Seed Fatty Acid Changes Germination Response to Temperature and Water Potentials in Six Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) Cultivars: Estimating the Cardinal Temperatures

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the revisions/corrections highlighted (yellow) in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

It is improved according to suggestions.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results presented?

Can be improved

Do the results support the conclusions?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The entire manuscript should be checked for grammatical mistakes; several errors in the manuscript need attention.

Response 1: The English language of MS was improved by a native editor.

Comments 2: The significance of the study is not justified in the introduction.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion; I/we agree. Then, the authors tried to discuss the importance of temperature in the first paragraph, water potential on germination in the second paragraph, and the role of cardinal temperature in germination and its estimation models in the third paragraph. In the fourth paragraph, the properties of sesame seeds and fatty acids and their relationship with germination were mentioned. And in the last section, this research's purpose and importance have been mentioned.

Comments 3: The abstract should contain the significant values obtained in the study, which is lacking and should be reframed.

Response 3: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, in the results of the abstract, the better model for estimating the cardinal temperature for the studied cultivars was mentioned, and then the average cardinal temperatures in different water potentials were reported based on the best model. Then, the relationship between cardinal temperature and seed fatty acid in different cultivars was stated. Finally, using these temperatures was recommended to select the planting date of cultivars in temperature and humidity conditions based on their fatty acid content.

Comments 4: Significance of the study is not justified in the introduction

Response 4: I answer it in comment 2.

Comments 5: The introduction is well written but lacks recent references, which need to be added to improve.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have added some new references to improve the introduction.

Comments 6: Materials and methods can be improved by quoting the equation number for all the equations.

Response 6: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, improved by quoting the equation number for all the equations to emphasize this point.

Comments 7: The significance of taking the said cultivars should be justified

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We revised it in plant material information at MM lines 100-103 and Table 1.

Comments 8: Results, in general, should be rewritten entirely as I found many ambiguities in some of the sentences mentioned- especially the part on germination that needs a relook.

Response 8: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, modified results to emphasize this point.

Comments 9: Authors should provide images of the germination of sesame seeds of all the cultivars they can update the same with the following literature (Applied Soil Ecology, 168, 104142; International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 22(21): 11461; Antioxidants. 11(9): 1763).

Response 9: Unfortunately, good images of the seeds are not available at the time of the experiment, and it is practically impossible to bring comparison pictures of the germination of 6 cultivars at seven temperatures and six water potential levels.

Comments 10: I think the authors have not appropriately discussed the sub-headings germination and fatty acid composition

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We attempt to improve it.

Comments 11: The conclusion is not conclusive and written in general and should be modified completely. Significant findings of the study should be highlighted in the decision.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We attempt to improve it.

Comments 12: All the figure legends should be relooked for better understanding.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We attempt to relook it.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of the English language required (Can be improved)

Response 1: The English language of MS was improved by a native editor.

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the revisions/corrections highlighted (green) in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results presented?

Yes

Do the results support the conclusions?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The manuscript is well-written and provides all aspects in an organized way. The study is quite significant.

I have only one concern: Did you find any differences in the cardinal temperatures of the sesame seed reported previously for control conditions and in different environmental conditions? Discuss this aspect as well in the discussion.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have added (Ghadri-Far and Soltani (2015)). This change can be found – on page 14, paragraph 5, and lines 352-356.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor editing of the English language is required. There are several grammatical mistakes in the manuscript, such as, in most figures, the decimal values are preceded by a comma instead of a decimal point (dot). In Figure 1 (Halil), correct the spelling of temperature.

Response 3: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, in the results of the abstract, the better model for estimating the cardinal temperature for the studied cultivars was mentioned, and then the average cardinal temperatures in different water potentials were reported based on the best model. Then, the relationship between cardinal temperature and seed fatty acid in different cultivars was stated. Finally, using these temperatures was recommended to select the planting date of cultivars in temperature and humidity conditions based on their fatty acid content.

Comments 4: Significance of the study is not justified in the introduction

Response 4: I answer it in comment 2.

Comments 5: The introduction is well written but lacks recent references, which need to be added to improve.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have added some new references to improve the introduction.

Comments 6: Materials and methods can be improved by quoting the equation number for all the equations.

Response 6: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, improved by quoting the equation number for all the equations to emphasize this point.

Comments 7: The significance of taking the said cultivars should be justified

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We revised it in plant material information at MM lines 100-103 and Table 1.

Comments 8: Results, in general, should be rewritten entirely as I found many ambiguities in some of the sentences mentioned- especially the part on germination that needs a relook.

Response 8: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, modified results to emphasize this point.

Comments 9: Authors should provide images of the germination of sesame seeds of all the cultivars they can update the same with the following literature (Applied Soil Ecology, 168, 104142; International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 22(21): 11461; Antioxidants. 11(9): 1763).

Response 9: Unfortunately, good images of the seeds are not available at the time of the experiment, and it is practically impossible to bring comparison pictures of the germination of 6 cultivars at seven temperatures and six water potential levels.

Comments 10: I think the authors have not appropriately discussed the sub-headings germination and fatty acid composition

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We attempt to improve it.

Comments 11: The conclusion is not conclusive and written in general and should be modified completely. Significant findings of the study should be highlighted in the decision.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We attempt to improve it.

Comments 12: All the figure legends should be relooked for better understanding.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We attempt to relook it.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of the English language required (Can be improved)

Response 1: The English language of MS was improved by a native editor.

Response to Reviewer X's Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the revisions/corrections highlighted (blue) in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results presented?

Yes

Do the results support the conclusions?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Dear authors, I congratulate you on your work, and after reading the piece, I consider that minor corrections have to be made in the text and that once done, the result can be accepted for publication in a journal. Below are some of the suggestions made in the attached text.

- add the scientific name of the plant species always in the first message in the text - unnecessary use here, check throughout the text for incorrect use - put in bold

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have continually added the scientific name of the plant species in the first message in the text - unnecessary use checks throughout the text were corrected.

Comments 2: -keep two decimal places after the comma to standardize the data in the table - add a program citation - standardize the size of the letters in the captions of each chart to better identify the identification of each of the curves

Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, modified two decimal places to standardize the data in the tables - the size of the letters in the captions of each chart was normalized to better identify the identification of each of the curves and emphasize this point.

Comments 3: - The references have to be placed in the journal's formatting; correct all of them.

Response 3: The references are placed in the journal's formatting using [number].

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the revisions/corrections highlighted (purple) in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

It is improved.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

It is improved.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results presented?

Must be improved

It is improved.

Do the results support the conclusions?

Yes

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract: The results presented in this section are mainly related to comparing the models chosen to analyze the data obtained. However, as the paper's title suggests, it examines the influence of seed fatty acid content on germination response to temperature and water potential. So, the Abstract should be rewritten for this study.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. However, I/we have emphasized in the title the purpose of estimating the cardinal temperatures of germination under the influence of fatty acid changes of sesame cultivars in different temperature and humidity conditions. In the results section of the abstract, we first refer to the best estimation of cardinal temperatures in cultivars, then the effect of fatty acid changes on cardinal temperatures (base temperature), and finally, its use in agriculture and the right time and place to cultivate cultivars. However, an attempt was made to modify the abstract as suggested by the honorable referee.

Comments 2: 51-52, 60-62: The sentence needs references;

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I/we have added references (Sanehkoori et al., 2021 and Wang et al., 2020) in lines 52 and 65, respectively.

Comments 3: 82-90: These sentences are unclear, and it is not clear why they are needed here;

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We have deleted these sentences.

Comments 4: 73-90: This paragraph is more suitable for the Discussion section to compare the results of this study and other authors;

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have transferred that paragraph to the Discussion section to compare the results of this study and other authors.

Comments 5: Please add in the introduction the rationale for studying the effects of water potential and the combined effects of water potential and temperature on seed germination;

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I/we have added references (Zhang et al., 2022 and Khan et al., 2023) in lines 59 and 61, respectively.

Comments 6: 98-101, 102-103: The sentence needs correction;

Response 6: Those sentences have been corrected.

Comments 7: 102-103: The sentence needs correction and references;

Response 7: That sentence has been corrected, and An example is given after that sentence with a reference.

Comments 8: Please use ‘optimal temperature’ instead of ‘cardinal temperature’ throughout the text;

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. But, The cardinal temperature includes the optimal and maximum temperature. In this research, we examined all three temperatures, and using the optimal temperature in the whole text is impossible.

Comments 9: 131: ‘CRD’ is no longer used in the text, so the authors do not need to add this abbreviation;

Response 9: It was revised in line 114. Thank you again.

Comments 10: 142: What does ‘C’ mean in this formula?

Response 10: It was added in line 127. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Comments 11: Figures 1-3: Please use colored figures;

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I/we have used colored figures in legends.

Comments 12: 240: Please use ‘7.5 to 13.1oC’ instead of ‘7.49 to 13.098oC’; Use this uniform throughout the text;

Response 12: All numbers in the text have been rounded to two or one decimal places.

Comments 13: 300-306: This sentence is unclear. Please, divide it;

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I/we have revised and divided it.

Comments 14: 276-336, 343-358: The authors spend much of the Discussion section discussing the results of other studies. The authors should discuss the results of this study more intensively, of course, concerning earlier studies by other researchers;

Response 14: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, modified the Discussion section.

Comments 15: 369-373: The sentence should be divided and rewritten correctly;

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I/we have revised and divided it.

Comments 16: 373-377: The sentence should be rewritten correctly to indicate that these results are averages for all varieties studied;

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, I/we have rewritten it.

Comments 17: 378-378 The idea is poorly formulated, and the sentence needs to be rewritten.

Response 17: I/we have rewritten it. Thanks for your consideration again.