Variability in Productive and Biochemical Traits of Vicia faba L. Landraces from Apulia Region (South Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
T
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for the comments. I have made the suggested revisions.
I am sure that now the manuscript is improved in all its parts.
Attached I reported in detailed the modifications according the observations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
From my point of view, the work is very relevant, as in the current climatic context this type of food should be prioritised and recovering traditional varieties is of vital importance. In addition, the study is properly designed and includes a significant number of different varieties. However, the development of the manuscript should be deeply revised.
It would be interesting some background on the “interest of preserving and valorising the biodiversity” (agro-biodiversity) of the species in the introduction, as noted at the end. On the other hand, the main objective specified here does not cover the findings of the study, so the actual objectives related to those achievements highlighted in the discussion should be also included.
The methodology is, in general, quite complete as far as physico-chemical analysis is concerned, although it would be advisable to improve the way in which it is explained. However, the part referring to statistical analyses is excessively brief and does not even describe all the analyses presented in the results.
The results showed are relevant, although, as mentioned above, they correspond to analyses not always described previously. It would be advisable to improve the graphic art, especially the PCA. On the other hand, some irrelevant information is presented, such as lines 257-259, or information corresponding to the discussion, such as lines 237-240. In line 274 the percentage relating to PC3 is not specified, it would be important to review the results to improve their presentation.
The discussion is the most important section in a scientific paper, however in this manuscript it is limited to comparing the results obtained with other related and previously published results. This comparison is relevant, but a discussion should delve more deeply into the achievements of the study itself in line with the objectives described above. In my view, it would be absolutely necessary to rewrite the discussion in a way that highlights the real results and purposes of the work.
Finally, in general, it is important to highlight that not only would it be important to improve the language, but also to take care of other orthotypographic aspects such as the correctness of subscripts and superscripts (in chemical formulae or potencies) and the correct spelling of the scientific name of species in italics.
Once a deep approach is made regarding the presentation of the manuscript, it could be reconsider for publication.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments. I have made the suggested revisions.
I am sure that now the manuscript is improved in all its parts.
I reported in detailed the modifications according the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The present document reports the impact of 13 faba bean landraces on protein content and L-DOPA.
I suggest to change the title, the productive word is not really convenient, consider changing it, maybe yield components or productivity....
The English grammar is not really good, that deserves the quality of the document.
More detailed corrections are given in the attached document.
You should review particularly the results and discussion section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for the comments. I have made the suggested revisions.
I am sure that now the manuscript is improved in all its parts.
I reported in detailed the modifications according the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has improved but, in my opinion, still has much room for improvement.
The introduction does not mention the importance of agrobiodiversity and the discussion is still very brief, barely touching on the issues raised in the introduction and merely comparing with similar results. The writing and layout still seem careless. The English could still be improved.
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions. I proceeded to review the parts deemed deficient, in particular the introduction, discussion and conclusions. I have also reviewed the tables and figures, improving the layout. The references has been expanded
Concerning English, I would like to point out that the manuscript has been reviewed by an expert (I add certification)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I accept in the present form the new version of the manuscript, just, some typing errors to be corrected in the latest version: Lines confer to the tracked version: Line 60: Supress extra point before the reference Line 164; Number of the chapter should be 2.3.6, a point is missing Line 167: change whit by with.
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions. I have correct the suggested point
