The First Study on Cultivating Roman Chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile (L.) All.) for Its Flower and Essential Oil in Southeast Serbia
, Tatjana Marković 1, Snežana Dimitrijević 1, Aiping Song 2, Željana Prijić 1, Sara Mikić 1, Natalija Čutović 1 and Vladan Ugrenović 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The topic of the work is interesting, the methodological assumptions are interesting, but the methods are poorly described. It should be clearly stated whether the research was conducted for 2 years on one- and two-year-old plants? This is clear from the description of the methods. Then it would be necessary to take into account ontogenetic variability, which is completely omitted. There is also no weather data for the winter period. These data suggest that the plants were planted every year, which is not included in the description of the methods. These inconsistencies do not allow for the correct interpretation of the results, discussion and correct conclusions. The work cannot be accepted in this form.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
For your convenience, all corrections have been marked in red letters throughout the revised version of the manuscript. Regarding our responses to your comments, please read the text that follows.
General comments:
The topic of the work is interesting, the methodological assumptions are interesting, but the methods are poorly described. It should be clearly stated whether the research was conducted for 2 years on one- and two-year-old plants? This is clear from the description of the methods. Then it would be necessary to take into account ontogenetic variability, which is completely omitted. There is also no weather data for the winter period. These data suggest that the plants were planted every year, which is not included in the description of the methods. These inconsistencies do not allow for the correct interpretation of the results, discussion and correct conclusions.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We hope we have solved all inconsistencies you have mentioned in your general comments on our manuscript. Please find the corrections in the revised version of the manuscript.
Specific comments (in the manuscript):
Lines 20-21: This sentence is too complicated, please simplify.
Response: Done.
Lines 85-86: Please tell me where the mother plants came from? How old were the plants? What form was it, with full inflorescences (mostly ligulate flowers) or not? What kind of cuttings were they and how were they taken?
Response: Corrected, according to Reviewer's comment. Cuttings for research were taken from the Roman chamomile mother plants, which were grown and multiplied in the Production unit of the Institute for Medicinal Plants Research "dr Josif Pančić" located in Pančevo (44° 52′ 20.0″ N; 20° 42′ 04.7 ″ E), South Banat, Republic of Serbia. Cuttings 10-12 cm long were taken by hand from three-year-old plants at the moment before buds appeared. Chamomile flowers are large and white, made up of a solid conical receptacle.
Line 88: The methodological assumptions raise some doubts. Were seedlings planted once in 2022? Therefore, the flowers collected in 2023 came from biennial plants, and those in 2022 from annual plants?
The weather data table shows that the plants did not winter at the turn of 2022 and 2023, right? This needs to be described, but it is not presented precisely yet.
Response: Corrected, according to Reviewer's comment. One-year-old plants were investigated in the experiments. In early April 2022 and 2023,….
In the Table of meteorological data, values for five months (November - March) have been added. Based on the presented values of precipitations (mm) and average monthly temperatures (°C), it is possible to establish more precisely the regularities resulting from the influence of these indicators on the morphological, productive and qualitative parameters of cultivated Roman chamomile.
Line 182: What about conditions in winter? The table shows that the plants were planted every year, hence the description of the IV-VII season. However, the methodology clearly states that the seedlings will be planted in April 2022, i.e. once, not twice. Please explain and organize the information and data.
Response: Corrected, according to Reviewer's comment. In the Table of meteorological data, values of precipitations (mm) and average monthly temperatures (°C), for five months (November - March) have been added. Since annual plants were examined, planting was done in April 2022 and in the same month of 2023.
Line 187 (Table 3): Calcium levels so low at such a high pH?
Response: The displayed calcium values were obtained based on reference methods, however, in some cases, in addition to a high pH value, a low content of calcium, i.e. calcium carbonate, occurs: https://extension.usu.edu/yardandgarden/research/why-are-my-soils-so-alkaline-can-i-lower-my-soils-ph
Line 219 (Table 4): Inflorescence not the flower, superscript (m-2), the abbreviations (v.r. and F pr.) should be explained
Response: Superscript is corrected. The explanation of abbreviations is added. Regarding the inflorescence, you are right and we agree with you. However, we propose to change it into flower heads, to be in agreement with the entire text. We hope you will accept it?
v.r. – values ranges; F pr. – the p-value, also referred to as the probability value or observed sig-nificance level; LSD 0.05 – Least Significant Difference at significance level of 0.05.
Line 301: “Based on a two-year average value …. “ It's hard to draw conclusions when we don't know whether they were annual or perennial plants? In addition to environmental factors, the ontogenesis factor should be taken into account (if there were plants, the same plants, which results from the methodology).
Response: Corrected, according to Reviewer's comment. One-year-old plants were investigated in the experiments. In the experiments, in two meteorologically different years, annual plants were investigated on three types of soil.
Line 344: It is necessary to explain the methodology and provide the age of the plants. Currently, it is difficult to draw conclusions.
Response: Corrected, according to Reviewer's comment.
We sincerely appreciate your suggestions that helped us to better present data from our investigation.
Sincerely, the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· In line 18, rrite units with/not with -1, please check in all the text.
· Please improve the resolution of figure 1.
· What does RIE mean on line 152?
· Explain how the linear retention indices were calculated?
· Write scientific names in italics, review throughout the text
· Did you use standards for identification and calculation of retention rates? What standards were used?
· If it is possible in the characterization of the plant material to include who characterized it, and if there is a voucher code?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
For your convenience, all corrections have been marked in blue letters throughout the revised version of the manuscript. Regarding our responses to your comments, please read the text that follows.
Comment: In line 18, write units with/not with -1, please check in all the text.
Response: With all due respect, we changed the units in this manuscript according to Reviewer's comment. However, in the instructions for authors, units are marked with "-1" not with "/". We also checked several recently published manuscripts in the same journal, and it was the same like in our manuscript. We hope you will agree with us.
Comment: Please improve the resolution of figure 1.
Response: The figure 1 is corrected, as advised.
Comments: What does RIE mean on line 152?
Response: RIE (line 15 - the methodology part) stands for Retention Index reported in this experiment (experimental data) but we have assigned it in Table 6 as RIexp. Similarly, RIL corresponds to Retention Indices on the column used in experiment (data from the available literature). RIE and RIL are now corrected to RIexp and RIlit, to be in agreement with Table 6. The abbreviations are added to title of Table 6.
Comments: Explain how the linear retention indices were calculated? Did you use standards for identification and calculation of retention rates? What standards were used?
Response: In the Methodology (Section 2.6.), part of the text was rephrased in attempt to better explain how it was conducted.
Comment: If it is possible in the characterization of the plant material to include who characterized it, and if there is a voucher code?
Response: Missing data regarding voucher code and data on identification of Roman chamomile used for cuttings and establishing experimental plantations with them, was conducted by the first author of this manuscript, dr Filipović Vladimir, who maintains Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic plants in the Institute for Medicinal Plant Research. The identification was done with the help of following relevant literature:
- Jančić, R: Medicinal plants with a key for determination, Scientific book, Belgrade, 1990.
- Tatić, B, Blečić, V: Systematics and phylogeny of higher plants, ZUNS, Belgrade, 2002.
- Lakušić, D: Guide to the Flora of Kopaonik National Park, JP National Park Kopaonik, Kopaonik, 1995.
- Jančić, R: Botany of pharmaceuticals, Službeni list SCG, Belgrade, 2004.
- Kojić, M: Botany, Scientific book, Belgrade, 1989.
- Grlić, Lj: Encyclopedia of wild edible plants, August Cesarec, Zagreb, 1986.
- Jančić, R: One hundred of our most famous medicinal plants, Scientific book, Belgrade, 1988.
We sincerely appreciate your efforts in helping us to improve our manuscript.
Sincerely, the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author, the article entilted "The first study on cultivating Roman chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile (L.) All.) for its flower and essential oil in Southeast Serbia" is well-prepared. The introduction is well-written and the methods are clear. The results are sufficiently discussed. For improvement, please add the limitation of this study and based on the limitations please add recommendation for further studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
For your convenience, all corrections have been marked in green letters throughout the revised version of the manuscript. Regarding our responses to your comments, please read the text that follows.
General comments:
Dear author, the article entilted "The first study on cultivating Roman chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile (L.) All.) for its flower and essential oil in Southeast Serbia" is well-prepared. The introduction is well-written and the methods are clear. The results are sufficiently discussed. For improvement, please add the limitation of this study and based on the limitations please add recommendation for further studies.
Response: Thank you for your kind comments. We have added few sentences regarding the limitations of our study and recommendations for further investigation. One of the limitations of this study is the lack of previous research regarding the cultivation of Roman chamomile not only in the Republic of Serbia, but also in the wider region. In this regard, there were no data that could, to a certain extent, be the basis for the discussion of the results obtained in this study. For the improvement of this study, guidelines are given based on the achieved results and the direction of further research when it comes to this plant species. Please, see page 1 lines 24-26, page 2 lines 78-81, page 4 lines 172-176 and pages 10-11, lines 374-377 in the Resubmitted Manuscript.
We sincerely appreciate your advises which helped us to improve this manuscript.
Sincerely, the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work was well revised, I would like to thank the Authors for methodological explanations. I have no comments on the current version.
