Characterization of Diverse Pepper (Capsicum spp.) Germplasms Based on Agro-Morphological Traits and Phytochemical Contents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attached pdf file with comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Moon and colleagues prepared a manuscript on characterization of diverse pepper germplasms based on agro-morphological traits and phytochemical contents. As stated in their abstract and introduction, their focus is agro-morphological traits and phytochemicals of 513 germplasms of pepper across two species, and the relationships between the orientation and color of mature fruits and phytochemicals. The authors are well versed in the research topic, and the topic itself is quite original and relevant and is directly related to the subject of the journal. 

- The introduction justifies the relevance of the study, but rather briefly, and it is not entirely clear what the advantage of this study is. I would like the authors to cover this point more seriously in comparison with the literature data.

- The manuscript characterized the properties of a large number (513) of pepper germplasms from two species, revealing relationships between orientation and color and phytochemicals, but as I indicated above, the benefit of the study is not entirely clear. (Lines 69-74 - only one link is provided comparing this study with others).

-The methodology used by the authors is understandable and clear, but there are some minor comments to the description. It is necessary to bring the extraction methods to the same description - so paragraphs 2.3.2. and 2.3.3. contain a description of the ratio of the mobile phase or gradient elution, and in paragraph 2.3.1. this description is missing.

-The discussion, as well as the rationale for the study, is written briefly, and could be expanded with a description of the genotypes and their differences, then the conclusion of the study would correspond to it.

-There could be more literary references when describing the rationale for the study (introduction).

-In some places, there is unnecessary description of figures and tables, for example, Figure 1 is described in detail in the text (161-165), as is Table 1 (170-173, listed “respectively” three times), which is unnecessary, since all both figures and tables reflect this information in sufficient detail.

I recommended that this manuscript can be accepted for publication with minor revision. Further efforts are required for improving the quality, grammar and coherence of the manuscript. The text contains minor typos and errors, which the authors can correct after careful reading (for example, Latin names of species are sometimes written in full, sometimes not and this can occur in the same sentence, lines 37, 38, etc).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors focuses their manuscript on agro-morphological traits and phytochemical contents to characterize the germplasm of Capsicum annuum and frutescens. Overall, the manuscript show interesting data, but it shows weak points described below:

Abstract and Conclusion:

L339-340: I disagree this sentence. The Authors focus their manuscript by comparing C. annuum with C. frutescens. Any comment is related to accessions from both species. In this contest, how readers, stakeholders and scientific community could obtain information for breeding programs, if the statistical analysis for each accession among and between Capsicum species under study is missing?

Introduction

L39-41: the health-promoting compounds is also affected by plant part. I suggest to include the following reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.04.037

L70-72: ‘Few studies………. phytochemicals’. The Authors should report 2 references at least. I suggest to include the following reference: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11121236

L72-74: Statistical approach is limited to two species. Statistical differences among accessions is not reported.

Results

L161-165: Each mature stage should match with the days after planting. How fruit orientation was estimated?

Figure 1: it doesn’t give useful information

L228: Should be more interesting evaluate the parameters within each species instead to combine them.

Figure 2: should be display the result for each species at least.

Conclusions

Should be revised according the suggestions proposed for the results section. For example, which accessions and traits the Authors suggest for a potential breeding program?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all comments and the MS was improved markedly.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors replay point-by-point to all proposed questions