On the Reproductive Potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): Embryological Features, Pollen and Seed Viability, Genetic Diversity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to note the excellent work of the authors on the anatomy of the female gametophyte and embryonic development. Nowadays, rarely does anyone do such painstaking work. However, I cannot help but note that Figures 2-4, and in feature 5, are of low quality. it is necessary to increase their contrast. Magnification in the captions of all figures must be replaced with Bar, placing the appropriate rulers on each fragment of the figure.
In my opinion, there is a contradiction regarding the study described by the authors on the low germination of seeds. It is extremely low, but here the authors point out that the seeds require cold stratification. Therefore, it seems incorrect to investigate the viability of unstratified seeds, since this does not correspond to the number of seeds that can germinate after stratification. This section requires detailed revision and rethinking.
It seems to me unnecessary to mention in Bulgaria in the title, it even slightly lowers the merits of the authors. I would only leave the location in abstract
And some carelessness in the design:
line 11 - two points
P. veris - italic, lines 20 (2), 23, 391, 411, 479, 506
Author Response
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 1
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of investigation carried out on reproductive biology of valuable medicinal plant Primula veris. Many thanks also for the appreciation of labor-intensive work realized during the study.
We accept and evaluate the review with the reviewer's remarks so that we can eliminate the indicated omissions and thus improve the quality of our manuscript.
The comments of our revision according to this review are exposed on “Comments and Suggestion for Authors” as follows:
According to the recommendations in the first comment, the figures cited were improved with increasing the contrast and Scale bar in each concrete detail of the figures and replacing the word “Magnification” with “Scale bar”.
As for the second comment in the review our opinion is as follows: In our work we studied the viability of seeds as one of the main parameters of the reproductive biology of any species and in particular of the target species P. veris, which allows to assess the quality of mature seeds produced at the end of the reproductive cycle of plants, by in terms of their ability to germinate successfully. In this order, the evaluation of seed viability was made immediately on seed collected from plants in the field according to Tetrazolium test (Peters 2007) which does not require preliminary storage of seeds as well as stratification required in seed germination studies. The seed germination is not the purpose of the present study.
As for the other comments and suggestions made by the reviewer, we agree with them and we did the following corrections:
‒ in the title of the article we remove “in Bulgaria”. So, now the title of the manuscript according to the review is as follows: On the reproductive potential in Primula veris L. (Primulaceae): embryological features, pollen and seed viability, genetic diversity
‒ in all places in the text where the name of the studied species P. veris is present, it is already written in italics “P. veris”.
Hoping that we have met the requirements set out in the review, we truly thank the reviewer of our manuscript for the notes and recommendations.
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper by Yankova-Tsvetkova et al. provides valuable, in depth characterization of the reproductive potential in Primula veris L.
Some minor observations on my side:
- LINE 11: Change ".." to ".";
- LINE 20 - LINE 23 (and elsewhere): use italic when referring to the scientific name of the species / genus, as it should be harmonized throughout the paper;
- LINE 29: "]" is missing;
- LINE 66: change "phenolic acid" and "phenolic glycoside" to plural;
- LINE 144: change "PMC's" to "PMCs";
- FIGURE 7A/7B: I would suggest to use colors instead of greyscale for better understanding of the graph;
- LINE 358: change "much more" to "many more", even if it would be even better to say exactly how many primers were used in the cited research;
- LINE 376: can the authors expand this part of the discussion? are there any other possible hypotheses to explain the lack of clear spatial subdivision obtained? I would for example think that the number of primers used could be a limiting factor;
- LINE 473: change "leat" to "least".
Author Response
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and c
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and correlate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and c
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and correlate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and correlate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and correlate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and correlate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
Replay to the Reviewer 2
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the high evaluation of the present work. All of the correction suggested were taken in consideration and were made in the text of manuscript as follows:
The omissions and errors noticed in LINES 11, 29, 66, 144 and 473 were corrected.
Figure 7A/7B was changed in color.
The suggested change in LINE 358 was made, and the exactly number of primers used was cited.
Concerning the comment about the conclusions in LINE 376 our opinion is as follows: The similarity in results in two Primula species (Primula veris and Primula apennina) demonstrates that the number of primers not so significant for the result, rather shows that the genetic variability is common for Primula species and correlate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
orrelate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
orrelate with their outcrossing nature that is a prerequisite for high level of genetic diversity and lower differentiation among populations (Rossetto et al. 1995). Relevant additions are made in the text
Sincerely,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I approve of the changes made by the authors to the article. I believe that after some minor changes, it can be accepted for publication.
On lines 166, 167, 245, 250b 253, 324 "mμ" must be replaced with "μm".
Author Response
We thank the reviewer once again for the careful and critical reading of the manuscript, which gave him the opportunity to notice the technical error: the written "mμ" instead of "μm". The error was corrected.
The authors
