Comments on abstract, title, referencesAbstract, title and references

1) Aim is very clear 2) yes, the findings of the study and methodology are very clear. 3) The abstract written is too long. More introduction is given than needed. 4) Title is informative and relevant to the study carried out. 5) References are relevant, recent and are appropriate as per key studies undertaken.

Comments on introduction/background

1) more introduction for the crop is given which is out of scope for the manuscript. 2) Research question could be more defined. 3) yes the question for the research finding is aligned with the already known literature.

Comments on methodology

The methodology used is very clear. The variable used are well defined and appropriately measured. The study has been validated properly and all measure are reliable as per the question asked in the aims. The methodology is explained in detail and can be replicated in area of subject.

Comments on data and results

1) Size of mutant population is small and bigger size would have been developed and subjected to analysis. 2) Results are based on germination and seedling data. Adult plant data is not presented. 3) In figure 5A and 5B, no petriplate showed 10 seeds for germination as mentioned in results. 4) Tables and figures are relevant and presented clearly. 5) Field data is missing and need to be generated. 6) More trait analysis is required to achieve the aims in manuscript.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

1) The results are interpreted appropriately in light of aims of the study. 2) Yes conclusions answered the aims of study. 3) There is need to further do more working in the research area and discussion lacks the mention of the same. 4) The discussion lacks the agreement or disagreement with the earlier studies carried in the subject which needs to be included.