Effect of Sowing Dates on Fatty Acids and Phytosterols Patterns of Carthamus tinctorius L.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research work deals with the effect of pre-harvest conditions on safflower seed composition. I consider that this is an interesting study, as a thorough analysis of the composition of safflower seeds is carried out, paying attention to compounds that are very valuable. Moreover, the approach is simple and easy to understand. However, there are some issues that should be solved before the final approval for publication:
English
1.- The English level is not high enough to be published (yet). I recommend some changes, as follows (nevertheless, I encourage the authors to send this article to a native for a final revision):
Line 16: emerging instead of increasing
Line 20: available about instead of available on
Line 26: decrease in instead of decrease of
Line 26-29: It is not clear. Rewrite it.
Line 29: Could offer possible? Better could make the use of hull possible
Line 36: In the human diet.
Line 44: High added value.
Line 89: min-1
Line 148: with oleic and linoleic acid being the majority fatty acids.
Line 161: …as a consequence of…
Line 212: … in most of oil seeds…
Line 216: … environmental factors…
Line 237: Indeed, this balance…
Line 260: … a decrease in…
Line 260: … it was observed that… (never use “I” or “we” in scientific papers, especially in the conclusion section).
Line 262: This last sentence seems to be connected to the preceding. In any case, it makes no sense. Rewrite it clearly.
Keywords
2.- A piece of advice. In order to improve and increase the “impact” of the article when searches are carried out, avoid repeating words that are included in the title (you could use another other keywords instead of phytosterols or fatty acids, which are literally included in the title).
Materials and methods
3.- It is clear that the difference in the sowing date is considerable enough to tell some differences in the resulting safflower seed, but why these dates of sowing? The first sowing date might be OK according to typical sowing dates in that region, but the second one (LS) was chosen according to the lowest rain prediction or highest average temperature per day for instance? I could see that in the result section you talk about it with average data and the typical practice of farmers, so a sentence about the criteria for choosing this second date would be useful in the materials and method section.
4.- For the harvest date, which criteria have you considered to start the harvest? Seed size or colour, for instance?
5.- What about the chromatography conditions for the sterol content? It could be interesting, especially for those who are not familiar with this technique and taking into account that these would be (in my opinion) the most important results in the article.
Results section
6.- Figure 2: As you are talking about significant differences (clearly indicated by “a” and “b”) between the sterol content in the embryo and hull, error bars could be useful, too.
7.- The section about the sewing dates should be 3.3., and not 3.2.
8.- Line 229: Is it clear that, on average, there are no significant differences in temperature for the two sowing dates. But according to Figure 2, there are differences on the temperature (both in 2007 and the average) between April and June, from (let’s say) 12 °C to 20 °C. I want to know, from the authors, if these differences in temperature for the early stages of growth could play an important role in the observed results.
Discussion section
9.- In general, the discussion is acceptable and interesting, supporting everything with the corresponding literature data. However, the structure of this section is not clear, and this is too long and “dense”. I would recommend two ways to avoid that:
- If possible, add the corresponding part of this discussion section to the results section, creating a “results and discussion” section as in many research works.
- If not, structure this discussion section with the same points, corresponding to the result section, to follow the explanation of the data shown in an easier way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Answer: This was modified and English was edited by native English
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This research work deals with the effect of pre-harvest conditions on safflower seed composition. I consider that this is an interesting study, as a thorough analysis of the composition of safflower seeds is carried out, paying attention to compounds that are very valuable. Moreover, the approach is simple and easy to understand. However, there are some issues that should be solved before the final approval for publication:
English
1.- The English level is not high enough to be published (yet). I recommend some changes, as follows (nevertheless, I encourage the authors to send this article to a native for a final revision):
Line 16: emerging instead of increasing
Answer: this was modified
Line 20: available about instead of available on
Answer: this was corrected
Line 26: decrease in instead of decrease of
Answer: this was modified
Line 26-29: It is not clear. Rewrite it.
Line 29: Could offer possible? Better could make the use of hull possible
Answer: this was corrected
Line 36: In the human diet.
Answer: this was modified
Line 44: High added value.
Answer: this was modified
Line 89: min-1
Answer: this was modified
Line 148: with oleic and linoleic acid being the majority fatty acids.
Answer: this as corrected
Line 161: …as a consequence of…
Answer: this was modified
Line 212: … in most of oil seeds…
Answer: this was modified
Line 216: … environmental factors…
Answer: this was modified
Line 237: Indeed, this balance…
Answer: this was corrected
Line 260: … a decrease in…
Answer: this was corrected
Line 260: … it was observed that… (never use “I” or “we” in scientific papers, especially in the conclusion section).
Answer: this was modified. Modifications were made through the manuscript
Line 262: This last sentence seems to be connected to the preceding. In any case, it makes no sense. Rewrite it clearly.
Keywords
2.- A piece of advice. In order to improve and increase the “impact” of the article when searches are carried out, avoid repeating words that are included in the title (you could use another other keywords instead of phytosterols or fatty acids, which are literally included in the title).
Answer: Thank you for the comment. This was considered and keywords were modified.
Materials and methods
3.- It is clear that the difference in the sowing date is considerable enough to tell some differences in the resulting safflower seed, but why these dates of sowing? The first sowing date might be OK according to typical sowing dates in that region, but the second one (LS) was chosen according to the lowest rain prediction or highest average temperature per day for instance? I could see that in the result section you talk about it with average data and the typical practice of farmers, so a sentence about the criteria for choosing this second date would be useful in the materials and method section.
Answer: This was addressed directly in the text in the materials and methods section.
4.- For the harvest date, which criteria have you considered to start the harvest? Seed size or colour, for instance?
Answer: The samples were harvested based on their water content that were at 20%.
5.- What about the chromatography conditions for the sterol content? It could be interesting, especially for those who are not familiar with this technique and taking into account that these would be (in my opinion) the most important results in the article.
Answer:
Results section
6.- Figure 2: As you are talking about significant differences (clearly indicated by “a” and “b”) between the sterol content in the embryo and hull, error bars could be useful, too.
Answer: The standard deviations were added to the figure as recommended.
7.- The section about the sewing dates should be 3.3., and not 3.2.
Answer: this was modified.
8.- Line 229: Is it clear that, on average, there are no significant differences in temperature for the two sowing dates. But according to Figure 2, there are differences on the temperature (both in 2007 and the average) between April and June, from (let’s say) 12 °C to 20 °C. I want to know, from the authors, if these differences in temperature for the early stages of growth could play an important role in the observed results.
Answer: The reviewer is right, we observed differences in temperature mean between the conventional and the late sowing date in the early stages of development. Temperature levels affects particularly plant development. As soon as these temperature levels did not affect the flowering (no significant flower abortion observed) neither the LAI before flowering, we assumed that the seed filling and maturation processes have not been affected by those differences. But it could be possible that there was a cumulative effect of temperature sums with the water stress which leads to the composition of the seed analyzed at harvest. We have decided to consider data available and used for farmers (mean temperature and total rainfall) to be representative of the global crop management.
Discussion section
9.- In general, the discussion is acceptable and interesting, supporting everything with the corresponding literature data. However, the structure of this section is not clear, and this is too long and “dense”. I would recommend two ways to avoid that:
- If possible, add the corresponding part of this discussion section to the results section, creating a “results and discussion” section as in many research works.
- If not, structure this discussion section with the same points, corresponding to the result section, to follow the explanation of the data shown in an easier way.
Answer: We added headings in the discussion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article "Effect of sowing dates on fatty acids and phytosterols patterns of Carthamus tinctorius L." by J. Roche and colleagues tries to investigate the effect of a delayed sowing over a normal one on the fatty acid and phytosterols content. The idea might be of interest but the study design lacks of solid basis and thus the conclusions should be taken carefully.
The manuscript also would need a deep English and editing proof-reading (starting from the wrong table numbering, unit measures, etc). Error bars must be added to all figures 1 and 2. Similarly, the statistical analysis should be checked again and expressed better (maybe increasing the number of samples for a more reliable outcome (although these samples are from 2007?!?), and the authors might consider performing a traditional unpaired t-test between the 2 treatments vs the control (and between the 2 treatment) instead of the ANOVA (a table with the obtained p-values should be added in the text or in the supplementary information).
All the initial considerations about rainfall and temperature in 2007 against the average values in the past 55 years does not make much sense if there are no samples to compare (just a mere comparison of the weather condition).
Analysis of the phytosterols in the seeds should be better compared to the corresponding final content according to the 2 treatments.
in conclusion, although the idea is nice and the results could be interesting, in my opinion the manuscript in the current state does not deserve publication in Applied Sciences until profound changes are made to the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank so much for precious remarks.
Reviewer 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Answer: This was modified and English was edited by native English |
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article "Effect of sowing dates on fatty acids and phytosterols patterns of Carthamus tinctorius L." by J. Roche and colleagues tries to investigate the effect of a delayed sowing over a normal one on the fatty acid and phytosterols content. The idea might be of interest but the study design lacks of solid basis and thus the conclusions should be taken carefully.
The manuscript also would need a deep English and editing proof-reading (starting from the wrong table numbering, unit measures, etc).
Answer: This was modified and English was edited by professionals
Error bars must be added to all figures 1 and 2.
Answer: We added standard deviations on the graphs.
Similarly, the statistical analysis should be checked again and expressed better (maybe increasing the number of samples for a more reliable outcome (although these samples are from 2007?!?), and the authors might consider performing a traditional unpaired t-test between the 2 treatments vs the control (and between the 2 treatment) instead of the ANOVA (a table with the obtained p-values should be added in the text or in the supplementary information).
Answer: Thank you for your comment. We modified the presentation of the results and added in supplemental data, means and p-value for the t-test that was performed on the effect of the sowing dates on fatty acids (Table S1) and phytosterols (Table S2) contents.
All the initial considerations about rainfall and temperature in 2007 against the average values in the past 55 years does not make much sense if there are no samples to compare (just a mere comparison of the weather condition).
Answer: These data are presented only for information about the year of experiment compared to long term climatic conditions.
Analysis of the phytosterols in the seeds should be better compared to the corresponding final content according to the 2 treatments.
Answer: We added information in the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study entitled” Effect of sowing dates on fatty acids and phytosterols patterns of Carthamus tinctorius L. “aimed to identify the effects of environmental conditions, fatty acid and phytosterol contents have been evaluated in safflower seeds cultivated under two sowing dates (conventional and late). This study needs major corrections to be more acceptable;
1. Decrease the similarity factor which mainly obtained from two published papers:
a. Fatty acid and phytosterol accumulation during seed development in three oilseed species
b. http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/3679/1/Roche_3679.pdf
2. Abstract section:
1. Decrease the introduction part of the Abstract.
2. Write briefly in the abstract section the used methods in the current manuscript.
3. Many paragraphs in the Introduction sections need to be written. Avoid the use of (we) or (our) throughout the whole manuscript.
4. In the 2. Materials and Methods part:
1. Write in the sub section (Plant material, trial and environmental conditions) in details how, where and in which conditions you dried the seeds as well as drying process plays an important role in the phytoconstituents of plants seeds.
2. The subsection (2.2. Extraction and determination of fatty acids and sterol contents) Copied exactly from the paaper entitled” Fatty acid and phytosterol accumulation during seed development in three oilseed species”, kindly change the language to be look less similar.
5. In the Results section
Table 3 is placed before Tables 1 and 2 also their explanations.
6. References
several references are too old, kindly try to replace them with more updated ones Ref. #1, 3, 4, 9, 14, 23, 29, 35
In general, the experimental part of this manuscript is conducted well but more work required on the management and the writings manners to be more clear for readers.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On belhal of the authors, thank you so much for the judicious recommendations.
Reviewer 3
English language and style
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Answer: This was modified and English was edited by native English |
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study entitled” Effect of sowing dates on fatty acids and phytosterols patterns of Carthamus tinctorius L. “aimed to identify the effects of environmental conditions, fatty acid and phytosterol contents have been evaluated in safflower seeds cultivated under two sowing dates (conventional and late). This study needs major corrections to be more acceptable;
1. Decrease the similarity factor which mainly obtained from two published papers:
a. Fatty acid and phytosterol accumulation during seed development in three oilseed species
b. http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/3679/1/Roche_3679.pdf
Answer: The manuscript was edited in order to reduced substantially the similarities
2. Abstract section:
1. Decrease the introduction part of the Abstract.
Answer: This part was reduced
2. Write briefly in the abstract section the used methods in the current manuscript.
Answer: This was added
3. Many paragraphs in the Introduction sections need to be written. Avoid the use of (we) or (our) throughout the whole manuscript.
Answer: We modified this in the text.
4. In the 2. Materials and Methods part:
1. Write in the sub section (Plant material, trial and environmental conditions) in details how, where and in which conditions you dried the seeds as well as drying process plays an important role in the phytoconstituents of plants seeds.
Answer: Seeds were harvested at maturity when the water content of 20% was reached.
2. The subsection (2.2. Extraction and determination of fatty acids and sterol contents) Copied exactly from the paaper entitled” Fatty acid and phytosterol accumulation during seed development in three oilseed species”, kindly change the language to be look less similar.
Answer: This part was greatly modified
5. In the Results section
Table 3 is placed before Tables 1 and 2 also their explanations.
Answer: Thank you for your remark. Tables are, now, numbered correctly trough the text
6. References
several references are too old, kindly try to replace them with more updated ones Ref. #
1, 3, 4,
9, 14, 23, 29, 35
Answer: These references were changed by more updated ones.
In fact 1, 3, 4, were changed
Reference 14 (2013), 23, 29 and 35 these references (2016) are recent. Nevertheless, all references (12, 24, 26, 28) published before 2010 were changed except 16 and 17 (2009) which concerns medical aspects of sunflower oil.
In general, the experimental part of this manuscript is conducted well but more work required on the management and the writings manners to be more clear for readers.
Answer: We modified thoroughly the text trying to be clearer.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled “Effect of sowing dates on fatty acids and phytosterols patterns of Carthamus tinctorius L.” submitted by Jane Roche and co-workers to “Applied Sciences” provided new information on the effect (delay) of sowing on fatty acid composition, and phytosterol profile and content in agriculturally- industrially- important crop, Safflower.
The manuscript is written in good language; the methodology is well-described and discussion contained required information on explanation of the obtained data as well as some comparisons to the previous results on this subject. The authors proved some conclusions on possibility of managing the sowing date in order to manipulate the yield of such important compounds as fatty acids and phytosterols.
In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thaks for your generosity.
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is significantly improved. Several editing and English errors are still present but in my opinion the article, after a minor revision, deserves publication in Applied Sciences.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors modified their manuscript according to our comments and every thing is OK
