Yield, Antioxidant Activity and Total Polyphenol Content of Okra Fruits Grown in Slovak Republic
, Andrea Vargová 3, Mária Timoracká 4, Ivana Mezeyová 1 and Alena Andrejiová 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
EVALUATION:
In the manuscript entitled: “Yield and quality of okra fruits grown in Slovak Republic”, Fabianová et al. dissected the effects of the climate changes such as temperature on the growing possibility of okra species within the area of Slovak republic. The authors systemically tested a total of 7 okra cultivars in conditions of Southern Slovak Republic focused on the basic yield parameters, antioxidant activity and total polyphenol content in okra fruits. The authors present a lot of data, and statistical analysis of obtained results revealed significant differences in all monitored parameters of okra. Therefore, significant changes in climatic conditions force to select “plastic” crop cultivars and okra cultivar 'Baby Bubba' which can provide more stable yield in individual growing year can be recommended. Moreover, nutritional quality of the okra fruits from these 7 cultivars were further analyzed. Generally, this study provides the feasibility of planting new crop germplasm in Southern Slovak Republic under the background of global climate change. Such work has important theoretical significance for crop cultivation. However, there are still some issues for improvement in this manuscript.
1. Since the theme is about the study on the yield and quality of okra fruit, quality should include a larger scope and not be limited to only nutritional quality. Moreover, the nutritional quality of okra fruits should not be only limited to the contents of antioxidant and polyphenol. In my opinion, more nutritional quality (such as carotenoids) and agronomic traits (such as fruit storage tolerance and size uniformity) of okra fruit should be dissected and considered comprehensively.
2. Although the manuscript is well written, there are still grammar mistakes and inappropriate expression in the manuscript, and the language should be improved. Such as the errors listed as bellow:
1) Line 15-17: The sentence has grammatical errors and needs to be rewritten;
2)…
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper deals with the very interesting topic of climate change and how it can be used in a “positive” way to increase the variety of vegetables grown in a region. However, I have some major comments.
The authors talked about quality all over the study but, how is quality defined in the case of okra fruits? Are there defined parameters that must meet a minimum to be consider “quality fruit”? Consider changing the title to “antioxidant activity” instead of quality.
Page 2 line 68. What’s a “plastic” cultivar? Please, define in detail.
Page 3 line 87. Authors mention significant differences in precipitation and temperature being found but nowhere is how significant differences were calculated and what was used as repetitions (if any) as input. Please, address and clarify the data analysis. If no statistical analysis was done, significant differences shouldn’t be used, it is misleading.
Figure 1 and 2 show the same data but in a different view. No need to duplicate
Figure 3 and 4- Same as above
Figure 5 and 6- Same
If same number of plants and same spacing was used for all the cultivars, Y/P and Y/H results are comparable as the rest is constant. No need to repeat the same discussion about the impact of year and significant differences between cultivars. Please, summarize.
Page 10 line 293-297- Already stated in the introduction. No need for repetition.
Figures 7 and 8 used data that has not been presented on the paper yet. Please, consider rearrange the sections. 3.4- TPC, 3.5 AOA
Page 14 line 405. What are authors relating to nutritional aspects that is not significantly different between pulp and seed? Please clarify as AOA and TPC are significant.
Page 14 line 406-407. This part of the paragraph is confusing either reformulate or delete line 406.
Spelling/English errors
Page 1 line 35- indicates
Page 1 line 39- continents
Page 2 line 55- in general
Page 2 line 66- that differences
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well written, but the results presentation should be modified:
Table 2: PH/KCl what does it mean? How KCl related?
%humus? what should the reader conclude from this data?
Figure 1 and 2, I see no reason to present the same data by 2 figures, table with the exact numbers and +/- error data will be way more informative, The same regarding figures 3 and 4.
Table 3 is not clear, the conclusions arising from the presented in this table data should be expanded.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript describes the objectives and results well. In my opinion, the discussion and future perspectives should be broadened.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been well revised and is now suitable for publication
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have thoroughly addressed all concerns in the revised manuscript. No further comments
