Germination and Vegetative Propagation of the Wild Species Cuphea pulchra Moric. (Lythraceae), a Potential Ornamental Crop

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some problems need to be revised in the manuscript listed as follow:

1 the citation format of the references does not meet the requirement of the Journal, such as this activity [1] (IBRAFLOR, 2022) in line 27-28.

2 In the part of Germination, the germination indexes should be described clearly.

In the line 101, ‘three samples of nine seeds were used to determine the dry mass’, but the seed size is 2.1-3x2-2.9 mm. So, the data are doubtful with a few number of tested seeds.

3 In the part of result, some contents cited from the references should be removed to the discussion part.

English writting need to be refined as some sentences are too long and not easy to understand.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

The methods of cultivation by cuttings were more detailed in two points: I specified the place of origin of the cuttings received (line 168), and included the time it took to carry out the cuttings after the cuttings had been collected (line 171)

Cuphea pulcra is a wild species that has not yet been part of a breeding program. The species' seed production is low and its dispersion occurs over an extended period of time. Furthermore, the natural population collected is located in a rural area that is difficult to access, restricting the collection of seeds of the species. These two limiting factors restricted the number of seeds available to carry out experiments with their seeds. Unfortunately, the methodology for determining dry mass and moisture content is destructive, making it impossible to use the seeds for other tests. For this reason, we decided to determine dry mass with a limited number of seeds, which made it possible to carry out germination experiments on the species.

Quotations with acronyms (IBRAFLOR and MAPA) have been replaced by their full name, and the quotations have been brought into line with the rules by removing the comma before the year of the work and replacing "&" with "and". Some references have also been corrected.

The results and discussions have now been put together in the article.

Long periods have been divided into two, as in lines: 34-38, 43-48, 91-94, 110-114, 141-145, 419-423 and 455-458.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the authors:

·Introduction section – line 71 – instead “towards the domestication of the species for the introduction of a new ornamental crop“ write „towards the domestication of this species and its introduction as a new ornamental crop“

·Materials and Methods section – Please answer to the following questions:

Did the seeds germinate on the media containing only agar, without vitamins, macro and micro salts?

Why did the authors decide to test proline in seed germination, which affects plant growth, instead of gibberellin, which is a well-known stimulator of seed germination, especially immature ones? Please, explain.

·Results section

Figure 2 – instead “muscilaginous trichomes“, write „mucilaginous hairs“

·In the Discussion section, the authors interpret the findings of the study in the form of conclusions, instead of critically analyzing the goal of their research. The experimental findings presented in the Discussion section are not placed in the context of the published literature and how this study moves the field forward. However, some works have already been cited and results were discussed in the Results section. Therefore, I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript and combine these two parts into one (titled: Results and Discussion), with an emphasis on previous, similar works, on the species belonging to Cuphea genus.

·References in the manuscript are not cited according to journal instructions. Please, correct.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

The substitution was made in the introduction.

The seeds germinate on pure agar, without vitamins, macro and micro salts. Now mentioned in the article.

We clarify the use of Promaline (line 112).

Replaced "muscilaginous trichomes" with "mucilaginous hairs" in figure 2.

The results and discussion were unified into a single item, as suggested. 

Some references have been corrected to conform to the rules.

Reviewer 3 Report

Excellent work.

I have not observation

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the author explained the reason for the three samples of nine seeds were used to determine the dry mass, the results should be supported by the enough data. Those indexes were suggested to delete.

English writting need to be improved for the citation format of the references.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

English has been revised throughout the article.

We delete the data on the mass of the seeds.

We have included 8 references to clarify the results obtained in the article (Salomao, Jose, Luz, Chauhan, Cimmino, Mitchell, Pipinis and Milane).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Revised manuscript,  has been significantly improved, but there are still parts of the results and discussion that should be improved. Please see the attached text. After these minor changes, I propose to accept the manuscript for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language fine. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

We have included 8 references to clarify the results obtained in the article (Salomao, Jose, Luz, Chauhan, Cimmino, Mitchell, Pipinis and Milane).

We excluded the first reference (Instituto Brasileiro de Floricultura 2022).

We explain the inhibition of germination with Promalin and include references where the use of the hormone was successful.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx