Assessment of Brassicaceae Seeds Quality by X-ray Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please add the conditions for testing the seeds of the investigated species to the materials and methods of work. Was it done according to the ISTA rules or?. Expand the discussion a bit. I commend the innovation in the research and the beautiful presentation of the results. I especially like determining the dependence of seed shape and germination. I suggest to include a scanner for determining the morphology of seeds (Winseedle Pro type) in such research and then to determine the vitality and germination according to certain properties. Add more quotations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an original contribution describing the use of X-ray techniques to analyze de quality of different seed lots. It presents some points that could be improved prior to be published in Horticulturae.

The main issues to address in order to improve the manuscript are:

• The abstract is longer than 200 words (maximum length stablished in the authors guideline). It can be shortened by moving the information of the equipment used to Materials and Methods where it is usually presented.
• Authors must include the main objective of the study in the Introduction.
• Materials and Methods should include all the methodologies used in the study. Authors refer to some methods in Results (ie line 132), but they should be clearly described in Materials and Methods, defining all the “parameters” (Table 1) and indices (line 167) used.
• Subsections may be used in the Results section for the different species analyzed.
• In conclusions, authors indicate that “The detected defects and abnormalities of seed development are well correlated with their viability”, but the correlation is not shown in the text. Authors must include this correlation in the text.

Other minor issues are:

Lines 38-40. Authors should clarify the sentence

Line 47 indicates “More than 20% of the sown areas…” in Russia?

Line 49 indicates “The demand for white cabbage seeds in the country is more than 50 tons” Annually?

Lines 53-59. This paragraph may be moved upwards to line 46

Line 71. Check the sentence “The method of radiography of seeds differ favourably differs from others simplicity of use”

Line 77. Authors may introduce the title of the project.

Line 83. Check the sentence “Various radiographic characteristics of seeds of cucumber [12], watermelon [13], tomato [14, 15], Capsicum annuum L. [16] and broccoli cabbage [17], including using automated digital X-ray image analysis techniques [15, 16, 18].” Particularly the “including using”.

Line 88. Table 1. Authors should try to fit the tables in one page, not splitting them in two pages.

Line 94. Authors may include here the information of the equipment deleted from the abstract.

Line 95 indicates “Seed sampling: 50 seeds”. This sample is for each variety analyzed, or a mixture of all of them?

Line 101. Include the information of “DIGORA”

Line 111. It indicates “Then, individual germination of seeds was assessed using filter paper and Petri dishes under controlled temperature according to GOST 12038-84” Although it refers to a reference, authors could include here the conditions of the germination test.

Line 120.the expression “…shuch as, for example…” should be deleted and the figure introduced directly as (figure 3); in this sense, terminology the expression for figures should be the same along the text [line 102 (Fig.2); line 140 (Figure 4)]

Line 141 and 146. Figure 4 and 5 captions indicate "separation of embryo parts" and “"soft separation of 147 embryo elements", Do both of them refer to the Germ partitioning of germ parts with soft partitioning indicted in Table 2? In figure 4, it clearly refers to seed number 1, is it similar in figure 5, referring to seed number 8?

Line 154. in the figure caption it is indicated “(sees number 38 and 40 only)” I imagine that there is a typo and should be seed instead of sees

171:  It is indicated “maximal feret diameter” Feret should be written in Capital.

Line 179. In Table 5 authors may indicate that the parameters are dimensionless instead of relative units, as they are m²/m².

Line 213. There is a typo in the figure caption I₀ and I₃ may be subscripts, as presented in the main text.

Line 245. Figure 16 is mentioned in the text, but probably it refers to Figure 15, as this has not been mentioned in the text. However, in line 245 it is said “and the seed quality (Figure 16) deteriorates”, but the Figure 15 indicates “Results of digital morphometry of Lepidium sativum L. seedlings Mechta Derbenta variety” do the seed quality refers to the seedling morphometry? If so, it should be further explained.

Line 247. In order to be Table 6 shelf-explanatory, authors may indicate the meaning of green and yellow colour used in the different seeds.

Lines 268-271: this paragraph rather corresponds to Discussion than to Results, so it may be moved downwards.

Line 281: it is written “the works of foreign researchers”, as Horticulturae is an international journal, I consider that it is better to refer to other researchers

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors  have address all my suggestions, improving the manuscript, which from my point of view is now suitable for publishing in Horticulturae.