Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color Safflower Genotypes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color Safflower Genotypes" has great importance. For the betterment of the scientific publication, some minor points need to be checked.
1. Please elaborate the abbreviated term at the first mention (for example, lines 18, and 21).
2. Please write the SI units using the proper format (for example, lines 20, 171, 182).
3. Some minor spell checking is required (line 587) throughout the manuscript.
4. Please follow the proper tenses (line 27, 27) for explaining the results in the whole manuscript.
5. It will be better to provide some more recent references (lines 42, 43).
6. The aim and objectives of this research should be presented clearly. It will be better to modify lines 103, 104.
7. Figure 2 needs to be modified on one page, and the legend needs improvement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
First of all, thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions to our manuscript. I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript.
Kind regards
The explanations of the corrections I have made according to your suggestions are given below.
1. Please elaborate the abbreviated term at the first mention (for example, lines 18, and 21).
The abbreviations of the terms DPPH and CUPRAC was explained.
2. Please write the SI units using the proper format (for example, lines 20, 171, 182).
All units in the article are arranged in SI units.
3. Some minor spell checking is required (line 587) throughout the manuscript.
Some minor spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected throughout the draft.
4. Please follow the proper tenses (line 27, 27) for explaining the results in the whole manuscript.
Some minor spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected throughout the draft.
5. It will be better to provide some more recent references (lines 42, 43).
According to FAO data, unfortunately, the most up-to-date data belongs to 2021. Therefore, we cannot make changes to this data.
6. The aim and objectives of this research should be presented clearly. It will be better to modify lines 103, 104.
This section has been rearranged and written more clearly.
7. Figure 2 needs to be modified on one page, and the legend needs improvement.
The graphics have been rearranged according to the opinions you and other reviewer
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color Safflower Genotypes
In the manuscript titled “Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color Safflower Genotypes” the authors show a detailed study regarding the productivity and flowers quality parameters of different genotypes of Carthamus tinctorius (safflower) cultured in different environments (different years).
Main comments:
1. From the read of this manuscript I am concerned about the statistical issue.
The results and conclusions are sustained in the factorial ANOVA analysis and subsequently the post hoc comparison of means. (Line 266: All data were analyzed using GLM producers of SAS and means were compared using Tukey Test at the probability level of 0.05). I think that this analysis should be conducted with a factorial ANOVA with 3 levels for each trait (Year, Genotype and, Year x Genotype, as state in lines 270-272). It is important that p values obtained for each level of analysis should be contained in each graph panel of figure 2 (or as supplemental material). This information is useful to validate the Tukey test and subsequently other conclusions exposed throughout the text. Moreover, the graph should contain standard error bars (to show the biological variability amongst replicates).
2. Please, note that the area units used in this manuscript (Kg da-1) is not common units (at least for me). I suggest to the authors define that units or use a new one (For example, Kg ha-1).
3. With data obtained for scent, fatty acid composition and others, and with the aim to test the that the genotypes are different behaviour for the traits evaluated, it will be interesting see a PCA (Principal component Analysis). This could help to disclose genotypes with specific potential uses.
4. Please, note that all supplementary material is the same of showed in the main text.
Minor comments:
Line 7: please change “2Isparta” by “Isparta”
Line 122: please revise the format of figure caption.
Line 142: the units are confusing. Kg da-1?
Line 153: which was the final flowers humidity?
In figure 2, panels corresponding to Dyestuff content, b* value and chrome value, Y axis should start at 0 (cero). Please, change commas by dots of Y axes.
Line 304: “However, it is obvious that the total dyestuff ratio is affected by the sowing time and air temperatures, and other literature supports our study”. There is not data supporting this statement (an ad-hoc experiment). It could be probably that there are others environmental factor that could be influencing the dyestuff ratio? Please, clarify this statement.
Line 365: Please define TPC.
Line 369: Please, show the ANOVA p value for year.
Line 409: “Eight polyphenolic compounds were determined: gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, syringic, rutine, quercetin, catechin, campferol, luteolin, rosmarinic acid.” Both in the text and in the table 2 there are nine compounds described. Please, modify the sentence.
Line 420: The legend of table 2, 3 and 4 should describe with more detailed all the information contained in the table. It is important that the name of genotypes should be referenced in this legend.
Line 486-489: please, define MUFA, PUFA and revise punctuation.
Line 587: please, change “agronomik” for “agronomic”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
First of all, thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions to our manuscript. I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript.
Kind regards
The explanations of the corrections I have made according to your suggestions are given below.
Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color Safflower Genotypes
In the manuscript titled “Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color Safflower Genotypes” the authors show a detailed study regarding the productivity and flowers quality parameters of different genotypes of Carthamus tinctorius (safflower) cultured in different environments (different years).
Main comments:
- From the read of this manuscript I am concerned about the statistical issue.
The results and conclusions are sustained in the factorial ANOVA analysis and subsequently the post hoc comparison of means. (Line 266: All data were analyzed using GLM producers of SAS and means were compared using Tukey Test at the probability level of 0.05). I think that this analysis should be conducted with a factorial ANOVA with 3 levels for each trait (Year, Genotype and, Year x Genotype, as state in lines 270-272). It is important that p values obtained for each level of analysis should be contained in each graph panel of figure 2 (or as supplemental material). This information is useful to validate the Tukey test and subsequently other conclusions exposed throughout the text. Moreover, the graph should contain standard error bars (to show the biological variability amongst replicates).
ANOVA analysis was repeated at 3 levels for each feature and the variance analysis table was added to the text. On the other hand, graphs have been rearranged according to your and other referees' suggestions and error bars have been added to the columns.
- Please, note that the area units used in this manuscript (Kg da-1) is not common units (at least for me). I suggest to the authors define that units or use a new one (For example, Kg ha-1).
All units were revised according to the SI unit system and the incorrect ones were arranged.
- With data obtained for scent, fatty acid composition and others, and with the aim to test the that the genotypes are different behaviour for the traits evaluated, it will be interesting see a PCA (Principal component Analysis). This could help to disclose genotypes with specific potential uses.
Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and the corresponding Heatmap were performed using the ClustVis online tool (Metsalu and Vilo, 2015). Unit variance scaling is used for normalized and approximated data. Pearson correlation was used for distance measurements for HCA and average cluster analysis method was used over the tightest cluster first for phylogenetic relationship. To show the relationship between the measured parameters, Pearson linear correlation analysis (Heatmap correlation) was calculated using OriginPro software (version 2021, OriginLab, Northampton, MA).
- Please, note that all supplementary material is the same of showed in the main text.
Minor comments:
Line 7: please change “2Isparta” by “Isparta”
Changed to Isparta
Line 122: please revise the format of figure caption.
Figure caption corrected to fit the format
Line 142: the units are confusing. Kg da-1?
Changed to kg da-1
Line 153: which was the final flowers humidity?
The average humidity content in flowers was calculated as 6.3%.
In figure 2, panels corresponding to Dyestuff content, b* value and chrome value, Y axis should start at 0 (cero). Please, change commas by dots of Y axes.
Y axes of specified features stated at 0
Line 304: “However, it is obvious that the total dyestuff ratio is affected by the sowing time and air temperatures, and other literature supports our study”. There is not data supporting this statement (an ad-hoc experiment). It could be probably that there are others environmental factor that could be influencing the dyestuff ratio? Please, clarify this statement.
“However, it is obvious that the total dyestuff ratio is affected by the sowing time and air temperatures” The literature of this state is Patane et al ., [34].
There is a typo in the following sentence. This sentence has been changed to “this literature supports our study”.
Line 365: Please define TPC.
TPC is defined in the abstract and in the material and method section of the article.
Line 369: Please, show the ANOVA p value for year.
the ANOVA p value for year was added.
Line 409: “Eight polyphenolic compounds were determined: gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, syringic, rutine, quercetin, catechin, campferol, luteolin, rosmarinic acid.” Both in the text and in the table 2 there are nine compounds described. Please, modify the sentence.
Changed to nine compounds
Line 420: The legend of table 2, 3 and 4 should describe with more detailed all the information contained in the table. It is important that the name of genotypes should be referenced in this legend.
The name of genotypes added each legend
Line 486-489: please, define MUFA, PUFA and revise punctuation.
MUFA and PUFA defined and punctuation revised
Line 587: please, change “agronomik” for “agronomic”
Changed to agronomic
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author analyzed the flower and dye yield of safflower genotypes with different flower colors and some physical and chemical contents of the flowers. 10 safflower genotypes, (3 red, 4 orange, 2 yellow and 1 white), were used as material. Erbaş and Mutlucan found that the differences among the years (except for dyestuff content, dyestuff yield, b* value and total phenolic content), genotypes and year × genotype were significant for all characteristics. They concluded that it is not possible to suggest a specific genotype for all the traits examined in this study. However, there are genotypes that have the potential to be used in food, health and cosmetics according to flower colors, agricultural characteristics and chemical contents.
Specific Comments to Author:
- Critically check the whole text as there are any typographical errors
- Revise all the highlighted words in the whole text.
- Revise the English grammar and punctuation in the whole text.
Abstract
- Please re-check the highlighted abbreviations which have been mentioned in the whole manuscript. Please elaborate them at least once at its first place in the abstract as in lines 18, 21 and 28 and other sections of manuscript.
-Lines 7, Please check the affiliation
- Lines 13, “this” instead of “the”
- Lines 18, Mention the meaning of b*
-Line 20, Superscript the number in the units
-Line 21, elaborate "(DPPH and CUPRAC) " at least once at its first place in the abstract
-Line 25, What kind of correlation assessment did you use?
-Line 28, HS-SPME GC-MS technique
Add abbreviation section
Introduction section
-Remove/or rewrite short sentences in the whole text
- Line 63, Superscript -1
-Indicate recent studies about the antioxidant activity and some previous reports about it in the introduction
- Material and methods section is nicely presented and well described.
- Line 112, Mention the indication of these numbers
- Line 127 and 129, add the full name of chemical source of (N and P)
- Lines 134-135, Revise these values with Table 1
- Table 1, Remove the underline of the symbol and Add the reference of the data as in Table S1
- Line 145-146, Remove the highlighted words as it is not the first mention of them
- Line 154, Add the full name in the abstract and remove it from here.
- Line 156 and 165, Remove the underline of the symbol
- Line 171, min. instead of min
- Line 185, Add also its abbreviation TPC
- Line 209-210, Where are these peaks in this study?
- Line 213, Please mention the cause of using three methods to examine the antioxidant activity of the studied genotype.
- Lines 216 and 229, add the full name of the reagents (EEG or EET) and (BHT and BHA).
- Line 219, Add the country of instrument
- Line 248, Remove it (the)
- Line 265, add the calculations you mentioned in Table 3
Statistical analysis
- Mention the version of the program.
- Please perform the the correlation analysis and principal component analysis (PCA), hierarchical cluster analysis between the different studied parameters.
- What did you used for detection the variance ( one- way or Two- way )ANOVA?
- Add also the correlation between parameters in both 2027 and 2018.
Results and discussion section
- Results and discussion section is very poor and needs more explanations and clarifications. Please Rewrite this section again. It is difficult to go through without using figures numbers division.
-Add subheading for more clarification
- Where is the ANOVA table?
- Line 273, Divide the Figure 2 to a, b, c ,....
- Line 276, Replace cultivars with genotypes
- Line 283, Make it bold
- Line 288, check the grammar
- In results and discussion section subdivision, mention the Figure number for each assay
- Line 293, Rewrite the sentence
- Line 302- 304, This study depend on the correlation values and your study do not.
- Line 322, What is the importance of measuring these parameters in both successive years?
- Line 325, “were” instead of “are”
- Line 330, indicate the Figure 2
- From Lines 331-335, Too difficult to follow these results
- Line 336, add genotype
- Line 350, Mention the classification of your genotypes using cluster analysis
- Line 353-354, What do you mean?
- Figure 2, Adjust the values in the Y axis
- Figure 2, Identify the legend in the caption and add A, B, C and D on the charts and in caption
- Line 369, What is the importance of this information?
- Line 409, Recheck, they nine polyphenolics not eight
-Table 2, Where the retention time of your genotypes of HPLC method?
-Table 2, where are the statistical analysis (ANOVA mean and standard error)? And please calculate the significance of these data as you mentioned before using Tukey.
-Table 2, Add the figures of HPLC as supplementary data
-Table 2, Add the genotypes in the footnote of the table
- Line 459, add genotype
- Lines 482-483, Rewrite this sentence
- Line 486, Mention the full name as it is the first-time mention
- Line 488, Recheck this sentence
- Line 493, On what basis you reported that these are due to genotype differences.
-Table 3, Add the indication of TUFA/SFA as the others
- Line 517 and 544, Rewrite the sentence
-From Lines 559- 561, Add the % after numbers
- Line 561, Make it bold
- Table 4, Why did you perform this analysis for 2018 only? And add the indication of Retention indices
- Table 4, Clarify the highlighted data
Conclusions
Please write the conclusion. Put detail of any limitations of this study, describe implications of this study and provide recommendations for future perspectives.
From Lines 394-597, Rephrase these repeated sentences.
-Line 589, Check the spelling
-Line 592, Clarify this sentence
Supplementary materials
You have not any supplementary data. All these figures and tables are found inside the paper and the supplementary data is the data not mentioned in the manuscript.
References
-Make sure that the references citation style is according to Journal guidelines
-References 10 and 14, Add the page numbers
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
First of all, thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions to our manuscript. I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript.
Kind regards
The explanations of the corrections I have made according to your suggestions are given below.
The author analyzed the flower and dye yield of safflower genotypes with different flower colors and some physical and chemical contents of the flowers. 10 safflower genotypes, (3 red, 4 orange, 2 yellow and 1 white), were used as material. Erbaş and Mutlucan found that the differences among the years (except for dyestuff content, dyestuff yield, b* value and total phenolic content), genotypes and year × genotype were significant for all characteristics. They concluded that it is not possible to suggest a specific genotype for all the traits examined in this study. However, there are genotypes that have the potential to be used in food, health and cosmetics according to flower colors, agricultural characteristics and chemical contents.
Specific Comments to Author:
- Critically check the whole text as there are any typographical errors
The whole text checked
- Revise all the highlighted words in the whole text.
All the highlighted words in the whole text revised
- Revise the English grammar and punctuation in the whole text.
The English grammar and punctuation in the whole text revised
Abstract
- Please re-check the highlighted abbreviations which have been mentioned in the whole manuscript. Please elaborate them at least once at its first place in the abstract as in lines 18, 21 and 28 and other sections of manuscript.
The highlighted abbreviations which have been mentioned in the whole manuscript checked.
-Lines 7, Please check the affiliation
The affiliation checked
- Lines 13, “this” instead of “the”
“This” instead of “the” was written
- Lines 18, Mention the meaning of b*
b* value is explicitly written
-Line 20, Superscript the number in the units
All units in the article are arranged in SI units.
-Line 21, elaborate "(DPPH and CUPRAC) " at least once at its first place in the abstract
DPPH and CUPRAC are detailed in the abstract
-Line 25, what kind of correlation assessment did you use?
Actually, no correlation analysis was made between flower color and fatty acids, however, when fatty acids were examined, it was seen that there was no relationship that could differ for color groups. However, we see that it is not correct to use this sentence as it can create uncertainty. Therefore, we omit this sentence from the text.
-Line 28, HS-SPME GC-MS technique
Changed to HS-SPME GC-MS technique
Add abbreviation section
If there is no problem in terms of compliance with the spelling rules for this section, we can add it after the approval of the journal editor.
Introduction section
-Remove/or rewrite short sentences in the whole text
- Line 63, Superscript -1
All units were revised according to the SI unit system and the incorrect ones were arranged.
-Indicate recent studies about the antioxidant activity and some previous reports about it in the introduction
Added a paragraph about antioxidant activity
- Material and methods section is nicely presented and well described.
- Line 112, Mention the indication of these numbers
It is explained in Figure 1 together with its visuals.
- Line 127 and 129, add the full name of chemical source of (N and P)
The full name of chemical source of (N and P) were added
- Lines 134-135, Revise these values with Table 1
All values in this paragraph have been revised according to Table 1.
- Table 1, Remove the underline of the symbol and Add the reference of the data as in Table S1
Changed the underline of the symbol and Added the reference of the data
- Line 145-146, Remove the highlighted words as it is not the first mention of them
Removed the highlighted words
- Line 154, Add the full name in the abstract and remove it from here.
Added the full name in the abstract (HS-SPME GC-MS)
- Line 156 and 165, Remove the underline of the symbol
All underlined symbols have been checked and corrected.
- Line 171, min. instead of min
“min.” instead of “min” was written in the paragraph.
- Line 185, Add also its abbreviation TPC
Added abbreviation of TPC
- Line 209-210, Where are these peaks in this study?
In this section, we did not include the chromatogram file of each sample. The peaks in the chromatograms obtained from each sample were matched with the peaks of the standard compounds previously introduced to the device and their definitions were made.
- Line 213, Please mention the cause of using three methods to examine the antioxidant activity of the studied genotype.
We used 2 different antioxidant methods (DPPH and CUPRAC) in our study. There are over 10 different methods to determine the antioxidant capacity of plants. However, determination of antioxidant capacity with a single method raises doubts about the reliability of the results. For this reason, it is important to perform at least two antioxidant capacity analyzes in many studies in terms of confirming each other. The DPPH method has been used for many years and is a reliable method. The CUPRAC method, on the other hand, is a method that has been developed in 2006 and has been widely used in recent years, and its accuracy is highly accepted in the scientific world.
- Lines 216 and 229, add the full name of the reagents (EEG or EET) and (BHT and BHA).
Checked the reagent names
- Line 219, Add the country of instrument
Added the country of instrument
- Line 248, Remove it (the)
Removed it (the)
- Line 265, add the calculations you mentioned in Table 3
The concentration of a fatty acid in the chromatogram obtained as a result of GC-FID analysis was determined by the ratio of the area of that fatty acid in the chromatogram to the area of all peaks and were calculated on a relative percent basis.
Statistical analysis
- Mention the version of the program.
Mentioned the version of the program
- Please perform the correlation analysis and principal component analysis (PCA), hierarchical cluster analysis between the different studied parameters.
- Add also the correlation between parameters in both 2027 and 2018.
The mean values of examined characters of genotype were used for multivariate principal component analysis (PCA). Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and the corresponding Heatmap for phenolic compounds, fatty acids and floral scent compositions of genotype flowers were performed using the ClustVis online tool (Metsalu and Vilo, 2015). Unit variance scaling is used for normalized and approximated data. Pearson correlation was used for distance measurements for HCA and average cluster analysis method was used over the tightest cluster first for phylogenetic relationship. To show the relationship between the measured parameters, Pearson linear correlation analysis (Heatmap correlation) for examined characters was calculated using OriginPro software (version 2021, OriginLab, Northampton, MA).
- What did you used for detection the variance ( one- way or Two- way )ANOVA?
In line with the opinions of the other referees, the statistical analysis was performed not as a combined year, but as a 3-level anova analysis (Year, Genotype and, Year x Genotype) for each feature.
Results and discussion section
- Results and discussion section is very poor and needs more explanations and clarifications. Please Rewrite this section again. It is difficult to go through without using figures numbers division.
This part has been reworked
-Add subheading for more clarification
Added subheading
- Where is the ANOVA table?
Added is the ANOVA table
- Line 273, Divide the Figure 2 to a, b, c ,....
Devided Figure 2 to a, b, c, …
- Line 276, Replace cultivars with genotypes
Replaced cultivars with genotypes
- Line 283, Make it bold
Done
- Line 288, check the grammar
Checked
- In results and discussion section subdivision, mention the Figure number for each assay
Figure numbers edited
- Line 293, Rewrite the sentence
Sentence rewritten
- Line 302- 304, This study depend on the correlation values and your study do not.
Sentence rewritten
- Line 322, What is the importance of measuring these parameters in both successive years?
Because in safflower agriculture, if the flower is harvested, at least as much as seed production can be gained. With this study, farmers and industrialists engaged in safflower farming can estimate both the amount of flowers taken from the unit area and the amount of dyestuff to be obtained from the unit area. Here, as the differences of genotypes are revealed, it will be possible to determine differences according to flower color. On the other hand, performing other chemical analyzes on the different colored flowers harvested will enable the determination of the evaluation areas of the flowers.
- Line 325, “were” instead of “are”
Written “were” instead of “are”
- Line 330, indicate the Figure 2
Indiceted Figure 2 d, e, f, g, h.
- From Lines 331-335, Too difficult to follow these results
Unfortunately, this sentence has not been changed. It can be expressed in the shortest way.
- Line 336, add genotype
Added
- Line 350, Mention the classification of your genotypes using cluster analysis
Cluster analysis done and comments added
- Line 353-354, What do you mean?
This sentences was deleted
- Figure 2, Adjust the values in the Y axis
Y axes values of features edited
- Figure 2, Identify the legend in the caption and add A, B, C and D on the charts and in caption
Devided Figure 2 to a, b, c, …
- Line 369, What is the importance of this information?
It is important in terms of determining the differences in total phenolic content of genotypes by years. Because it shows the effect of environmental differences on the total phenolic content.
- Line 409, Recheck, they nine polyphenolics not eight
Changed nine polyphenolics
-Table 2, Where the retention time of your genotypes of HPLC method?
Added retention time of phenolic compounds in table 3
-Table 2, where are the statistical analysis (ANOVA mean and standard error)? And please calculate the significance of these data as you mentioned before using Tukey.
The values given in this table are average values. These values corrected as mean ± standard error.
-Table 2, Add the figures of HPLC as supplementary data
Added the figures of HPLC
-Table 2, Add the genotypes in the footnote of the table
Genotypes added to the footnote of the table
Line 459, add genotype
Added genotype
- Lines 482-483, Rewrite this sentence
This sentence was rewritten
- Line 486, Mention the full name as it is the first-time mention
MUFA and PUFA defined and punctuation revised
- Line 488, Recheck this sentence
This sentence was deleted
- Line 493, On what basis you reported that these are due to genotype differences.
Checked this sentences
-Table 3, Add the indication of TUFA/SFA as the others
Checked
- Line 517 and 544, Rewrite the sentence
This sentences was rewritten
-From Lines 559- 561, Add the % after numbers
Checked this sentences
- Line 561, Make it bold
Checked
- Table 4, why did you perform this analysis for 2018 only? And add the indication of Retention indices
Added the indication of Retention indices
Unfortunately, scent analyzes were not part of the study in 2017. However, we decided to conduct these analyzes in the study in 2018. For this reason, we did not include them in the study, thinking that the scents of the flowers of 2017 would change and we would not be able to get the right result.
- Table 4, Clarify the highlighted data
Data are expressed as %.
Conclusions
Please write the conclusion. Put detail of any limitations of this study, describe implications of this study and provide recommendations for future perspectives.
Conclusion was revised your success
From Lines 394-597, rephrase these repeated sentences.
This entire section has been revised and wording corrected.
-Line 589, Check the spelling
Corrected
-Line 592, Clarify this sentence
Checked
Supplementary materials
You have not any supplementary data. All these figures and tables are found inside the paper and the supplementary data is the data not mentioned in the manuscript.
The "Supplementary Data" list was removed from the manuscript because it was given in the Manuscript
References
-Make sure that the references citation style is according to Journal guidelines
All references was checked according to Journal guidelines
-References 10 and 14, Add the page numbers
Added the page numbers
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled “Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color 2
Safflower Genotypes” discussed flower color variation and metabolic profile of safflower. However, there manuscript lacks coherence and need to be improved significantly. Some of the issues are listed below (not limited to this).
For instance
1- The needs to be improved. Sentences with ambiguous statements appeared repeatedly in the manuscript.
Some examples are as follows
Line 42-22; According to the data of 2021 in the world, safflower cultivation is carried out in an area of 43850, 431 hectares and 631,051 tons of seeds were obtained
Line 46: droughty regions…………
Line 55-57: “It is stated that the safflower plant was known as a dye plant in 1600 BC and the linens, bandages and textiles surrounding the Mummy of King Amenhotep and other mummies were dyed with safflower flowers in the excavations made in Egypt.”
Who stated it???
These are few such examples. I suggest revising the manuscript thoroughly with appropriate language usage and avoiding ambiguous statements. Moreover, there are many grammatical mistakes also.
2- The authors need to use appropriate scientific terminology. Some examples are below.
Line 53: what does author means by fixed oil?
Line 46: droughty regions…………
Line 68: what does secondary composition means??
Line72-72: “Conjugation of the two quinocalchone moieties results in the 72
red pigment carthamin, which is likewise unique to this matrix”
which matrix author are referring to????
Line 294: what does number of tables means here?
Line329-330: “……… as shown below”. What does this mean? Are authors referring to some table or figure?
Line 350-352: “As a result of this study, it can be suggested that the safflower plant provides a natural antioxidant effect, as well as using it as a color additive in other foodstuffs to obtain red, orange and yellow colors.”
This is not first study on safflower flower color variation. Do not use such statements. It have been previously established that natural colorants from plant sources can be and have been used in the food industry.
Line 353-355: “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”
I do not understand this. Authors needs to proofread their manuscript before submission.
Line 423: what does “antioxidant power” means????
These are few such examples. I suggest revising the manuscript thoroughly with appropriate language usage.
3- Need to add appropriate references in introduction and discussion section.
4- Introduction section needs restructuring (more appropriate for readers). In current form it does not represent the background of the study, instead provide a random information.
5- The authors have use data of two years and only calculated mean differences. Appropriate data analysis is also necessary to evaluate the results improve the quality of the manuscript.
The authors have mentioned RCBD design for evaluation of genotypes, however, follow up analysis are missing in the results
6- Line 290-321: the authors have emphasized and suggested role of environment influencing the dyestuff in flowers. Although it can be true, but there is no need to expand the discussion on these results based on two-year data (which is not sufficient) of small number of genotypes. The materials are not enough to confirm the reliability of the results. I suggest ether to tone down the results or provided GxE results with appropriate number of genotypes and locations.
7- Line 717-419: “When classified according to flower color; Generally, the gallic and rosmarinic acid contents of orange flowers are higher than the others. In terms of these two compounds, the order according to flower color is as follows; orange> red> yellow> white (Table 2)”
Table 2 does not have information regarding these colors presented in the results. Please provide sufficient information to understand the results.
8- The manuscript need thorough revision (language and style editing, restructuring of results, toning down the conclusion)
9- The study seems to be a screening study for understanding the flower color variation and associated metabolic profile. However, authors failed to conclude the major part of the results to present the genotype with favorable traits.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
First of all, thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions to our manuscript. I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript.
Kind regards
The explanations of the corrections I have made according to your suggestions are given below.
The manuscript entitled “Investigation of Flower Yield and Quality in Different Color
Safflower Genotypes” discussed flower color variation and metabolic profile of safflower. However, there manuscript lacks coherence and need to be improved significantly. Some of the issues are listed below (not limited to this).
For instance
1- The needs to be improved. Sentences with ambiguous statements appeared repeatedly in the manuscript.
Some examples are as follows
Line 42-22; According to the data of 2021 in the world, safflower cultivation is carried out in an area of 43.850, 431 hectares and 631,051 tons of seeds were obtained
According to the 2021 FAO data;
in the world, safflower cultivation is carried out in an area of 850.431 hectares and 631.051 tons of seeds were obtained.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
Line 46: droughty regions…………
Changed to arid regions
Line 55-57: “It is stated that the safflower plant was known as a dye plant in 1600 BC and the linens, bandages and textiles surrounding the Mummy of King Amenhotep and other mummies were dyed with safflower flowers in the excavations made in Egypt.”
Who stated it???
Added references
These are few such examples. I suggest revising the manuscript thoroughly with appropriate language usage and avoiding ambiguous statements. Moreover, there are many grammatical mistakes also.
2- The authors need to use appropriate scientific terminology. Some examples are below.
Line 53: what does author means by fixed oil?
Fixed oil = cake oil obtained from seed by extraction and cold press methods
Line 46: droughty regions…………
Changed to arid regions
Line 68: what does secondary composition means??
The class of primary composition contains Oil, Protein, Carbohydrate
The class of secondary composition contains essential oil and composition, phenolic compound, dyestuff mater, glycoside, tannin, alkaloid etc.
Line 72-72: “Conjugation of the two quinocalchone moieties results in the 72 red pigment carthamin, which is likewise unique to this matrix” which matrix author are referring to????
This literature belongs to (Yue et al., 2013)
Line 294: what does number of tables means here?
Changed to head number
Line329-330: “……… as shown below”. What does this mean? Are authors referring to some table or figure?
“Figure 2d, e, f, g, h” instead of “below” was written
Line 350-352: “As a result of this study, it can be suggested that the safflower plant provides a natural antioxidant effect, as well as using it as a color additive in other foodstuffs to obtain red, orange and yellow colors.”
This is not first study on safflower flower color variation. Do not use such statements. It have been previously established that natural colorants from plant sources can be and have been used in the food industry.
It is also reasonable for us to delete this sentence in line with your suggestions.
Line 353-355: “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”
I do not understand this. Authors need to proofread their manuscript before submission.
This sentences was deleted
Line 423: what does “antioxidant power” means????
It is an expression that indicates the high antioxidant capacity and effectiveness.
These are few such examples. I suggest revising the manuscript thoroughly with appropriate language usage.
3- Need to add appropriate references in introduction and discussion section.
The introduction and discussion section has been rearranged.
4- Introduction section needs restructuring (more appropriate for readers). In current form it does not represent the background of the study, instead provide a random information.
The introduction section has been reorganized.
5-The authors have use data of two years and only calculated mean differences. Appropriate data analysis is also necessary to evaluate the results improve the quality of the manuscript.
The authors have mentioned RCBD design for evaluation of genotypes, however, follow up analysis are missing in the results
According to your and other referees' suggestions, the statistical analysis of the data was re-done and the ANOVA table was added.
6-Line 290-321: the authors have emphasized and suggested role of environment influencing the dyestuff in flowers. Although it can be true, but there is no need to expand the discussion on these results based on two-year data (which is not sufficient) of small number of genotypes. The materials are not enough to confirm the reliability of the results. I suggest ether to tone down the results or provided GxE results with appropriate number of genotypes and locations.
Of course, it cannot be accepted by us that the net effectiveness of environmental effects has been revealed depending on the data of 2 years. However, in the literature used for this feature, it is emphasized that there are environmental differences in the results obtained in 2 different environments. On the other hand, the results obtained from at least 2 years of data in field studies are accepted by many journals.
7-Line 717-419: “When classified according to flower color; Generally, the gallic and rosmarinic acid contents of orange flowers are higher than the others. In terms of these two compounds, the order according to flower color is as follows; orange> red> yellow> white (Table 2)” Table 2 does not have information regarding these colors presented in the results. Please provide sufficient information to understand the results.
A list of genotypes has been added as a footnote to the table.
8-The manuscript need thorough revision (language and style editing, restructuring of results, toning down the conclusion)
The specified revision has been made.
9-The study seems to be a screening study for understanding the flower color variation and associated metabolic profile. However, authors failed to conclude the major part of the results to present the genotype with favorable traits.
Comprehensive explanations are given in the article and in the conclusion section according to flower color and content.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
1. The introduction should be improved. In the last paragraph of the introduction you should highlight the novelty of the investigations carried out. Also mention the purpose of these investigations in detail.
2. Materials and Methods
- Please separate the materials from methods
- Also mention the reagents used and their origin in a separate subchapter (first subchapter).
- Mention the origin of the apparatus used for each determination including the city, country, etc. For example: Schiebler calcimeter (LITA ANALYTICAL, Turkey)
- Mention also the country where the research was carried out.
- Row 115- preferably use the term plant material
3. As a personal opinion, the results chapter should be separated from the discussion chapter.
4. The graphs must be explicit and contain all the necessary data. For example: Bars for the same ………….. followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different based on the least significant difference (LSD) test (p < 0.05). Bars for the same ……………followed by different uppercase letters are significantly different based on the least significant difference (LSD) test (p < 0.05).
5. I also think these graphs should be drawn in color.
6. Table 2: there were not significantly differences between genotypes? (statistical data are missing). Same for table 3. Also in tables, where you have no data or the content is zero, it is good to put a dash to make the data easier to read.
7. Table 4: The unit of measurement is not mentioned. Statistical data are also missing
Conclusion: can be improved
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
First of all, thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions to our manuscript. I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript.
Kind regards
The explanations of the corrections I have made according to your suggestions are given below.
The introduction should be improved. In the last paragraph of the introduction you should highlight the novelty of the investigations carried out. Also mention the purpose of these investigations in detail.
- Materials and Methods
- Please separate the materials from methods
Material was given as subhead
- Also mention the reagents used and their origin in a separate subchapter (first subchapter).
The source of the reagents used is clearly stated
- Mention the origin of the apparatus used for each determination including the city, country, etc. For example: Schiebler calcimeter (LITA ANALYTICAL, Turkey)
Brands and models of apparatus have been added.
- Mention also the country where the research was carried out.
Mentioned the country where the research was carried out
- Row 115- preferably use the term plant material
Changed to plant material
- As a personal opinion, the results chaptershould be separated from the discussion chapter.
I'm sorry to say that it seems very difficult for us to separate this part right now.
- The graphs must be explicit and contain all the necessary data. For example: Bars for the same ……….. followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different based on the least significant difference (LSD) test (p < 0.05). Bars for the same ……………followed by different uppercase letters are significantly different based on the least significant difference (LSD) test (p < 0.05).
Added footnotes below graphics
- I also think these graphs should be drawn in color.
The graphic has been colored and error bars have been added
- Table 2: there were not significantly differences between genotypes? (statistical data are missing). Same for table 3.
According to the recommendations of the other referees (R1, R2 and R4), it was found appropriate to perform HCA analysis for these components.
Also in tables, where you have no data or the content is zero, it is good to put a dash to make the data easier to read.
Dash has been added to all tables.
- Table 4: The unit of measurement is not mentioned. Statistical data are also missing
All units in the article are arranged in SI units.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments. Following the revision to the article, the authors have addressed most of my previous round of review and the manuscript is much improved. Furthermore, I made additional suggestions for more in-depth analyses of the data. Some responses need additional details and I have some additional comments for the authors to consider and highlighted them with green color.
Specific Comments to Author:
Accept the track changing before you modify the second round revision.
- In the abstract, Add briefly here the results of correlation, dendrogram and heat map and finalize your results with the most important genotypes.
- Check its spelling (carthamine) in all manuscript.
- Figure 2, Complete the missing in the caption
- Line 517, Explain here which vectors had strong correlation and mention the different clusters formed with their genotypes.
- Add in the Figure 3 caption what are the vectors and dots represent?
- Add dot circles on the Figure 3 showing different genotypes are grouped in which cluster.
- Add the genotypes numbers indication in the caption of Figure 3
-Figure 4, Add here in the caption the above triangle was for heatmap correlation circles and the indication of circle size and the lower triangle revealed the r value.
-Figures 5, 6 and 7, Add the indication of dendrogram clustering (the left and above) in the caption.
- Line 783, Rewrite Figure and mention the right number of the Figure.
- Line 791, Recheck the sentence.
Line 826, There are still some concerns related to supplementary data.
- Add the new supplementary data and mention it on the text.
- Add the Figures of HPLC as supplementary data of Table 2 as you mentioned that you added in the previous round.
- Add the Pearson linear correlation analysis (Heatmap correlation) tables for examined characters was calculated required to perform heat map
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
First of all, thank you very much for your suggestions and contributions to our manuscript. I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript. The corrections I made in line with your suggestions are presented in the attached file.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Although authors have made significant changes in the manuscript. the manuscript still lacks basic coherence and its really difficult to follow the discussed results due to poor writing style. therefore i again suggest authors to revise/overhaul the manuscript and present you results in more coherent way.
Previously, i have suggested some changes in writing style and results, and it is difficult to provide all the suggestions. based on provided input, authors were supposed to change their manuscript but they only provided point by point rebuttal without considering the whole manuscript. and its is still difficult to follow the results and reach any conclusion.
Unless, the authors provide better version of their manuscript, its difficult to assess the contents of this study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
I am attaching the file containing the corrections you suggested in the manuscript.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
