Physiological Indices for the Selection of Drought-Tolerant Safflower Genotypes for Cultivation in Marginal Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- In the materials and methods section it is reported that soil properties are the following: EC=6.5, pH= 7.8 etc. It is unclearly discussed in this manuscript if the specific soil properties have an effect on the performance of different genotypes.
- The date of planting was September 15th while harvest was performed on July 28th. The developmental season for each genotype is not adequately reported in the manuscript. In addition was the phenology of all genotypes the same during the experimental period. Were the different genotypes subjected to the same environmental conditions for the same developmental stage (i.e. BBCH scale).
- In Figure 1 all genotypes used in the study were plotted together against the same biophysical indice. However this way variability within each genotype is not presented. It would be of great interest to present the above mentioned regressions plotting results separately for each genotype.
Author Response
Date: 06 JUN 2024
Dear Editor-in-Chief
A revised version of manuscript entitled: "Biophysical indices for the selection of drought-tolerant safflower genotypes for cultivation in marginal areas" with code number 2987083 is re-submitted. Your prompt attention to this article will be highly appreciated. Some explanations of the points of view of the reviewers are dedicated below:
- The soil conditions for all studied genotypes were the same. Therefore, the effects of soil properties on genotypes will be similar. Finally, some explanations were added to the results and discussion.
- The phenological stages of all the six studied genotypes were similar.
- In the title and text, “Biophysical” phrase was changed to “Physiological”.
- In the text mention of tables was completed.
- The units of traits such as stomatal conductance, osmotic adjustment, and water-use efficiency were controlled. They are correct.
- The aim of research was to identify physiological traits for the selection of drought-tolerant safflower genotypes for cultivation in marginal and arid areas. Therefore, the evaluation of genotypes is not the goal and focus of the study.
- About the used regression model: To achieve the aims of the study different regression models were checked and the used model in the manuscript has the highest R2. The study aims to recognize a suitable model for selecting the efficient physiological indices to acknowledge the drought-tolerant safflower genotypes and, not to study characteristics of genotypes. Therefore, the regression model is fitted in normal and water deficit stress conditions.
Yours Sincerely
Bahman Pasban Eslam
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript reports a study on the exploitation of biophysical indices to select drought-tolerant safflower genotypes (six backgrounds) for cultivation under marginal and arid areas. The report is generally well-written and the methods are scientifically sound; however, it also holds substantial issues that affect certain key methods and findings. The main one is how the outputs were analyzed and presented. For this, the following comments span specific concerns regarding the study.
Title: I am not sure that Biophysical is the correct term here. Considering such variables exploited as parameters, they fit more into the physiological than the biophysical aspect - since osmotic adjustment includes biochemical events and thus it is sensible to rethink that.
Results: a cubic nonlinear model is not suitable for biological systems (Fig. 1). There are also some very low coefficients of determination. So other models should be tested before selecting the best one. By the way, what was the parameter for model selection? Was it based on coefficients of determination? Please add such information in the materials and methods section.
Results: the tables are mispresented and most of them are not aligned with the texts.
Results: double-check the stomatal conductance (is it cm s-1), osmotic adjustment (MPa) and water-use efficiency (Kg m-3) units.
Writing: Page 5, Line 161: “Thistle”; throughout the text: “water-use efficiency”
Author Response
Date: 06 JUN 2024
Dear Editor-in-Chief
A revised version of manuscript entitled: "Biophysical indices for the selection of drought-tolerant safflower genotypes for cultivation in marginal areas" with code number 2987083 is re-submitted. Your prompt attention to this article will be highly appreciated. Some explanations of the points of view of the reviewers are dedicated below:
- The soil conditions for all studied genotypes were the same. Therefore, the effects of soil properties on genotypes will be similar. Finally, some explanations were added to the results and discussion.
- The phenological stages of all the six studied genotypes were similar.
- In the title and text, “Biophysical” phrase was changed to “Physiological”.
- In the text mention of tables was completed.
- The units of traits such as stomatal conductance, osmotic adjustment, and water-use efficiency were controlled. They are correct.
- The aim of research was to identify physiological traits for the selection of drought-tolerant safflower genotypes for cultivation in marginal and arid areas. Therefore, the evaluation of genotypes is not the goal and focus of the study.
- About the used regression model: To achieve the aims of the study different regression models were checked and the used model in the manuscript has the highest R2. The study aims to recognize a suitable model for selecting the efficient physiological indices to acknowledge the drought-tolerant safflower genotypes and, not to study characteristics of genotypes. Therefore, the regression model is fitted in normal and water deficit stress conditions.
Yours Sincerely
Bahman Pasban Eslam
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been clearly improved based on reviewers' suggestions and questions, and the updated version seems suitable for further publication.
