Anatomy and Germination of Erythrina velutina Seeds under a Different Imbibition Period in Gibberellin
, Gabriel D. Shimizu 1, Jean C. B. Paula 1, Huezer V. Sperandio 2, Walte A. Ribeiror Junior 1, Halley C. Oliveira 3, Eduardo I. Jussiani 4, Avacir C. Andrello 1, Rodrigo Y. P. Marubayashi 1, Marcelo H. S. Picoli 5, Julianna Ruediger 1, Ana P. S. Couto 1 and Kauê A. M. Moraes 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall: The manuscript is interesting for me and I appreciate authentic field/laboratory work which I see less to less common nowadays.
The results are interesting and well presented, the methodology is appropriately described and also discussion is of reasonably good quality. What I see as the most significant weakness, is the introduction section, the terminology, and in some parts also English.
Specific comments:
line 4-6: considering the roles of the authors at the end of the manuscript, I am not sure if the ordering of authors is correct. I recommend checking the rules for the authors' order.
Line 37-42: please consider using another term than “biome” when describing Caatinga. Caatinga is just one part of the world biome, and in scientific papers, precise terminology should be used.
Line 41: 8.8% (instead of 8,8%)
Line 44: Willd.
Line 35-65: at least this part I strongly recommend to be proofread by a native speaker as there are a lot of unnecessary mistakes.
Line 45-50: I miss information about previous studies on the species and the family in general. Legume species are known for their impermeable seed coat which is considered to be the main dormancy problem for the germination of seeds, and some kind of scarification is usually needed to break it. I recommend moving the paragraph on lines 234-241 from the discussion section to the introduction.
Line 77: there is an English equivalent in contacts so I recommend considering using it instead of the Portuguese one.
Line 79 and consequently: there is a weird symbol in latitude and longitude expression (°)
Line 87, 89, 170, 178, 249, 258…: please be consistent in GA3 x GA3
Line 105: I do not think 15 days was enough especially for control, 21 days is standard for the majority of tree species.
Line 107-120: please use appropriate terminology for germination tests, such as germination percentage, germination index etc. E.g., the term “emergency speed index" is not correct (although it is sometimes used in some scientific papers from Latin America). This I see as a crucial part of your manuscript!
Line 107, 112, 122: there are residuals of the original (Portuguese?) manuscript before translation.
Line 124: please describe what you exactly mean by “natural” temperature conditions!
Line 125-126: did you mean the seedlings' biomass? Why did you do it? There are no results in later sections, so I recommend erasing this sentence.
Line 140-157: the description does not correspond with figures (in terminology). Please be consistent and use appropriate terminology!
Line 203-204: there is a mistake in this sentence, please check.
Line 234-241: please consider moving this paragraph to the introduction section.
Line 245: does this author recommend planting seeds without presowing treatment also for legume species?
Line 386-294: this paragraph should be moved behind line 225 as a separate chapter.
I am not aware of the rules of this specific journal but to use only the numbering of literature sources even in sentences where it then misses the subject or adverb, is strange to me…
Chapter References: please change the literature according to the rules of the journal. Also adding some of the sources of recent English-written studies in high-quality journals would increase the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Overall: The manuscript is interesting for me and I appreciate authentic field/laboratory work which I see less to less common nowadays.
The results are interesting and well presented, the methodology is appropriately described and also discussion is of reasonably good quality. What I see as the most significant weakness, is the introduction section, the terminology, and in some parts also English.
Specific comments:
line 4-6: considering the roles of the authors at the end of the manuscript, I am not sure if the ordering of authors is correct. I recommend checking the rules for the authors' order.
RESPONSE: The order of authors continues as initially proposed.
Line 37-42: please consider using another term than “biome” when describing Caatinga. Caatinga is just one part of the world biome, and in scientific papers, precise terminology should be used.
RESPONSE: According to Oxford Dictionary, Biome is a large naturally occurring community of flora and fauna occupying a major habitat. As described by Cambridge Dictionary, Biome is a region of the earth's surface and the particular combination of climate (= general type of weather), plants, and animals that are found in it. In view of above, we disagree of the affirmation, as we consider that the term “biome” is well used in the manuscript, as a scientific term for these domains that show strong geographical differentiation, both in climate and geomorphology, resulting in diverse and distinctive landscapes and associated flora.
Line 41: 8.8% (instead of 8,8%)
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 44: Willd.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 35-65: at least this part I strongly recommend to be proofread by a native speaker as there are a lot of unnecessary mistakes.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 45-50: I miss information about previous studies on the species and the family in general. Legume species are known for their impermeable seed coat which is considered to be the main dormancy problem for the germination of seeds, and some kind of scarification is usually needed to break it. I recommend moving the paragraph on lines 234-241 from the discussion section to the introduction.
RESPONSE: There are no scientific information published about using gibberellic acid in Erythrina velutina. The sentence about Fabaceae family, as called legume, was moved to Introduction section, as suggested.
Line 77: there is an English equivalent in contacts so I recommend considering using it instead of the Portuguese one.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 79 and consequently: there is a weird symbol in latitude and longitude expression (°)
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 87, 89, 170, 178, 249, 258…: please be consistent in GA3 x GA3
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 105: I do not think 15 days was enough especially for control, 21 days is standard for the majority of tree species.
RESPONSE: In this case, germination tabilized around 7 – 8 days.
Line 107-120: please use appropriate terminology for germination tests, such as germination percentage, germination index etc. E.g., the term “emergency speed index" is not correct (although it is sometimes used in some scientific papers from Latin America). This I see as a crucial part of your manuscript!
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 107, 112, 122: there are residuals of the original (Portuguese?) manuscript before translation.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 124: please describe what you exactly mean by “natural” temperature conditions!
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 125-126: did you mean the seedlings' biomass? Why did you do it? There are no results in later sections, so I recommend erasing this sentence.
RESPONSE: Adjusted, although there are no significant difference between analyzed parameters (see Figure 5E).
Line 140-157: the description does not correspond with figures (in terminology). Please be consistent and use appropriate terminology!
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 203-204: there is a mistake in this sentence, please check.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 234-241: please consider moving this paragraph to the introduction section.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Line 245: does this author recommend planting seeds without presowing treatment also for legume species?
RESPONSE: Yes, it is recommended by the author, as related in the book used as reference.
Line 386-294: this paragraph should be moved behind line 225 as a separate chapter.
I am not aware of the rules of this specific journal but to use only the numbering of literature sources even in sentences where it then misses the subject or adverb, is strange to me…
RESPONSE: It does not make sense, since this sentence is part of conclusion. This is a rule of the jornal. Editor previously asked for this change.
Chapter References: please change the literature according to the rules of the journal. Also adding some of the sources of recent English-written studies in high-quality journals would increase the quality of the manuscript.
RESPONSE: Adjusted. Most references have been updated to high-quality journals, although manuscripts with this species (Erythrina velutina) are mostly limited as Brazilian publications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Guariz et al. explored the effects of different soaking times in gibberellin on the germination and anatomy of Erythrina velutina seeds. The topic is interesting, however, there are the following crucial points that can be considered by authors to increase the value of the manuscript and maybe readability. First of all,
- I would like to suggest to the authors that the novelty and the future prospect of the study should be mentioned in the abstract and the introduction. Please mention why this study was conducted or what is the use of such studies on germination in preserving this biome? Is there any benefit to the future prospects?
- Please go through the entire manuscript for English language. For example, Line 35: ‘This biome natural beauty’ should be ‘The natural beauty of this biome’.
- Line 42-44, ‘Considering this…. Necessary’. The sentence is complex to understand, please change the structure.
- Please mention that if the used Erythrina velutina seeds belong to a specific genotype or they are from a random tree.
- Line 87-91: The gibberellic ….water. Please rewrite this. I understand what you mean to say, but it is confusing in structure.
- Line 102: ‘sieved and sterilized in an oven at 102 100ºC for two days, for ten hours a day’. I think you talk about sand. Please rewrite the sentence to make it clear.
- Line 127: it should be one-way analysis of variance.
- Line 286: Please elaborate on the conclusion of the manuscript. Also, a part of the conclusion is written in Portuguese. I do not know whether it is allowed.
- Figure Captions should be elaborated. These should be self-explanatory.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Explored the effects of different soaking times in gibberellin on the germination and anatomy of Erythrina velutina seeds. The topic is interesting, however, there are the following crucial points that can be considered by authors to increase the value of the manuscript and maybe readability. First of all,
- I would like to suggest to the authors that the novelty and the future prospect of the study should be mentioned in the abstract and the introduction. Please mention why this study was conducted or what is the use of such studies on germination in preserving this biome? Is there any benefit to the future prospects?
RESPONSE: Adjusted. Although by restriction of number of words in abstract, major details can not be explained and described.
- Please go through the entire manuscript for English language. For example, Line 35: ‘This biome natural beauty’ should be ‘The natural beauty of this biome’.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Line 42-44, ‘Considering this…. Necessary’. The sentence is complex to understand, please change the structure.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Please mention that if the used Erythrina velutina seeds belong to a specific genotype or they are from a random tree.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Line 87-91: The gibberellic ….water. Please rewrite this. I understand what you mean to say, but it is confusing in structure.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Line 102: ‘sieved and sterilized in an oven at 102 100ºC for two days, for ten hours a day’. I think you talk about sand. Please rewrite the sentence to make it clear.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Line 127: it should be one-way analysis of variance.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Line 286: Please elaborate on the conclusion of the manuscript. Also, a part of the conclusion is written in Portuguese. I do not know whether it is allowed.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
- Figure Captions should be elaborated. These should be self-explanatory.
RESPONSE: Adjusted.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
