ability of germination. Answer: We have prepared a final paragraph (Lines 292 to 305) highlighting the importance of physiological seed quality for peanut yield. We also reinforced the need to harvest seeds at the moment of maximum seed quality, shedding light on the idea that the constitution of reserves has an influence on the vigor of seedlings and the formation of the crop. Finally, we commented on the importance for growers and to the seed to industry to harvest seeds with high quality. 3. There are several botanical types. Here the authors only evaluated Virginia type. They should discuss the limitation their results for other botanical types. Answer: In the last paragraph of the manuscript, we also highlight that our work with the Virginia group gathers information that provides the basis for further research. We emphasize that it is necessary to study other botanical groups, in order to consistently elucidate the events occurring during the maturation and late maturation for the species (Arachis hypogaea). 4. In addition, the authors should also give the information of seed dormancy for Virginia type or this cultivar if possible, because seed dormancy can significantly affect these traits investigated. Answer: Thanks for the great suggestion. We added in the "Material and Methods" section (Lines 119 and 120) the information of how we broke any residual dormancy in peanut seeds. For this, we used a sodium hypochlorite solution recommended for this purpose. We adapted this information for peanut seeds and we had no dormancy problems during the experiments. The reference from which we extracted this information was added to the list of references in the manuscript (number 27) as shown below. 27. Mahajan G, Mutti NK, Jha P, Walsh M, Chauhan BS. Evaluation of dormancy breaking methods for enhanced germination in four biotypes of Brassica tournefortii. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8: 1-8. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35574-2. Minor revisions 1. Page 11 line 123, misspelling “Thay” Answer: Thanks. We performed the correction as suggested (Line 125) 2. Page 12 line 133, misspelling “parcentage” Answer: Thanks. We performed the correction as suggested (Line 135). 3. List reference for calculation of longevity on page 12. Answer: Thanks. We presented more details regarding how the calculation of p50 (longevity) was performed from sigmoid survival curves using germination data during the storage of peanut seeds (Lines 142 to 144). The article containing the information used (number 30) was listed in the item "References" and described below. 30. Ellis RH, Roberts EH. Improved equations for the prediction of seed longevity. Annals of Botany. 1980; 45: 13-30. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a085797. Other modifications 1. In the item "Acknowledgments" we acknowledge the researcher who contributed to the final version of this manuscript for his innovative ideas and suggestions (Lines 319 and 320) 2. We added two more references in the manuscript (number 27 and 30). Therefore, we changed the numerical order of the references presented in the manuscript; which was also revised according to the standards of PLOS ONE. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250293.r002
5 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Craig Eliot Coleman, Editor Acquisition of the physiological quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds during maturation under the influence of the maternal environment PONE-D-21-02258R1 Dear Dr. Amaral da Silva, 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, Craig Eliot Coleman, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250293.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Apr 2021 Acceptance Letter - Craig Eliot Coleman, Editor PONE-D-21-02258R1 Acquisition of the physiological quality of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds during maturation under the influence of the maternal environment Dear Dr. Amaral da Silva: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Craig Eliot Coleman Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250293.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .