Diversity of Crithmum maritimum L. from Salento Coastal Area: A Suitable Species for Domestication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The manuscript entitled “Diversity of Crithmum maritimum L. from Salento coastal area: 2 a suitable species for domestication” presented interesting data which included classification in three different chemotypes, depending on (dill)apiol content, as well as highlighting the importance of C. maritimum as a suitable candidate for cultivation. This manuscript could be accepted for publication after a Major Revision.

 

Abstract

-Rephrase the “natural compounds”

- Rephrase the sentence “In this work we analysed the chemical variability of Crithmum maritimum ecotypes in terms of volatile organic compounds.”  To “In this work we analysed the chemical variability of C. maritimum ecotypes in terms of volatile organic compounds.”  

Introduction

-Line 46: Correct “The aerial portions” to “The aerial parts”

-Line 75: use the abbreviation; C. maritimum

Table 1

-How have you determined that these are the main compounds? For instance, peak areas >5%?

-Provide all the % peak areas with one decimal. Also, add two columns with the RI experimental and RI literature. The column with RT could not be provided.

-It could also be useful to provide the % percentages of chemical classes e.g. monoterpene hydrocarbons, oxygenated hydrocarbons, etc which your constituents belong to in a Table.

Discussion

 

-Please check and also add the following publication “The Effect of Successive Harvesting on The Volatile Constituents of Two Essential Oils of Cultivated Populations of Sea Fennel (Crithmum maritimum L.) in Greece”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors,

Dear Authors,

Presented manuscript deals with germination trials and phytochemical profiling of Crithmum maritimum, a valuable multipurpose halophyte, from Adriatic and Ionian sea coasts of Italy. The paper is interesting, however there are several issues that should be resolved:

The Abstract is rather unclear in presenting the main findings and conclusions. I see that the Authors wanted to be concise, using parts of the main text but it impossible what is studied and how.

The Introduction - see file with track with small suggestions.

Mat&Met It would be better to add (supplementary) table about the origins with georeference. The names on the map are too small to see. Information about the characteristics of the locations would be helpful, when differences in the origin are in question. It remains unclear throughout the text what is meant under ecotype(s). There is no description of the habitats and/or the plants. Are all origins so unique that Authors define them as separate ecotypes. Moreover it is not explained if the tested samples in the phytochemical analyses are from the cultivated plants or from the natural populations. Additionally there is some experimental treatments with hydroponics (lines 100-102) that remain a mystery.

Results + Discussion:
The germination rate is given as finite value as % of radicle emergence. There is no data on time of seed germination experiments, seedling development nor dormancy. Those are important horticultural traits ant I think it the audience of the Horticulturae would be interested in such information. There are other studies on the germination of this species (see comments on the Discussion in the file with track) that are not taken into account. Nevertheless, the Authors claim there is some "interspecific variability in germination patterns" that I think needs additional assessment. Moreover it is not sure that seeds harvested from cultivated plants would have same characteristics as those from the nature. On year of cultivation is not long enough for such claims.

On the phytochemical section - it is clear that clustering is made using a statistical tools based on the fingerprinting. However, are Authors sure that designated chemotypes would persist in controlled/field conditions? There are no differences in original habitats presented, but how could high variability in phenylpropanoids explained? And on the same accord why choosing the (dill)apiol amount for discerning the chemotypes - they are variable as well. Not to mention that it is typical for other Apiaceae species as well and its value in authentification of Crithmum herbage is questionable.
In the frame of the previous questions the Authors should revise their discussion and conclusions so to reflect more data on differences between under cultivation/wild.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Style should be checked

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded and revised all the suggested comments. Just a minor revision on two points:

-In the sentence "Essential oils, widely used, release numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including a large variety of chemical compounds classified as and structurally different molecules belong to secondary metabolites." Delete "classified as and structurally different molecules belong to secondary metabolites"

-In Table 1, why (dill)apiol appear two times? is this correct?

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded and revised all the suggested comments. Just a minor revision on two points:

-In the sentence "Essential oils, widely used, release numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including a large variety of chemical compounds classified as and structurally different molecules belong to secondary metabolites." Delete "classified as and structurally different molecules belong to secondary metabolites"

We deleted "classified as and structurally different molecules belong to secondary metabolites"

-In Table 1, why (dill)apiol appear two times? is this correct?

This is correct because he GC analysis performed does not allow the two isomers: 4,5-dimethoxy-6-prop-2-enyl-1,3-benzodioxole (dillapiol), and 4,7-dimethoxy-5-prop-2-enyl-1,3-benzodioxole (apiol) to be safely and unambiguously distinguished. So, we referred to them that way.  At line 231-235 we have added the chemical names of the two isomers to make the explanation of the use of the term (dill)apiol for both isomers clearer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Proposed corrections and additions clearly improved the manuscript and I commend the Authors for their efforts.

Author Response

Proposed corrections and additions clearly improved the manuscript and I commend the Authors for their efforts.

Thank you for this final judgment.