Germination Response of Different Castor Bean Genotypes to Temperature for Early and Late Sowing Adaptation in the Mediterranean Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The present manuscript focuses on temperatures on the adoption of early or late sowing in castor bean (Ricinus communis L.) in the Mediterranean region, and the effects of different temperatures on seed germination traits. Six different temperatures were investigated: 8, 12, 16, 25, 32, and 40°C. The results indicate that optimal temperature (25°C) and near-optimal temperature (32°C) are the best temperatures for ensuring castor germination (FGP≥ 82%). The manuscript sounds scientific and hold potential. However some points are suggested to improve the overall quality of the manuscript before final publication.

Moderate English editing is required.

Suggestions for authors:

Abstract: In abstract, rather than general statements, only results should be highlighted to summarize the overall novelty of the manuscript. Rewrite it.

Keywords: Add one or two keywords.

Introduction: The introduction is too short. It must highlight the novelty of your research problem with supportive literature. It should be elaborated.

Rectify spacing error throughout the manuscript.

The figures should be of high resultant. Modify it.

In Figure1, no statistical analysis is shown.

In Figure 2, the error bars are quite high. Can you explain why? Similar in Figure 3& 4.

Discussion: It should be more precise and informative. It seems very lengthy and irrelevant. Rewrite the section with latest references.

Conclusion: It should be precise and highlights only the major findings of the present study.

 

 

 

 

Moderate English editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Reading your paper was interesting. The practical contribution of article is great since the knowledge of the effect of temperature on germination determines the appropriate time of sowing for Ricinus communis species.

In Material and Methods section, information about seed sterilization, seed sizes, and moisture contents have to be given. Furthermore, the number of seeds of each genotype used to measure the length of radicle has to be referred (see the comments on the manuscript). I think that methodological details have to be given sufficiently so that to enable a reader to repeat the procedures.

In Result section, you should focus more on the analysis of the interaction of the two factors (incubation temperature and genotype). Furthermore, I suggest how you could present the interaction (see the comments on the manuscript).

The comments which were made on the manuscript (attached file) have to be taken account and answered.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Keywords:  germination trials; different temperatures; dwarf hybrids – Please reconsider them and try to find keywords that better fit the manuscript e.g. cardinal temperatures, seed germination, seed vigour

Methods:

Line 82 - Perhaps it would be better to add that this temperature is required in standard laboratory tests according to ISTA (International Seed Testing Association).

Line 105 – How many seeds (seedlings) were chosen?

Results:

Please check which value FGP for genotype ‘C1013’ is correct in the text - line 193 is 43.3% and in the table 4 is 42.3%.

Lines 193-194 “Good results were also shown for the 'Local' genotype, which was lower than the best for only an 8.2% difference.”- check the difference, please.

Lines 321-322 “the highest values occurred for ‘C1020’ (VI, 654) and ‘C1019’ (VI, 439), followed by the ‘Local’ genotype (473)” please checked it, in my opinion should be “the highest values occurred for ‘C1020’ (VI, 654) and ‘Local’ genotype (473), followed by the ‘C1019’ (VI, 439)”

Discussion:

Review the reference list carefully, as it does not agree with the citations in the text, e.g.

-          line 337 – “Zhu et al. [19]..” in references 19 is Weiss, Zhu et al. is 21

-          line 358 – “de Oliveir Neto [23]…” in references 23 is Filho et al., Neto is 24

-          line 365 – “Falasca et al. [21]…” in references 21 is Zhu et al., Falasca et al. is 25

-          line 375 – “Amorin Neto et al. [23]…” in references 23 is Filho et al., Amorin Neto et al. is 26

-          line 375 – “Moosavi et al. [24]…” in references 24 is Oliveir Neto, Moosavi et al. is 27

-          line 388 – “Koutroubas et al. [25]…” in references 25 is Falasca, Koutourbas et al. is 29

-          line 393 – check Kittock and Williams [26] and Weiss [17]

-          line 400 and 418 – check Patane et al. [22]

-          line 412 – check Wolny et al. [28]

-          lines 421-422 – check it [29] it is not about Brassica napus

-          line 427 – check Sharma et al. [31]

-          probably in the text are more citation mistakes

Line 411, 421 – please write in italic - “Jatropha curcas”, “Brassica napus”

Conclusions:

 

Line 447 – “germination capacity” – in this experiment germination capacity wasn’t checked. According to ISTA germination capacity is a percentage of normal seedlings counted in the end of test.

 

In my opinion, language mistakes are few, the manuscript therefore needs to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf