Individual and Interactive Temporal Implications of UV-B Radiation and Elevated CO2 on the Morphology of Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.)
, Skyler Brazel 1, Akanksha Sehgal 2, C. Hunt Walne 2, Wei Gao 3 and K. Raja Reddy 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript deals with a very important and topical question, namely the likely effects of global warming (elevated C02, elevated UV exposure) on an economically important crop species. The authors have taken care in their design to as closely as possible replicate possible climatic conditions in specialised SPAR units, which reproduce sunlight spectra and provide accurate control of CO2 levels, in contrast to much earlier research. Evidence of complex and somewhat opposing interactions at several developmental stages are provided.
The results are for the most part clearly presented, however i had difficulty with the tables seeing where both UV and C02 had been applied together at the same time, perhaps this could be more clearly labeled.
The paper could also be much improved in the discussion, which is confusing and does not clearly state the conclusions. Firstly, it would be helpful if a projection of likely outcome of climate change (in terms of changes in CO2 and UV) to which plants will be exposed in the future could be included, so that the data could be placed in the context of actual changes likely to occur. For instance, are the elevated C02 and UV used in this study likely ever to occur in nature, or is this a wholly artificial situation?
More importantly, the economic impact on basil is not stated very clearly - although the information is all present, it reads rather like a lab notebook providing a list of 'effects' with only minor comment. There are also many typos and grammatical mistakes.
The authors should explicitly state the following facts as a summary in their conclusion, i.e.. instead of saying that 'most feature' are negatively impacted, the authors should explicitly state which features of basil are considered horticulturally positive, which are negative, then explain how these features are impacted by UV, CO2; or both given together. This would make it easier to follow for non specialists.
It would also be very useful to provide more background how basil differs from other crops that have been tested in this way by relating these effects to how basil does not need as high light or different photoperiod from other crops (?), that the leaves (rather than roots etc.) are harvested and some criteria for how economic use. The conclusion could then provide some notion of whether basil is likely to be more (or less) impacted by climate change that other crop species, and why.
Author Response
Please see attached response to reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors evaluated the individual and interactive effects of UV-B radiation and elevated CO2 on morphological features of basil. Overall, the study is interesting and provides relevant insights about the basils response to adverse environmental factors such as increasing UV-B radiation and CO2 concentration. However, there are a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed.
Q1: The abstract does not contain the reasons why you carried out the experiment. The objective and meaning of this research is important. Could you please point out?
Q2: Your research hypothesis should be added at the end of the introduction
Q3: line 75-77, a literature source indicating this must be included
Q4: line 79, after Former studies...., please add literature source.
Q5: line 170, clearly indicate when the treatments have been initiated, BBCH scale? the number of fully unfolded leafs?
Q6: line 174, why did you choose to harvest basil at 17 and 38 DAT? what age the plants were on the BBCH scale or other indications to harvest?
Q7: line 176, effects of temperature? What do you mean?
Q8: line 174-175, how the plants were selected for measurements, whether you measured all treated plants?
Q9: line 195, which leaves were selected for measurement? randomly selected? fully mature or others.
Q10: Results, please use a clear abbreviations of treatments. Control UV-B treatment, these plants were not treated with UV-B, so use another clear abbreviation that indicates that the basil wasnot treated with UV-B. Check the references to the tables carefully.
Q11: line 255-257, the sentence is unclear, please paraphrase
Q12: Table 3, 4, ... after 35 days of treatment. Why not after 38 days of treatment? please, explain.
Q12: the names of the tables must be clear, please indicate the dose of UV-B as idicated for CO2
Q13: line 278-280, reference to table. Root lenght per volume? which meaurement in the table?
Q14: line 283-284, unclear sentence
Q15: line 286, it is unclear to whom it is compared
Q16: Disccusion, please use the links to the tables where you disccus the results of your reserach.
Q 17: line 349, specify interacting factors
Q18: line 353, reference to the literature source
Q19: line 356, 35 DAT????
Q20: Conclusions, maintain uniformity. For clarity of conclusions, do not use abbreviations, for exp. specific leaf area (line 364) - SLA (line 367).
Q21: References, no 3, 8, 46 are very old, if not relevant and does not change the substance of the text, it could be removed
Author Response
Please see attached response to reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
